USMC Doctrine Changes

A critical view on the USMC Force Design plans by a former officer.

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/02/23/ruin-us-marine-corps/

Personally I recognize there are changes that need to be made to adapt to changing threats but the current plan to me has seem rather confused. For the amount of weapon systems divested the amount of new systems procured has seemed rather limited.
 
Last edited:
I guess it is a good idea for training on the cheap relatively speaking but using the f-5 for opposing forces seems like something we would have done 20 years ago. There certainly are enemies using similar aircraft like Iran but it seems to me we should be focusing much more on training against near-peer enemies.
 
TMA1 said:
I guess it is a good idea for training on the cheap relatively speaking but using the f-5 for opposing forces seems like something we would have done 20 years ago. There certainly are enemies using similar aircraft like Iran but it seems to me we should be focusing much more on training against near-peer enemies.
Click to expand...
I imagine their best use is just for training pilots the fundamentals of dogfighting even if that prospect seems very unlikely with how good air-to-air missiles have become. The thrust to weight ratio of the F-5 isn't very impressive but under the right conditions it is still very agile and it is also quite difficult to spot visually. Veteran Aggressor pilots flying those things have a pretty long history of humiliating new pilots in far more capable aircraft. One anecdote I recall reading is how many new F-16 pilots would try to utilize the F-16's ability to sustain a 9G turn under some conditions. But most often while an F-16 pilot was preoccupied in a turning fight with one F-5, the F-5's wingman would cut in and score a simulated kill.

Most of the F-5E and F-5F aircraft being used previously are pretty worn out through hard use, and these ex-Swiss aircraft have relatively low flight-hours so they're a good replacement for those. I believe the single seaters recieved some upgrades over the regular F-5E and so have been designated as the F-5N. I think they can hypothetically use AIM-120s.

But I'd agree that for the air-to-air combat that is more likely to occur such as exchanges of active-radar guided missiles starting at beyond visual range the opposing force does need access to more capable aircraft. I know F-16s are commonly used by Aggressor squadrons but I think one of them now has F-35s. I'd assume the Navy and Marines have an assortment of F/A-18 variants.
 
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1767559717805560018
View: https://twitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1767559717805560018
Click to expand...
It's a JLTV chassis, that's not 'huge', it's HMMWV/MRAP size, with equivalent armour (less given it's the coupe version ;) .

I seriously doubt you can carry two NSMs on anything smaller*. I've not yet heard the justification for it being unmanned (not 'autonomous', there's a huge difference), though it's easy enough to conceive of situations where you might want to drive it forward out of a camouflaged position to shoot without needing to expose the operators.

* That's two >4x.7x.7m canisters and a load of 2x400Kg plus whatever a couple of empty canisters weigh.
 
Sorry, there's going to be a bunch of edits as I work through responses to this.
jsport said:
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/arm...Toverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d
Click to expand...
Yeah, like the entire Tibetan Plateau in western China...


jsport said:
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/ed...Toverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d
Click to expand...
I suspect that has a lot to do with the camaraderie. They're a "bumpy Marine", "one of us" not something different.

I don't think the Army or Navy do anywhere near as good a job in that respect. (Nevermind the sexist f*heads that show up...)



aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1767559717805560018
View: https://twitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1767559717805560018
Click to expand...
Combined response.
DWG said:
It's a JLTV chassis, that's not 'huge', it's HMMWV/MRAP size, with equivalent armour (less given it's the coupe version ;) .

I seriously doubt you can carry two NSMs on anything smaller*. I've not yet heard the justification for it being unmanned (not 'autonomous', there's a huge difference), though it's easy enough to conceive of situations where you might want to drive it forward out of a camouflaged position to shoot without needing to expose the operators.

* That's two >4x.7x.7m canisters and a load of 2x400Kg plus whatever a couple of empty canisters weigh.
Click to expand...
It's on the JLTV chassis because that's the smallest common chassis available to use that can carry the bulk. 1000kg is about half the load capacity of a cargo JLTV, IIRC, but the missiles are big.

As to the unmanned part, look at where the business end of the canisters is: right where the driver's seat would be!
 
Last edited:
DWG said:
I seriously doubt you can carry two NSMs on anything smaller*. I've not yet heard the justification for it being unmanned (not 'autonomous', there's a huge difference), though it's easy enough to conceive of situations where you might want to drive it forward out of a camouflaged position to shoot without needing to expose the operators.
Click to expand...

Probbaly had this earlier in the thread:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPSZ71-YqC8&ab_channel=MarineCorpsSystemsCommand


I think JLTV is too small to carry NSM with a crew cab (which would push the launchers back and screw up CG). And anything larger than a JLTV carrying NSM would be too big to sling-load under a CH-53.
 
TomS said:
Probbaly had this earlier in the thread:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPSZ71-YqC8&ab_channel=MarineCorpsSystemsCommand


I think JLTV is too small to carry NSM with a crew cab (which would push the launchers back and screw up CG). And anything larger than a JLTV carrying NSM would be too big to sling-load under a CH-53.
Click to expand...
That 155L23 on the JLTV chassis is kinda odd, but that's probably the biggest cannon they can get to fit and not screw up the CG for sling loading.
 
TMA1 said:
I guess it is a good idea for training on the cheap relatively speaking but using the f-5 for opposing forces seems like something we would have done 20 years ago. There certainly are enemies using similar aircraft like Iran but it seems to me we should be focusing much more on training against near-peer enemies.
Click to expand...
As I understand it F-5 are being used to simulate JH-7 rather then high performance fighters.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom