The Marine Littoral Regiment

U.S. Marines with 3d Littoral Combat Team, 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment, take a knee and survey the surrounding area during a Joint Air-Ground Task Force Demonstration as part of the 2022 Kaneohe Bay Air Show, Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Aug. 13, 2022. (Cpl. Brandon Aultman/U.S. Marine Corps)

Background

On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) announced a major force design initiative planned to occur over the next 10 years referred to as “Force Design 2030.” As part of this initiative, the Marine Corps intends to redesign forces to place a stronger emphasis on naval expeditionary warfare and to better align with the National Defense Strategy, in particular, the strategy’s focus on strategic competition with China and Russia. As part of this redesign, the Marines plan to establish at least three Marine Littoral Regiments (MLRs) organized, trained, and equipped to accomplish a number of missions within contested maritime spaces.

MLR Missions According to the Marines, the MLR is to be capable of the following missions:

• Conduct Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO), a form of expeditionary warfare involving the employment of naval expeditionary forces with low electronic and physical signatures, which are relatively easy to maintain/sustain. These forces are to be arrayed in a series of austere, temporary locations ashore within a contested or potentially contested maritime area to conduct sea denial, support, sea control, and fleet sustainment operations.

• Conduct strike operations with a variety of systems.

• Coordinate air and missile defense operations.

• Support maritime domain awareness.

• Support naval surface warfare operations.

• Support information operations.

The MLR’s Operational Environment

The Commandant of the Marine Corps’ May 2022 Force Design 2030 Annual Update states:

The security environment is characterized by proliferation of sophisticated sensors and precision weapons coupled with growing strategic competition. Potential adversaries employ systems and tactics to hold the fleet and joint force at arm’s length, allowing them to employ a strategy that uses contested areas as a shield behind which they can apply a range of coercive measures against our allies and partners. Operating in this environment, MLRs are envisioned to serve as what the Marines call a “Stand-In Force (SIF),” primarily to “help the fleet and joint force win the reconnaissance and counter reconnaissance battle within a contested area at the leading edge of a maritime defense in-depth.”

MLR Employment

According to a May 25, 2022 Marine Corps Association article “Missions, MAGTFs, Force Design & Change,” by Colonel Michael R. Kennedy, USMC (Retired), MLRs are intended to Deploy to islands, coastlines, and observation posts along chokepoints where their networked sensors and weapons can surveil the air and surface (and, potentially subsurface) waterways. The timing of their insertion is implied to be in the “competition” phase before hostilities start. The duration of their stay is less clear, and potentially challenging as resupply over long distances … will be challenging.… Host nation support (if it exists) will be critical as will prepositioned supplies and even “foraging. The MLR’s purpose will be to observe and prevent any “grey zone” activities that lead to fait accompli actions. In some cases, it is presumed that they may be the “trigger” that shifts the status from competition to conflict if any premature hostile acts are directed towards their positions.

Proposed MLR Organizational Structure

Marine Corps leadership has stated it requires further analysis and experimentation to refine MLR organizational structure. As currently envisioned, the MLR is planned to consist of approximately 1,800 to 2,000 Sailors and Marines and composed of four elements:

• A Command Element.

• A Littoral Combat Team consisting of an infantry battalion and an anti-ship missile battery. The Littoral Combat Team is to provide the basis for multiple platoon reinforced-sized expeditionary advanced base sites capable of conducting a variety of missions.

• A Littoral Anti-Air Battalion designed to conduct air defense, air surveillance and early warning, air control, and forward rearming and refueling operations.

• A Combat Logistics Battalion designed to resupply expeditionary advanced base sites, manage cache sites, and connect with higher-level logistics providers. The Combat Logistics Battalion is also to provide limited purchasing authority, medical support, ammunition and fuel distribution, and field maintenance.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12200/5

Comment: This is part of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR). The report does a good job of describing the what and why of the MLR. It goes on to describe some of the main items of equipment being developed for this new Marine unit.

I’ve been hearing about this for a few years. The dropping of the Marine tank battalions was a well covered aspect of this reorientation of the Marine Corps from trying to be a mini-US Army to returning to its Naval roots. A recent Honolulu Star-Advertiser article on the 3rd Littoral Regiment, based in Kaneohe, rekindled my interest in where the MLR concept stands today.

It’s a realization that any conflict with China will be a naval war dominated by missiles and now drones. It’s a callback to the defense of Wake Island in WWII where the Marine shore batteries managed to sink a Japanese destroyer. The MLR appears to be largely a reconnaissance and target acquisition force, but it also has a potent anti-ship weapon in the NMESIS (Navy-Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System). It reminds me of Ukraine’s Neptune coastal defense missile system.

Of course the Marine Corps is not the only service reorganizing and reorienting towards a conflict in the Pacific. The Army’s 1st Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF), based in Joint Base Lewis-McChord is also oriented towards the Pacific as is the 3rd MDTF at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii. The 25th Infantry Division is also now organized and oriented towards littoral operations. The Army is even acquiring a new fleet of medium and heavy landing craft, not to be confused with the Marine Corps’ new Navy Medium Landing Ship, something smaller than the old LSTs and much smaller and cheaper than the current LHAs and LHDs.

It will be interesting, or perhaps frightening is a more descriptive term, to watch the race between China and the US in reorganizing and building towards forces prepared to square off in the Pacific.

TTG  

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/10/15/hawaiis-marine-littoral-regiment-trains-high-tech-operations.html

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14303476/raytheon-technologies-corp-anti-ship-missiles-shore-defense. (NMESIS)

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/R46374.pdf (Navy Medium Landing Ship)

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/marine-littoral-regiment-squad-size-fire-teams

This entry was posted in China, The Military Art, TTG. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to The Marine Littoral Regiment

  1. d74 says:

    The small end of the spyglass…
    Document https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/R46374.pdf
    (The whole document is interesting.)

    The congressional recommendations are curious.
    “The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from awarding a contract for the Landing Ship Medium program, including construction of the lead ship, until basic and functional design are certified to be complete.
    Acting otherwise, or in haste, could double or triple the amount…

    It goes on to say: “Recent examples of shipbuilding programs with a similar acquisition strategy have met with significant cost and schedule challenges, putting the contractor and the program at risk, include the Constellation-class frigate[…]”.

    The Constellation-class is based on the excellent design of the Franco-Italian FREMM frigates. Construction of the new FREMM modified Constellation-class frigate began while the plans were still being finalised. Each service (Submarine Warfare and AD) added new requirements during manufacture.
    The Navy Lockout site -formerly Save the Royal Navy- devoted a scathing article to the engineering and cost problems of the first frigate of this class.

    The perfection of a one-humped dromedary is a two-humped camel.

    • TTG says:

      d74,

      The US ship building and ship acquisition process has been a nightmare for decades.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        It’s not a flaw in the system, it is a desired feature.

        It is designed to ensure massive cost overruns while ensuring that the desired number is never built.

        That’s a two-fer for the MIC, because they (a) make out like bandits while (b) never having to expand production capabilities to anything like the original tender.

        What could be a more perfect outcome for a profit-based business model?

    • d74 says:

      Lapsus calami calamity.
      My apologies to Navy Lookout site, https://navylookout.com/

  2. drifter says:

    Listened to a podcast more than a year ago on Heritage that detailed these ideas, all of which have been in the works for years. The presenter honestly stated that the new USMC concept is built around the USMC needing to be a relevant combat arm or go out of existence. Maybe through intense efforts they can keep marine infantry in the budget, but sadly for the USMC, Delta force etc. have displaced them as the US President’s ‘go-to’ guys to do rough stuff. Dinosaurs went extinct, and they were pretty tough hombres according to the fossil record. Marines too, maybe.

    • babelthuap says:

      There was chatter about getting rid of the USMC decades ago. As an old Marine myself we scoffed at it because everyone knows where old military equipment goes to die; USMC. It is a small fighting force designed to work with the junk and see what you can squeeze out of it. You can actually get quite a lot with the right people tinkering with it. USMC ain’t going nowhere for that reason.

      • drifter says:

        The USMC is twice the size of the British Army. And equally struggling to justify its relevance to American policy.

        • TTG says:

          drifter,

          The Marine Corps has been relevant to American policy since November 10, 1775. It’s just good to see it get back to its Naval roots.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Well, maybe. In which case Congress should tell the Army not to encroach on the Marine’s turf.

            Either the Marines are responsible for littoral warfare, or the Army equips itself to do littoral warfare.

            But why should both spend $billions duplicating that capability.

