The Navys newly published maritime strategy — officially A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower — calls for the return of Marine Corps detachments on a wider variety of Navy ships and Coast Guard cutters. When the strategy was unveiled at the Naval War College in mid-October it was announced that Marines will continue to be employed as air-ground task forces operating from amphibious ships to conduct variety of missions, such as power projection… But they will also be employed as detachments aboard a wider variety of ships and cutters for maritime security missions.
Marines are not normally embarked in U.S. Navy warships or Coast Guard cutters. Of course, amphibious ships, some of which have small Marine detachments as part of their ships company, normally embark Marines for assault operations.
It has not been announced which ships will carry Marine detachments or what will be their mission. Maritime security can cover a variety of activities, from inspection of merchant ships to raids on suspected pirate bases.
Since the colonial era Marines have been embarked in U.S. warships, primarily to form landing parties. In the era of steel ships Marines were assigned to cruisers, battleships, and aircraft carriers. On those ships they often were also employed to man secondary or anti-aircraft gun batteries as well as being used for landing operations. With the deployment of nuclear weapons aboard U.S. aircraft carriers in the early 1950s, Marines were given the principal duty of security for those weapons.
During the 1990s the last Marine detachments were withdrawn from warships. The last nuclear weapons were removed from U.S. surface ships in the early 1990s, and the last Marine detachment — embarked in the nuclear-propelled carrier George Washington (CVN 73) — went ashore on 3 April 1998. That detachment consisted of one officer and 25 enlisted Marines; previously Marine carrier detachments numbered two officers and 64 enlisted men.
In 1992 the Navy experimented with placing large Marine detachments aboard aircraft carriers. In January 1992 the carrier Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) embarked 538 Marines for a month of at-sea training and workup. This force consisted of a rifle company, command staff, and various detachments including a composite helicopter squadron. Subsequently, in March 1993 the Roosevelt battle group steamed for the Mediterranean for a six-month deployment with some 600 Marines and their helicopters. (Part of the carrier air wing was left ashore to make space for the Marines.)
The TR operation was considered successful by the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the costs and disadvantages outweighed the benefits and the Marines-on-warship concept was not continued.
The recent decision to place Marines aboard Navy ships and Coast Guard cutters occurs as the Marine Corps is fully committed — to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and forward deployments aboard amphibious ships in several areas, while at the same time, being required to provide a major Marine troop contingent to the U.S. Special Operations Command. The recent decision to increase the size of the Marine Corps and Army by 92,000 troops reflects the critical situation in U.S. ground troop strength. Thus, the decision to place Marines abroad ship should be addressed with caution.
My gut reaction it is a waste of Marines. Marines belong on a Gator freighter, ready to go into battle.
The experiment with putting helicopters and a large contingent of marines on the aircraft carrier just made a 4 Billion dollar Gator Freighter, without any land vehicles or the ability to get those vehicles ashore.
It was a poor decision. An aircraft carrier is a floating airfield for bomb carrying fixed wing aircraft. The idea of putting Marines on them degrades the Marines ability to strike and the Aircraft carriers ability to strike.
It is nice that they are experimenting with different strategies to meet todays demand. But if we get in a shooting war with a country with substantial assets (think of the defense of Taiwan) the planes that were removed from the carrier will be sorely missed.….
If we need more flexibility to get boots on the ground, lets build more Gator Freighters, or stop a couple from being retired.….
I think it’s more of a ‘rapid reaction force’ for any conflict that my errupt. However, I can agree with the fact that they’d need that space for more air craft… I think the lack of air craft would compromise the ability of the Air Craft Carrier to protect itself.
However, I do see the value of having air power and ground forces so readily available… But 600 Marines on one ship aren’t going to be able to hold too much ground should a conflict arise.
Also, I thought seals are commonly embarked on Carriers as their specialties are more suited for that kind of warfare.
Is there a vessel that has land vehicles below, and air vehicles above? Then it would be wholly Marine-supportive.
