Hostile Takedowns

On another thread a member made a post about the easily misunderstood subject of Roles & Missions, in that case refering to Marines & the SEAL SMU that conducted HR mission last week.

This thread is not to go on about it, everything that needed to be said was already said. It will, however, serve as a bridge to go into another subject. A possible future capability for the USMC Infantry.

Just to clear the air Hostage Rescue; performed by SMU's such as Delta, the SEAL's DevGru & domestically by the FBI's HRT, was never a mission the Corps was interested in. Its too expensive, too time consuming, & too narrowly focused.

The MSPF's FR DAP, Direct Action Plt, had an 'IHR' In-Extremis Hostage Rescue capability which mostly meant maintaining the same Shooting & Assaulting Standards of the SMUs (which was verified in JSOU's report on a USMC contribution to SOCom).

It was also tasked w/conducting "Hostile Takedowns", a mission it shared w/Tier II or White SOF like regular SEAL tms. These differed from HR & IHR b/c there's no risk of injuring Non-Hostiles. They could range fr/Firm Structures to Ships (VBSS) to Gas & Oil Platforms (GOPlats).

This is not to be confused w/ "Compliant" Boarding which is performed by the Navy's Master at Arms & CG's Boarding Officers sometimes under duress, this is a Hostile Action, combat at sea (i.e. Al Faw '03, Iranian Mining boats late 80's).


[THE BRIDGE]
W/the MSPF gone, presently the only ability to conduct these Ops resides in SOCOM (SEALs & MSOC). The Corps however, has begun to build FR back up & is in the process of re-forming the MSPF for the purpose of supporting MAGTF/ESG Ops.

This is on the heels of CTF-151's ongoing A-P mission but its projected long term to threats beyond Somalia, future hybrid threats.

But the Marines, known for thinking outside the box, were recently caught Off Guard when the Pentagon’s Director of Surface Warfare, Rear Adm. Victor Guillory, requested they look at expanding their Long Term Hostile Boarding capability to the Company-sized Dets the Corps is planning to deploy on the new "Littoral Combat Ships".


Rear Adm. Victor Guillory speaking after a Surface Navy Association luncheon on March 19.

Quote:

---

“In a nutshell, visit, board, search and seizure is a capability inherent in all our ships and we do it with the RHIBs [rigid hull inflatable boats] we have and the crew is trained with certain skill sets to do a compliant boarding and so we exercise that now.”

“What we’re beginning to look at with the Marines is some additional capabilities,” the two-star admiral said. “Perhaps to do [VBSS] in environments where [the boardings] are not benign, cooperative sort of boardings. But we’re only in the early preliminary discussions and certainly [Littoral Combat Ship] has inherent capabilities that make it attractive. It lends itself to us taking a look at the world we’re in and how we can adapt the capability we have to improve in this area, which is in high demand from combatant commanders.”

“I would say we’re early in the consideration of it, but it’s promising and I think it potentially could give us some additional capability in VBSS.”

---

These Dets tie into the larger SC MAGTF construct inwhich Infantry Co's will be Forward Deployed throughout a Theater Cmd to conduct various Contingency Ops including FID.

This could potentially put a capability to takedown Hostile Ships in every Company.

Presently plans are underway for a 30man FR based tm capability to rejoin the MEUs soon. But the Rear ADM's words a being seriously considered for the future & the Navy & Marine Corps have begun a Joint Working Group to flesh out the details.


So what do you think??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COMMAR

A-P mission but its projected long term to threats beyond Somalia, future hybrid threats.

---

Anti-piracy is a solid mission. "Future Hybrid threats" is meaningless. What does that mean specifically? A Threat is a capability and an intent, thus it can be defined. These words "Hybrid threat," are rapidly turning into baby talk.

- and no personal offence intended, since I am sure you used the words out of convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COMMAR

This could potentially put a capability to takedown Hostile Ships in every Company.

Presently plans are underway for a 30man FR based tm capability to rejoin the MEUs soon. But the Rear ADM's words a being seriously considered for the future & the Navy & Marine Corps have begun a Joint Working Group to flesh out the details.

