Amphibious Forcible Entry: The Movie

From Marine Corps Combat Development Command comes this video explanation of Joint Forcible Entry Operations: The U.S. Marine Corps Perspective. Seabasing, the V-22 Osprey, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), and the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) all feature very prominently.

— Greg Grant

(h/t: SNAFU)

  • Mike62

    First I’ve seen of the QTR? A 4 rotor variant of the Osprey giving a heavy lift capacity? Is the aircraft in development or is it another Marine Corp Wish list item?

  • slntax

    they briefly mention low altitude anti ship missiles at the end and do not talk about how to counter them. maybe they assume the naval f35 will take em out? if so who will deal with the s300/400s?the b2 we saw? oh ya there were alot of fancy words but they were really short on details

  • prometheusgonewild

    A four rotor Osprey would be a much better design.
    It would give a heavy lift capability, much more stability and the ability to lose an engine and still have a powered landing…..
    No sign of variations of Sikorsky’s X2 duel blade helicopter, which is much closer to being fielded…..
    I am unsure how this will be taken by the Obama crew. I think they are so wrapped up in “saving” us that they do not have time to deal with side issues like foreign policy.
    Plus they probably see all the spending on defense as elite contractor pigs at the federal trough.
    In that respect they may have a point……

  • Christopher Bloom

    I find the term National interest offensive as a justification for invasion/war.

    • George Jacobs

      Would you prefer “whimsical desire”?

      • Sev

        What is this “Whimsical Desire” of which you speak?

    • David

      Oh no!!!! You find it offensive…. Call the pentagon. Honestly, so what. The ultimate diplomacy is war and when more subtle forms of diplomacy fail this is what it comes to.

      Trust me, if resources are scarce and it is between your family and another family you will do what you have to to feed your family “national interest”.

      Bleak reality has a way of pushing aside idealism and wanting to feel morally superior to another person.

      It is easy to question motive and answers when you are not in the driver’s seat.

      • Freedom

        There is no lack of resources. There is a lack of equitable distribution. This is where politicians come into play. They make you feel better about having less, even when you have more. Then they make you feel worse about having more when you have less than them.

  • Jeff නඳබ Fraser

    I’ve seen QTR concept blueprints before, but this is the first that I’ve actually seen it in a legit video. I like this set-up, seems like we have every covered. That is, assuming that they didn’t have time to go over absolutely everything.

  • Bob

    But will it work against a billion or so enraged Chinamen? It just might work against say Costa Rica, or Monaco.

    • Dean

      Hey Bob
      What will our vaulted F-22s do against hundreds of enraged Chinese fighter pilots?
      What will our paratroopers do when they find themselves surrounded by millions of enraged Chinese soldiers?
      What will our M1 tankers do when they find themselves faced with thousands of Chinese tanks and anti-tank missiles?
      What will our Army do when they can invade China because their are any nice ports available?

      • David

        Um, let reality settle in.

        China has no first rate fighters and few elite pilots never mind the logistical support behind them. These things takes decades to develop and perfect to be able to run 24/7 sustained operations.

        millions? Just having a large population does not equal having a large fighting force never mind a capable one.

        Again see the plane argument tanks, crews, and support do not just pop out of thin air. Lots and lots tanks are easy targets. Look up the sensor fused munition first used in iraq part 2.

        The point of the movie was to do away with the need for ports. Actually it would work against china. Blockade their shipping and poof there goes china. Three Gorges dam also makes an inviting substantial target. BTW china can not project power past say Taiwan.

      • Matt

        I agree with davids comments
        come on guys remember:
        -chinas “best” fighter, the j11, cant fly
        -millions of people at the right age to fight doesnt mean they are trained or equiped to fight
        -conscripts never make good soldiers; they have rushed training and phycologicly break down
        -unsupported tanks are “fish in a barrel” to an a10c
        -anti-tank missles; check out the american “quick kill” system
        -the marines can secure the ports for the army
        -as for the paras; angry people arent bullet prove and 2 world wars taught that “swarms” of underarmed/unsupported troops cant take a position (think russia in ww1)
        -bunker busting MOP bombs can take out chinese leadership; no leaders and all the troops become an uncordinated mess
        -PGS ballistic missles (which gates says america has) can rain down conventional death or “rapid eye” uavs

  • Tim

    China does have 300 million men of fighting age in reserve for any national wide or international conflicts. That’s virtually… the entire population of the US… But how to feed them all for a month is another matter… much less providing arms, equipment and transport… Logistically, it is near impossible. Lack of logistics was what allowed the Vietnamese “militia” to kick the PLA’s butts in 1979. Don’t know if they’ve learned that lesson ever since.

    • Sev

      Well given China’s HUGE expansion of their industrial base, it’s possible. Not to mention they have a surplus in funds.

