The Marines Corps is rolling out a 'subversive' new strategy to take on China

Business Insider ^ | October 25th, 2020 | Mark Perry

[Svartalfiar]

Some changes, like drastic reduction or elimination of conventional artillery, are already well underway in the Army. The replacement capability is guided missile artillery.

But the Marines have different missions and capabilities vs the Army. And as you said, the replacement is guided missile artillery - but per the article, the Marines are not switching artillery units over, they're cutting them by 80% or so.

[Rockingham]

I surmise that the Marines expect to often act as forward observers for naval and air strike assets. And my reading suggests that cutting the number of artillery pieces and units does not lead to a loss of strike capability because guided missiles are now so extraordinarily accurate and effective.

[Svartalfiar]

I surmise that the Marines expect to often act as forward observers for naval and air strike assets. And my reading suggests that cutting the number of artillery pieces and units does not lead to a loss of strike capability because guided missiles are now so extraordinarily accurate and effective.

Except that's not much of a cost-cutting move. A single guided missile is expensive - Tomahawks are ~$1.5MM, Hellfires are ~$100M, Javelins around $150M. Artillery's fancy guided rounds are still high, the M712 or M982 cost over $60M per round. The fancy guidance kit (M1156) adds ~$10M to the per-round cost. Plain old M795 rounds are a couple hundred dollars each. That's hundreds to thousands of rounds fired vs a single missile.
And that doesn't even look at the cost per system! How much extra manpower is needed to operate a couple drones, vs some M777s or Paladins? What is the unit cost on those systems? How durable are they? What's the lead time on your scouts getting their rounds on target?

[Rockingham]

Consider the 12 ton, truck borne HIMARS system of guided missile artillery. Expensive to purchase compared to conventional artillery guns, it can be carried and deployed on a C-130. It also requires fewer troops to operate, is ready at an instant, with longer range and better accuracy. And as the DoD found in Iraq and Afghanistan, when capability in the field is fully costed out, HIMARS based rocket artillery is cheaper to deploy and use in combat than tube artillery.

[mad_as_he$$]

“And as the DoD found in Iraq and Afghanistan, when capability in the field is fully costed out, HIMARS based rocket artillery is cheaper to deploy and use in combat than tube artillery.”

Fascinating. How many C-130’s does it take to keep one feed?

[Rockingham]

Supposedly, it costs $500,000 a year for every additional trooper put into Afghanistan. And that is just incremental cost. Smaller, lighter units are cheaper to deploy, with the costs saved then becoming available to make sure that they have the best and most potent weapons possible.

[Svartalfiar]

Consider the 12 ton, truck borne HIMARS system of guided missile artillery. Expensive to purchase compared to conventional artillery guns, it can be carried and deployed on a C-130. It also requires fewer troops to operate, is ready at an instant, with longer range and better accuracy. And as the DoD found in Iraq and Afghanistan, when capability in the field is fully costed out, HIMARS based rocket artillery is cheaper to deploy and use in combat than tube artillery.

Eh, HIMARS rockets are still around $100M+ each, and the ATACMS missile is ~$800M. For certain missions, I would be pretty certain conventional artillery would be much cheaper. You have an actual DoD study on their costs?

Another big issue is that stuff like the HIMARS has a minimum range of about six miles. That's useless if you're on a fob and fighting right outside your walls, maybe one of your local patrols needs some suppressive indirect. And Javelins are not very effective as anti-personnel, plus are rather heavy to lug around.

[Rockingham]

Mortars, grenades, guns, and various missiles cover shorter range targets. And the key metrics are not cost of a weapon when delivered to inventory but cost when deployed and used in the field. A guided missile with 95% plus accuracy is much cheaper than heavy, manpower intensive conventional unguided tube artillery that requires tens or hundreds of rounds to hit and destroy a target.

[Grimmy]

He’s simply stripping the USMC of assets and capabilities.

Nothing more.

Semper Fi, even when the leaders are complete idiots.