          • TTG says:

            Yeah, Right,

            If war comes in the Pacific, both the Army and Marine Corps will be fighting littoral warfare, just as they both did in WWII.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Then why not just abolish the Marines and expand the Army by a commensurate amount?

            Or reduce the Army and expand the Marines by the commensurate amount?

            Why duplicate the role but not standardise the equipment.

            Naval aviation I can understand: the Navy has the carriers so they should operate the aircraft.

            But what you are lauding is the equivalent of the US Army operating aircraft carriers, or th USAF putting together an armoured division.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            TTG,
            All fine and well until the new woke, feminized, overweight and transvestite – and always lumbering – US Army can’t accomplish the mission. Then the Marines will be back in non-littoral combat zones picking up the slack and getting it done, with less than the usual less.

            So some power point warriors renamed the MEU/MAU and truncated the essentials of the TO&E, while adding some dubious high tech crap that won’t do diddly in a real war before it breaks. Ok. Oorah? Yawn.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            YR,
            Marines are naval infantry. They belong to the Navy. They are under the Dept of the Navy, Sec Nav, etc . whereas soldiers are not under the Navy. So getting rid of Marines and replacing them with soldiers on ships would involve having two different organizations (Navy + Army) in charge of the same day to day operations. That would represent a problem. Remember, Marines are out on floats – out with the fleet – every day. Marines are fully integrated into just about everything the Navy does. So the army would be sticking it’s nose into Navy business daily and down into minutia. It would be a mess.

            There are other issues, some cultural, but the command structure issue would be an obvious inefficiency at best.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric, I agree with you. So, I’ll point out, do the British who use the Royal Marines as “fighting men on ships”.

            My problem is not so much with the idea of the US military having a Marine Corp, or even with them making the decision that this Marine Corp should be an expeditionary force.

            Rather, it is with the USA making that decision AND THEN the US Army deciding that, heck, they can do that too.

            As TTG points out: ” The Army is even acquiring a new fleet of medium and heavy landing craft, not to be confused with the Marine Corps’ new Navy Medium Landing Ship”

            So, back atcha: what on Planet Earth is an Army doing acquiring a fleet?

          • Eric Newhill says:

            YR,
            It always brings me the warm fuzzies when you agree with me and vice versa. The Marines have always been an expeditionary force. “MEU” = Marine Expeditionary Unit. It’s an old concept. There is also MAU = Marine Amphibious Unit, which is, really, just another name for the same thing. Sometimes the power pointers change the brand so they can appear smart and relevant and get promoted or get funding, or something like that.

            I don’t imagine the Army is looking to obtain ships so they can sail around patrolling, showing force and waiting to respond to emergent situations like the Navy/Marines. Rather, I’m guessing it’s for the purpose of transporting to and landing troops at specific predetermined targets, like China, Taiwan or some other country or territory threatened by Chinese aggression.

            Back in WW2 I believe that getting soldiers from the US to the European theater (or the Pacific islands where the Army fought) was accomplished on converted freighters and, especially, passenger liners. Actually, once the Marine Corps expanded to the size of six divisions, Marines were also shipped to Pacific staging areas that way.

            I’m further guessing that we don’t have a bunch of passenger liners and freighters that can be converted to that purpose. So someone needs to build them and the Army is making a bid. Again these might be more straight up troops transports and then larger landing craft that can bring soldiers and tanks, artillery, etc, onto the shore. Finally, this investment tells me that the US is expecting there is a very strong probability of going to war – as in full on invasion peer to peer or near peer combat – with China and/or other countries accessible by sea. Iran comes to mind as well, as does Gaza, Lebanon, Syria – heck, maybe even Ukraine and Crimea.

            Could the Navy build these transports and landing ships? Sure, but if it’s the Army that expects to use them solely for moving the Army around, then I can see some logic to the Army owning the project. This guessing is not an endorsement of foreign adventurism (except for Iran, which we should crush).

          • TTG says:

            Both the Army and Navy had fleets of landing craft (LCMs and LCUs) at least as far back as Viet Nam. Sometimes they were the same types. Sometimes the Army and Navy bought different designs. While in the 25th Division, we used Mike boats to ferry a lot of our vehicles and supplies from Oahu to the Big Island. Those were Army Mike boats. What the Marines want is something larger and more seaworthy.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric: “It always brings me the warm fuzzies when you agree with me and vice versa.”

            I too get a vicarious thrill from such rare moments, though obviously purely in a manly way.