      • David

        Its one thing to make knock off hand bags, clothing, and counterfeit goods. It is entirely another thing to create and manufacture technological items. You’ll notice they copy most things and do a poor job at it.

        Their surplus of funds means very little. We are in debt and do just fine despite cries otherwise. It is the shear volume of needed production to support 300,000,000 troops that becomes and issue. Plus remember their industrial base would be targeted immediately making the sustainability of said troops impossible. They can not target the US because they can not project power other then say ballistic missiles.

      • Matt

        america spends more on defence budgets than them, russia, and the EU combined… Just cause they have money doesnt mean they use it on weapons… and the certinly dont have cutting edge stuff… or stealth… etc…

  • Russ

    For a Brit way too much Management Speak and so glossy you know there’s a catch in the details.

    I think they are missing the point of what the USMC brings to the game. They kick in doors! Doesn’t have to be the front door, back doors are better :-).

    THe Military, in this case USMC, are the iron in the velvet glove of diplomacy. Even the ‘humble’ MEU sat 30 nm of your coast going to to make the non-fanatic think. Going to need to find a Brigade to be in the right place to keep them out.

    Should a MEB turn up, then I think you can take it that ‘Uncle Sam’ is not best pleased. Oh and now you need a Division in the right place.

    The Chinese will probably understand the concept better than DC.

    Oh that my 2c

  • Shon

    I love the part where they talk about political opposition to force entry and they show a bunch of hippies. Like a bunch of hippies care whether DOD invests a billion in USMC or a billion in the Army.

  • Tony C

    The advances in space based satellites used by our enemies will make a “sneak attack” unfeasible, but a huge amphibious assault force moving into position will certainly raise the alarms in an enemies command center. The movie is correct that even the threat of a large amphibious operation can alter the battle significantly. The USMC are not land based troops for a reason.
    Budget cuts looming large will probably doom the USMC until that capability is clearly needed again (if it could be rebuilt at all). I doubt even eleven carrier task forces will survive the latest budget debacles. The future of the USN/USMC is fuzzy under the present DOD management.

    • Davis

      Budget cuts will definitely do nothing positive for the USMC, should it happen.

      But I disagree with your satellite claim. If we really, just absolutely must stay invisible from a satellites, we can disable it in some way or another. In 1986 w the US built missiles launched from F-15s that can shoot down satellites, but this is 2010. We must have found an way to electronically render a satellite useless, rather than physically destroying it.

      Unfortunately this is just what I am assuming, for I am no expert in destroying satellites. Does anybody know of something that essentially jams satellites? Because I really think we ought to have that technology by now.

  • Jonathan

    We need unbeatable anti missile,artillery,rocket defenses for our armed forces and better intelligence.

    We also need material penetrating electromagnetic scanners to detect IED’s and hidden bunkers.

    Whoever can develop that wins war.

    Add in speed of light space weapons and you then have a pretty unstoppable offensive power.

    • blight

      It’s thinking like this that led to the various FCS boondoggles and reincarnations. It costs bundles to get that “unbeatable” developed and in the field. And lasers are decades away. Pointing at a technology decades into the future will be dandy in the future, but if we go to war tomorrow having our nest egg in future developments and nothing for today will be a bad place to be.

      • Matt

        lasers arent decades away… like at all for example the ATL test bed or the HELLADS darpa project…

  • Frank

    For those “experts” who have unilaterally declared the hopelessness of successful opposed amphibious landings in the future, what is the alternative? Just as amphibious forces are threatened by modern anti-shipping missiles so are airborne forces similarly threatened by modern anti air weapons. In either case such defenses must be disabled/destroyed prior to the actual assault. The other options are to decide we will only attack enemies who willingly allow us to take control of their ports, to count on neighboring nations to allow us to attack across their borders after a lengthy, unimpeded build up, or forgetting our national interests and throwing away the military option. Let’s see how our diplomatic efforts go after that.

    • blight

      I imagine stealthed gliders might make a return when it comes to deploying troops…a C-17 dumping a bunch of paratroopers is hard to miss.

      When it comes to amphibious invasion the “optimal” sites are much more predictable and defenses can be concentrated along a coastline; whereas an airborne counter requires defense in depth and more infrastructure outlays.

  • Rob

    That model showed a scenario of no air or sea resistance. This would only work for Somalia, war torn or or under developed countries.

    Against any major power on their home ground, this battle scheme would not apply much

    Against any landlocked country this has no use

    • Matt

      1: basicly anything works in thoose countries lol
      2: take out the defences with stealth/cruise missles
      3: oviously…

  • Day

    the V 22 gunship in the video looks interesting, anyone know wether its in developement or just a concept?