Here is a graphical interpretation
_____|
\ || /
_ /| _ /| | | // ______<@===((___<@===((___|____|___[ ]__
\______________________________________|
\ |
\_ovo_ovo_ovo__o=O_o=O_o=O___________|
\___________________________________|
\(((
hope it turns out right, I am bored.
I am very sorry for the failure of that.
The spaces were eliminated.
I will not do anything like that ever again.
Again, sorry.
As I argue here, we would be better off having the Navy develop their own boarding party sailors with their own troops than trying to return to the days when that is what Marines were.
Meanwhile, the Marines ought to refocus the own identity to see themselves as a rapid reaction force first, and an amphibious assault force third or fourth or fifth, rather than the other way around.
Link take two. If this doesn’t work, the link is http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2007/10/divide-between-marine-corps-and-navy.html
Sounds like a good solution to combating piracy at sea, and when using not-so-friendly ports.
About damn time! The Marines have been getting “less wet” since the first gulf war. This is a protective action by the Commandant to keep one of the Corps feet in the water and to prevent the type of bureaucratic confusion that has struck other services. I think its a great idea and will do nothing but ensure that the Marine Corps maintains its core competencies.
I recall word on StrategyPage that the Navy has already begun working on its own “infantry,” after one Navy request for a Marine security detail for a ship in the Middle East was denied due to that Marine unit being deployed on land in Iraq.
Ohwilleke–
I read your link and find it amazing how the original writings of journalist over at PNAC can have extended its tendrils so deep into the thinking of military professionals and enthusiasts. The Commandant has since Al Gray deemed it ESSENTIAL that the Marine Corps maintain it naval heritage. Thinking like that promoted on the other blogspot and over at PNAC are an attempt to recreate the Marines into something they are not. The Marine Corps should not seek to duplicate the Army at large OR become the naval equivalent of the Rangers (although in my humble opinion, the Corps outperforms both groups–relax Army guys just sorta kidding!)
Edward–
I think the same sort of thinking is behind some of the comments at strategypage. I think that realistically what you’re seeing is an “after Rummy” adjustment. The former Sec Def insisted that non Army or Marine personnel be shifted to infantry type roles in order to support the fighting in Iraq. The services (Air Force and Navy) saluted and set about the task…I might add not happily. The result was an expansion of the Master at Arms program and eventually a type of Naval Infantry that I can easily foresee going away.
We are all witnessing the after Bush realignment. The Marines want out of Iraq to protect it future funding priorities. MRAPs are killing the naval nature of the Marine Corps and limiting money that could be spent on an LAV replacement, EFV, dragonfire and other essential amphibious warfare type weapon systems (it was reported here that the Commandant has said that the Corps is losing its Expeditionary flavor). If the Corps is allowed to take over the Afghan mission, the current weapon set will be adequate and that funding slated for MRAPs can be returned to future procurement. The Navy set about this program in conjunction with the Marines because they are heading toward a smaller shipboard contingent. The Coast Guard is in agreement because they still chafe at being a part of that most dysfunctional of government agencies-Homeland Security and would dearly luv to reassert its institutional roots in the DOD. The Flag Officers of the Naval Services it would appear have finally gotten their act together.
Man you don’t even know how long I’ve waited for this since disabling my own Movable Type widget (that doesn’t work since Haloscan bypasses that code).
I remember when someone had the “brilliant” idea to take away all of the Dwight D. Eisenhower’s air assets & make it one big mobile army base for the invasion of Haiti back in the 90s(back also when they were saying that each soldier was given only 1 magazine of ammo each). Thank God they never invaded after all,but that was a waste of a Aircraft Carrier. They could have used one of the retired non-nuclear carriers for that,instead of scrapping them,making them into “artificial” reefs,or blowing holes in the sides of them with dynamite “pretending” they were hit by anti-ship missiles(USS America anybody?).After all What “scientific underpinnings” did that accomplish? It only accomplished the globalist plans to neuter our national defense.