So what do you think??

---

It's just a matter of money. The very fact that 30 men is specified, strongly implies a budget cap, and not an operationally defined grouping.

(Get to the bottom of the "operational need," and I'm sure their is an accounting Excel spread sheet.)

The skills are not a dark art, or even difficult to acquire, once you resource the training. Can the USMC find the manpower?

Most of the operational enablers, such as HELO, and MPA, all cost lots of $ to train with.

begun to require SMUs. Seems to me that the specific mission is simply one which requires a purpose designed TF drawn from ANY BLT/MAGTF. The training issue is not that difficult and current equipping standards make that pretty much a non-problem.

Training 30 men ( [1]I agree w/Wilf on that arbitrary figure; [2]what's the size of a standard TOE Rifle Platoon today?) for a specific mission doesn't seem smart, why not train all the Rifle companies so that multiple TFs of the appropriate size can be formed using as much unit integrity as possible instead of (apparently) having to cobble together multiple 30 man groups or portions thereof from various Companies...

Boarding at sea, helping protect shipping, and fighting piracy were the reasons that Marines (in both England and America) were established as a branch separate from the Army.

The way I see it, this mission is a far better use for the Marine Corps, as compared to the current use of treating it like a faster, lighter version of the Army. The Marines have a specialization in inshore operations requiring both land and naval elements that's uniquely suited to combating piracy, and I'm encouraged to see them beginning to better develop this capability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Training 30 men ( [1]I agree w/Wilf on that arbitrary figure; [2]what's the size of a standard TOE Rifle Platoon today?)

---

Ah! I knew someone would pick up on that, and I also knew it would be you!!! :)

Yep, 30 is a good number for lots of reasons... and only one of them is cost!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

begun to require SMUs. Seems to me that the specific mission is simply one which requires a purpose designed TF drawn from ANY BLT/MAGTF. The training issue is not that difficult and current equipping standards make that pretty much a non-problem.

Training 30 men ( [1]I agree w/Wilf on that arbitrary figure; [2]what's the size of a standard TOE Rifle Platoon today?) for a specific mission doesn't seem smart, why not train all the Rifle companies so that multiple TFs of the appropriate size can be formed using as much unit integrity as possible instead of (apparently) having to cobble together multiple 30 man groups or portions thereof from various Companies...

---

You forget, Ken....unit integrity isn't important anymore. It's all modular, you know. Easier to keep feeding bodies into the front line that way.:eek:

The above is said with tongue firmly in cheek, because unit integrity is something that we can't afford to ignore, and do so foolishly, IMO.

COMMAR posted on page 2 of the "Size of the Platoon and Company" topic in the Trigger Puller section


"The Marine Infantry Platoon remains at 44, 43 Marines & 1 Corpsman.

3x 13 man Squad, + Radio Operator, Plt Guide, Plt Sgt, & Plt Cmdr.

What changes, is the ability to shift the Plt Structure to best exploit opportunities"


I agree with Ken that Hostile Takedown Trng. is a mission that can be absorbed by any Marine Infantry Platoon.

Keep the unit intregity, chain of command, command structure and the flexibility the bigger Marine Squads provide. They are a functioning team that is capable of absorbing punishment and still remain operational in environments that require sea soldier employment.

There is no need to make this mission into a seperate unit.
All in a days work for a Marine rifle platoon.

The 44 man sized unit can be accomodated by a mother ship and it can be given multiple assignments supported by naval gunfire or air assets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Anti-piracy is a solid mission. "Future Hybrid threats" is meaningless. What does that mean specifically? A Threat is a capability and an intent, thus it can be defined. These words "Hybrid threat," are rapidly turning into baby talk.

- and no personal offence intended, since I am sure you used the words out of convenience.

---

Yeah the post was getting a bit long in the tooth. I wanted to hit the main pts w/out losing ppl so I Ginzu'd out a lot of detail.

The [future]Hybrid Threat portion that the ADM mentions is really a Very Present Threat & is something the Navy's been gearing to address ever since Marine Lt Gen Paul Van Riper "Red Cell'ed" & sunk the Entire P. Gulf Fleet in a Highly Publicized War Game in '02 that was supposed to show the great technological leaps that had been made.