            Eric: “(except for Iran, which we should crush).”

            And there ya’ go and have to spoil things.

            BTW, when you say “we” who do you mean, exactly?

  3. leith says:

    The way it stands currently the Marine Littoral Regiments (MLR), especially small independently deployed detachments, are going to be starved of target acquisition data for their weapons. Yes, I see they’ll get a few MQ-9 Reapers from the Air Force, which is probably glad to get rid of them due to the high loss rate. And I doubt they’ll get enough G/ATOR radars to go around. There will be a high demand on Naval/AF surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets throughout the theater. So for both early warning and targeting I would hope those small deployed MLR detachments will get lots of UAVs. Not just the FPV versions, but they also should get longer range ones. By the way, those NMESIS cruise missiles cost $2 million each, so in addition to surveillance & recon UAVs add lots of inexpensive kamikaze one-way-attack drones. Once the shooting starts they’ll probably be starved of logistics also as there are already budget fight regarding the new Medium Landing Ships.

    Interesting article from the Marine Gazette about a missing link in the MLRs: https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/the-mlrs-missing-link/

    The Wake Island Marines were also starved of assets. They were sent there without their radars. They had only one fire control director for their twelve 3-inch anti-aircraft guns and many were missing gunsights. Their 5-inch guns were hand me downs that had been removed from an old battleship. Their resupply ships never got through. Even so, they and four Marine F-4s though were able to sink two IJA destroyers and one submarine that were lost with all hands, damaged a cruiser, destroyed two patrol boats, destroyed 30 plus aircraft and inflicted more than six hundred casualties on the landing force.

    If and when the sh!t hits the fan then these new MLRs will be prime targets for the PLA Navy and Air Force. So in my opinion they’ll be a tripwire. The WW2 version of those defense battalions similar to the detachment on Wake were soon either disbanded and fed into infantry units or were downsized to focus solely on AAA and drop the antiship role.

    • mcohen says:

      the north koreans are on the move and i fear a third war is on the cards.those units might be needed.

    • TTG says:

      leith,

      The Marines have always been big on air-ground integration. Their VTOL F-35s may be in a better position to provide target acquisition for the MLRs. It depends on just how integrated that sensor integration really is, what littoral airfields those F-35s can operate from and how good the Marines are at conducting the FARRP mission. That’s listed as a mission of the MLR anti-air battalion. That would be my answer to the real problems noted in that terrific Marine Gazette article.

      Your idea of those MLRs being tripwire forces may be right. I think they’ll perform a similar missions as scout platoons for battalions and armored cavalry regiments for corps.

      • leith says:

        TTG –

        I was thinking more of the “platoon reinforced-sized expeditionary advanced base sites” you mentioned above. I wonder if they could accommodate Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARPs)? Four decades ago the Corps used to routinely train using FARPs for both their VTOL Harriers and rotary wing birds. But as I recall the FARP teams and equipment back then were larger than what the original planners had hoped for. I have no clue of current status. How big are Army FARRPs?

        And where will these “platoon reinforced-sized expeditionary advanced base sites” be deployed? How remote would they be from their parent unit? Would the Okinawan MLR potentially send them to islands in the Tsushima Strait or to the far SW end of the Ryukyu islands chain close to Taiwan? Would the Guam based MLR maybe send them to the Batanes islands south of Taiwan and north of Luzon? Plus far south of the Philippines there are several choke points in and around Indonesia, Malaya & Borneo where they could conceivably be sent?
        https://mms.magloft.com/TcBGCvlKDI688jMp/1aMa5XSGdyQGN7ES

        • TTG says:

          leith,

          I ran a FARRP by myself with five locals and two old UAZ vans, but that was just for “little birds.” We called them forward area rearming and refueling points. I guess they’re both right.Not sure how austere the Marines could go for their F-35s. They could also service longer range drones like the Jouav CW-30E. Not sure we have anything like that.

          I could see some of those platoon-sized sites being among the many South China Sea islands. They’d be like the WWII coast watchers. I’m sure they could be situated as you laid out. I’ve never really looked at the Pacific strategy.

    • English Outsider says:

      Leith – on the article. That networking with external command centres for identifying and selecting targets looks very advanced and sophisticated, but what happens if too many nodes get knocked out?

      They’d do well to have autonomous capabilities as well, as back-up.

      • leith says:

        English –

        Yes, every node should have an autonomous capability.