It was supposed to be a Blue Team highlight reel. They brought Van Riper out of retirement to prove him wrong after publicly criticizing their so called Advances, saying that an Unconventional force of Small Boats Armed w/a few Conventional Arms (Hybrid) would Neutralize the whole Fleet.

The War Game was Operation Millennium Challenge & no matter how many times they ran the simulations he sunk Damn Near the whole Fleet everytime. Some info http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm

Fr/what I've heard the piracy problem doesn't give them fits. To them its a Nuissance not a Threat. But currently there's no answer to a Full Out Hezbollah, Revolutionary Guard, Unconventional/Hybrid Threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

It's just a matter of money. The very fact that 30 men is specified, strongly implies a budget cap, and not an operationally defined grouping.

(Get to the bottom of the "operational need," and I'm sure their is an accounting Excel spread sheet.)

The skills are not a dark art, or even difficult to acquire, once you resource the training. Can the USMC find the manpower?

Most of the operational enablers, such as HELO, and MPA, all cost lots of $ to train with.

---

I dont think Money will be a problem, the Navy is really eager for a viable & flexible counter to this threat.

The 30 men, fr/what I gather fr/the Joint VBSS Working Group, is a template. A T/O of Identified personnel:
X-many Assaulters, X-many Security & Trailers, X-many Standoff DM's.

Bringing the capability back to the MEU was inevitable, but is also a response to the piracy problem & will be based around the FR Plt thats soon coming back. But the near-future 30man "Littoral Combat Ship" capability would come fr/the Embarked Infantry Co Dets.

Finding the Manpower would not be a problem as they would be Infantrymen Organic to the Company. This would be no different then what was/is done in the MEU to form:

-The Trailer Plt: 25 Marines pulled fr/the Boat Co, sent to a 3-5wk CQB Course then thru various DA Courses w/the FR DAP.
-The MSPF: which pulled Marines fr/ all over the MEU.
-The TRAP Team: pulled fr/the Helo Co, sometimes Trax.
-Assault Climbers & Scout Swimmers are fr/all over the BLT.(etc, etc.)


They're all pulled away fr/their various Infantry jobs on the MEU when a specific mission or sustainment training comes up.

What I'm wondering is if it will be a designated Plt, like w/TRAP tms (i.e. 3rd Plt). Or will it be various Grunts fr/thru out the Co. like the Assault Climbers & Swimmers(doubtful).

Or maybe a 3rd Option(the Go Hard Option). Being that the Co. sized Dets will continously be dispatching & rotating their Plts out, 1-2 @ a time, to conduct their various land based Contingency & FID Ops while maintaining 1 Plt w/the Co HQ. Maybe all 3 Plts in every Co. will train to that capability.


[QUESTION]
W/that said, Along w/Combat Hunter's Advanced Man-Tracking, Profiling, & Recon/Surveillance Packages. And Distributed Op's Extended Ranges & Small Unit Independent Actions capabilities.

Could the Corps add a Shipboard Direct Action capability to all Infantry Unit's Training Regimen??

Inwhich case they would really harken back to the Old'en days, Hostile Shipboarding Marines.

But its all too early to tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

I'm unsure why general combat missions have begun to require SMUs.

---

Yup. In OIF V, ODAs were griping that "Delta" (not the actual term used) was getting direct action missions that they could have easily done. I would always chime in, "I agree, that this is overkill, but why should you be doing it? I could pull off most of these missions with an average infantry platoon."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COMMAR

Rear Adm. Victor Guillory, requested they look at expanding their Long Term Hostile Boarding capability to the Company-sized Dets the Corps is planning to deploy on the new "Littoral Combat Ships"... This could potentially put a capability to takedown Hostile Ships in every Company... So what do you think??