        In regards to your question, I left the service over 40 years ago, so I’m not the right person to ask about the survivability of 21st century military networks. However, my limited understanding of Link-16 is that it has some built in resilience.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16

  4. While this post concentrates on land warfare,
    there was an interesting subsurface development in 2021:

    “Navy Seawolf-Class Sub Crashed Into Underwater Mountain Close to China”

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-seawolf-class-sub-crashed-underwater-mountain-close-china-210772

    “While the official account cites an accident,
    there’s speculation that advanced Chinese anti-submarine technologies
    may have played a role.

    -These include 6G terahertz tracking with underwater drones,
    laser detection systems,
    and satellite-based synthetic aperture radar linked to hypersonic torpedoes.

    [T]he Connecticut was prowling the depths of [the relatively shallow South China Sea],
    operating very near to the advanced Chinese naval submarine base on Hainan Island.

    China has turned to truly sophisticated technologies and techniques for hunting American submarines.

    1. 6G Terahertz Tracking Plus Advanced Underwater Drones…

    2. Using Lasers to Track US Submarines…

    3. Synthetic Aperture Radar and Their Hypersonic Torpedo

    China has spent the last several years deploying multiple of its Yaogan electronic-reconnaissance satellites into Earth orbit.
    These satellites represent a major step forward for China’s anti-submarine-warfare capabilities.
    They employ what is known as a Synthetic Aperture Radar system.

    The Yaogan system is most akin to the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Surveillance System,
    which is used to intercept radio signals from the ground and then use those signals to triangulate the locations of warships at sea.
    The Chinese are so protective of the Yaogan satellite constellation that they have deployed a co-orbital “bodyguard” satellite to better defend it from any potential U.S. anti-satellite weapon attack. …”

    • leith says:

      Keith Harbaugh –

      I’m fascinated by the term “6G terahertz tracking with underwater drones” in that National Interest article.

      High frequencies do not propagate in the ocean’s salty water. As far as I know the only freqs that do are VLF in shallow water and ELF for deeper depths. So I’m surmising there is some data missing in the article.

      Fred was a submariner, so perhaps he knows?

      • TonyL says:

        leith,

        Acording to Gabriel Honrada (Asia Times article), the “6G terahertz tracking” is used in Chinese tech to detect *surface* vibration caused by low frequency sound from the submarines.

      • TonyL says:

        leith,

        IIRC, that sensor is on UAV in the air. UUV (underwater drones) then use the location to attack the sub. Brandon J. Weichert probably mispoke.

        • leith says:

          TonyL/Keith H –

          Thanks. I knew something was fishy with Weichert’s article.

          But in any case that wake detection is technology is amazing. A ten nanometer ripple is 0.0000003937 of an inch – a thousand times thinner than a human hair. How do they do that considering all the other surface effects of wind, current, sea floor topography, etc? Doubtful they could do that in all WMO Sea States and all depths. If the sensor does work in those conditions using UAVs it won’t be long before they put it on satellites.

          • TonyL says:

            leith,

            Agreed. It’s still an experimental technology, probably working in a perfect test condition only. And if they can correlate the vibration with some specific low frequency signatures, that would be amazing.

      • For some further information on Chinese claims regarding 6G, see

        “Chinese scientists look to 6G to hunt submarines …
        Defence researchers say sensors can identify
        extremely small surface vibrations produced by a low-frequency sound source in the open sea”

        https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3232682/chinese-scientists-look-6g-hunt-submarines-testing-device-small-enough-fit-drone

        “The terahertz device identified extremely small surface vibrations produced by a low-frequency sound source in the open sea, scientists involved in the experiment said.

        These ripples were as tiny as 10 nanometres tall, well below the detection range of existing technology.”

      • Fred says:

        leith,

        Lasers! Sharks with frickin lasers! (Fang Fang did the Brits first.)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INFavIUmhcE
        Yaogan system – all 4 satellites. Still have to communicate with the firing platform. And see not only through water but clouds too. Or, to quote the Duke’s sidekick: “And another whale lost his blubber” hypersonically, too. No sushi for you, sorry.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnaf9Nneb7A

        As I mentioned to some flag rank or another long ago, when war comes what ‘sound shorts’ are the Soviets going to remove from their ships so the sound signature on file doesn’t match what is heard by the newest super-duper sonar? That didn’t go over too well.

Comments are closed.