---

My initial impression is similar to my concerns in OIF III. Back then, I noticed that we were establishing a pattern in our react to contact drills. Whenever we were ambushed in a street, we would assault the nearest building and then fight from there against the attackers. I suggested that it would only be a matter of time before they started barricading doors and windows before ambushing us (which they did) and that they would eventually start rigging buildings to explode (which they did). Likewise, if sending platoons of Marines onto ships starts to become a predictable response to piracy, then I'm anticipating a pirate mother ship packed with explosives to goad a boat with Marines on it into a confrontation and for that mother ship to be boarded and then detonated.

If we're talking boarding ships that have been hijacked, then the threat that I'm concerned about is likely minimal. But why should this be a mission for Marines? I'm not a Navy guy, but isn't this the purview of SEALs? If so, I understand that they're a tad busy in Iraq/Afghanistan. But wouldn't it be more appropriate to shift the SEALs to anti-piracy duty and shift these Marines to the ground war, rather than leaving the SEAL in the ground war and re-training the Marines for a mission that seems better suited for SEALs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COMMAR

It was supposed to be a Blue Team highlight reel. They brought Van Riper out of retirement to prove him wrong after publicly criticizing their so called Advances, saying that an Unconventional force of Small Boats Armed w/a few Conventional Arms (Hybrid) would Neutralize the whole Fleet.

---

Back in 04 I got to spend about an hour one-on-one talking to Van Riper about that very exercise/simulation. I think he proved a point, about some of the faulty assumptions that under pinned US Navy thinking at the time, but I'm not the model he used to do it, was as achievable in reality as he suggests.

Point being, if the bad guys were a whole bunch of Van Ripers, then we do have a problem... but they're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Likewise, if sending platoons of Marines onto ships starts to become a predictable response to piracy, then I'm anticipating a pirate mother ship packed with explosives to goad a boat with Marines on it into a confrontation and for that mother ship to be boarded and then detonated.

---

Like I said in the last post the ADM didn't make this propsal due particularly to the piracy problem. The pirates are a nuissance not a threat. The Hybrid Threat to the Fleet & their Inability to adequately address this threat is the Problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

If we're talking boarding ships that have been hijacked, then the threat that I'm concerned about is likely minimal. But why should this be a mission for Marines? I'm not a Navy guy, but isn't this the purview of SEALs?

---

Actually & historically no. Originally MarDets & the MSPF conducted virtually all VBSS missions. They consisted of 1 Marine Capt, 2 Lts, & 20+ Marines per Lt they deployed on all types of ships. This was up until the Clinton era when they drastically cut the size of the USMC. This forced the Marine's to expand the Navy's their Master at Arms program.

Even when the SEALs used to deploy on the MEU(SOC)s up until the Late '90s. The FR DAP was the lead Assault Element in all DA missions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

If so, I understand that they're a tad busy in Iraq/Afghanistan. But wouldn't it be more appropriate to shift the SEALs to anti-piracy duty and shift these Marines to the ground war, rather than leaving the SEAL in the ground war and re-training the Marines for a mission that seems better suited for SEALs?

---

I understand what your saying but no. B/c its not as if the ADM is saying, "Hey I think you should 'put' some Marines on my LCS's to give us a Hostile TD capability". No, the Corps already has plans to permanently deploy Company size Detachments on those ships as part of the planned SC MAGTF Concept.

What he's saying is, "Hey since your already planning on putting Marines on my LCS's, do you think you can give them that old Hostile VBSS thing you used to do". In other words make their relationship symbiotic.



I know what I wrote alot on my last post, but if you Read thru it you'll understand the topic much better. I'm not posting something I hatched up in the tub the other day, its something the Navy & the Corps are seriously hashing out right now.

My only goal is can we kick it around to draw up a picture of it, & if they stick w/it, see how close we come.

I was thinking close to RJ & Ken, it would have to be Organic to the Company. Not like a specific VBSS unit attached to the LCS's like the old MarDets. But where I'm stuck is whether it would be:

1) a designated Plt in each Comp, as in picking a Plt prior to the PTP like w/TRAP on the MEU(ie 3rd Plt).
2) be a composite of various Marines thru-out the Company. (like Assault Climber & Scout Swimmer Sections on the MEU)
3) Or what I call the Go Hard option, make it similar to Combat Hunter or TRUEX for the MEU. Make it an X-week course thats part of the PTP for all Inf. Small Units in the SC MAGTF.

to accomplish a mission that is not easy but also not exceedingly difficult and which, importantly may need a number of mission capable units with little or no warning, there's only one really good solution:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COMMAR

...The pirates are a nuissance not a threat. The Hybrid Threat to the Fleet & their Inability to adequately address this threat is the Problem. ... 3) Or what I call the Go Hard option, make it similar to Combat Hunter or TRUEX for the MEU. Make it an X-week course thats part of the PTP for all Inf. Small Units in the SC MAGTF.

---

I'm unsure why you use the term go hard. If by hard you mean do it right and train the capability heavily for all, then I agree. It will not be that hard to do nor will it cost much. Training the troops is no problem, they can handle it.

The real problematic issue will be the boats -- our boats -- for the job; how many, where will they be, who will crew them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

I'm unsure why you use the term go hard. If by hard you mean do it right and train the capability heavily for all, then I agree. It will not be that hard to do nor will it cost much. Training the troops is no problem, they can handle it.

---

Just having fun w/it. You know the Marine Corps mentality; The Get Some, Go Hard or Go Home Mentality.

If you have 3 Plts who's constantly on/off the ship while leaving/rotating 1 on ship, it would make most sense to not designate but to make it part of the PTP for every Rifle Plt in the SC MAGTF.

I called it (G-H) b/c its the most comprehensive, not for difficulty. W/ MOUT (Room Clearing etc) & the EMP(Confined Space Shooting) Program, I think shifting that to an MIO capability could easily be done in a 2-3wk course. But its a big commitment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

The real problematic issue will be the boats -- our boats -- for the job; how many, where will they be, who will crew them...

---

Funny you mention that. I picked this up yesterday fr/Inside the Navy. Its mostly referring to the Immediate restoring of Hostile VBSS to the MEU but the article touches on the ADM's LCS suggestion.

This excerpt refers to the Marines requesting the Navy add enhanced RHIBs to the ARG.

[EXCERPT- "VBSS Working Group To Meet On Developing Marine Corp Capability"]

Quote:

---

....Marines used to possess a VBSS capability within each Marine Expeditionary Unit, but the ability has lagged in recent years due to the demands of commitments ashore in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A Marine source told ITN last week that reinstitutionalizing the capability could potentially require doctrinal changes, training considerations and the possible procurement of approximately 12 enhanced rigid hull inflatable boats spread across the Navy’s amphibious ship fleet. The RHIBs would be similar to those used by U.S. Special Operations Forces as opposed to those indigenous to current Navy warships, the source noted. The boats would have a greater capability than those currrently deployed on Navy ships, the source explained without offering specifics because no decision to purchase the boats has been made.

This week’s two-day meeting in San Diego will include Navy and Marine Corps representation. The Coast Guard has also been invited, the source added.

The Marine VBSS units would be manned by about 30 Marines from a MEU, the source explained. The capability is likely to be developed in the next few months, the source said.

The capability would use “Marine muscle” coupled with “Navy equipment” to conduct hostile boardings, the source said.

---

The last line looks like the Boats(Purchasing, Manning, Maintaining) would be the Navy's responsibilty, that'd be their portion in the New Joint VBSS mission.

Just hope they buy the right boat instead of trying to adapt some Congressionally favored manufacturers product to do the job. The Riverine boats, for example, won't do in blue water. Hopefully, HQMC will go with adding the task to the MEU mission set -- it should not be major problem.

and historical Marine Missions - has there been any discussion of putting Marines on American Flag Carriers to welcome the latest style of open boat pirates.

In the 1920's or 30's gangs began holding up trains and stealing the mail. The Marine Corps was tasked to stop it.

After several goons were blown away and others captured the stealing ceased forever.

Would it be worth it to plant a Marine Squad and a MG Section on a Merchant Ship and if it was attacked, let them do what they do best.

The Marsek Alabama held off the attackers for a couple of hours with water hoses. I would think that getting wiped out by 9 Rifles, 3 SAW's or AR's and two MG's would cause a halt to testing our flag carriers to see if they are safe enough to attack.

A squad shouldn't be on every carrier in the region, but could be in the mix and make attacking US Merchants something to give the pirates pause.

You could let one boat excape to tell the tale, or to follow it back to the mother ship and sink it too.

Just a thought!

I have a son who is a VP of Ops for a German Flag Carrier in the Pacific. I'll check if the Europeans are thinking along these lines. :rolleyes:

Damm double post!

VBSS, DA, and similar missions are hard, and expensive to train to, assuming you have a tough standard to meet.

That standard was so expensive, time consuming, and hard that in 2001, the Coalition and Special Warfare cell in Quantico (now SCETC) looked at ratcheting down just the shooting requirement for the DAPs. In other words, the issue of just the marksmanship standard was looked at to see if it was unnecessarily high.

Folks the likes of FBI HRT plank holder Bob Taubert were brought in to discuss the particulars. I left CSW before the study was wrapped up, but I want to say that the standard never went down, but the DA piece went away first.

Those types of missions need not be so difficult to train to, but the standards have...let's just say...developed inertia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

...Those types of missions need not be so difficult to train to, but the standards have...let's just say...developed inertia.

---

and frequently it's turf and reputation protection, not a true mission requirement. Still DA isn't easy, particularly if hostages are involved but if COMMAR is correct, the issue is bad guys, not HR. That take's more shooting than we normally do but it's bearable, cost and time wise.

I get the same feeling about "Turf" rearing its ugly puss when the ability of an expert rifleman is judged to be below any requirement necessary to hit a target at sea.

Here is a reply from my son in Austraila.

start
"Dad,

There are more than a few countries with naval support teams now in that area of the world but it seems there is no coordination. The NATO countries have not agreed to protect each others flagged vessels nor intervene. The cooperation with non-NATO countries is less than that.

There are now reports that some naval vessels have sailed away from an attack because it was not their flag...

From on industry point of view, guide lines have been issued to steer clear of Somalia, 500 nm in fact. With the US addressing the pirate attacks the way they did, there is now a sliver of hope that they will lead the discussion to establish a proper protocol of engagement between all maritime nations. Let’s see if we get any good results from the rumors we are hearing in Sydney." end

Seems that the simple order to send a fighting ship into an ocean to seek, find and destroy pirates in the 17th and 18th Centuries is no longer a possibility in any maritime nation, without layers and layers of politics, command drag and clear goals.

So we now have millions of dollars in commerce re routing 500 nautical miles away from Somalia because punks in small open boats are allowed to get away with it.

The next logical step by the pirates will be to move closer to the 500 NM track and set up a base camp in the weeds to attack the unarmed merchant ships.

I understand that the UN frowns upon civilian ships carrying defensive weapons.

Nations tied up by teenaged brigands with old boats and small arms. Absolutely unacceptable. :mad:

I looked up Gen. Paul Van Riper and found out he was a Mustang. An enlisted reservist who went through PI four months behind me in 1956. Did his six months and went to college and was accepted in the Marines PLC OCS route.

He is a year old than I. Hell of a career. Makes me proud to see a man better himself through hard work and grit.

a Viet Namese Marine Battalion based in Vung Tau in 1966 when I was the enlisted advisor with the VN Airborne Battalion also stationed there. Didn't get a chance to talk to him too often because both Bns spent more time away from their bases than they did in them and he got wounded and evaced not long after I arrived. Didn't know his twin brother. Paul was an okay guy, definitely one of the good ones...

You're old... ;)

70 come May 6th -- Joined the Corps on May 22 Sixteeen days later and with prior service in the 71st Infantry, NYNG as a 60mm Mortar Gunner. :eek: Joined them at 15 years old. Big for my age and I had a charming Irish way about me.

You, Sir, are much older than I!

But we were both in the Corps when Puttee's were still an issued item.

you are still my brother, even if you went to the darkside.

I found the Light!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJ

and historical Marine Missions - has there been any discussion of putting Marines on American Flag Carriers to welcome the latest style of open boat pirates.

In the 1920's or 30's gangs began holding up trains and stealing the mail. The Marine Corps was tasked to stop it.

After several goons were blown away and others captured the stealing ceased forever.

Would it be worth it to plant a Marine Squad and a MG Section on a Merchant Ship and if it was attacked, let them do what they do best.

The Marsek Alabama held off the attackers for a couple of hours with water hoses. I would think that getting wiped out by 9 Rifles, 3 SAW's or AR's and two MG's would cause a halt to testing our flag carriers to see if they are safe enough to attack.

A squad shouldn't be on every carrier in the region, but could be in the mix and make attacking US Merchants something to give the pirates pause.

You could let one boat excape to tell the tale, or to follow it back to the mother ship and sink it too.

Just a thought!

I have a son who is a VP of Ops for a German Flag Carrier in the Pacific. I'll check if the Europeans are thinking along these lines. :rolleyes:

---

You don't have to look that far back to find examples of it.

When I was w/ Small Craft Co 2nd MARDIV, I was part of an Anti-Piracy Det in early '03 that did just that.

We sent a 45man Det led by 3 E-5/Sgts. Along w/the entire Kilo Co 3/8, we Attached to the "FAST Team", 5th Fleet in Bahrain. Fr/there we broke into 15man Squads w/1 .50, 1 240G, 3 M203's, rest M16A4s.

Being the SCCO was all Infantryman & RTOs (some Recon, Snipers, FAST guys, & Engineers) fr/each MEU's turnover, usually fr/ Boat Co, then trained in Riverine & Coastal Ops it was not a hard transition.

We did not have boarding Authority, only Physical security. But it was the best Deployment I was ever on.

We would fly into Souda Bay, Greece sometimes Italy, UAE, or Qatar take a Tugboat out to the ship in international waters board & run security thru the Suez, around HOA, past Hormuz & into Kuwait.

The Only Comm we had was 1 Sat Phone & I-Comms. Once we hit Kuwait the Det Cmdr/Sgt would Phone in & they'd give us travel plans to get to Our Next ship, or Back to Manama, Bahrain. It was the BEST DEPLOYMENT EVER.



What you say has been done & can immediately if need be but the Corps is extremely stressed. The only reason we were sent out was b/c it was during the build up to Iraq.

All those ships were loaded w/billions in DOD equipment, not the latest gadgets fr/Walmart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJ

70 come May 6th -- Joined the Corps on May 22 Sixteeen days later and with prior service in the 71st Infantry, NYNG as a 60mm Mortar Gunner. :eek: Joined them at 15 years old. Big for my age and I had a charming Irish way about me.

---

Kentucky Guard at same age in a 105mm How battery...:D

Also big but rather a glowering Scotch Irish troublemaker. Only in later life did I get to be the jolly and witty icon I am today. ;)

(That last to provide my kids who read this board occasionally an excuse to snort coffee on their keyboards...)

Thanks BTW for your Son's take on the Somali pirates. Knotty prob; hard on shippers but not so much on others. Seems most shippers and the insurance folks -- as well as majority opinions -- are opposed to arming crews or shipping armed guards or military folks aboard; routing away from the area is expensive.

Those suggesting a land campaign there need to apply a little thought to that idea. I doubt most in the World are prepared to accept the huge number of Somali deaths that would occur. Not only are they relatively fearless and terribly vengeful but battling clans and factions will coalesce in seconds to fight any outsider. Add to that they have no compunctions about throwing women and kids in the way to absorb fire. Invader casualties aren't the deterrent...

Pressure of some sort needs to be applied to the elders; they can and will stop it if they deem it advisable but they aren't going to do that until the costs of the Piracy outweigh the benefits to the region as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcustis

Those types of missions need not be so difficult to train to, but the standards have...let's just say...developed inertia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

and frequently it's turf and reputation protection, not a true mission requirement. Still DA isn't easy, particularly if hostages are involved but if COMMAR is correct, the issue is bad guys, not HR. That take's more shooting than we normally do but it's bearable, cost and time wise.

---

Ken is right, DA isn't HR or IHR don't lump them together. HR/IHR's shooting standards are well above that of DA for obvious reasons. A regular SEAL tm (DA) does not maintain the same shooting standards of DevGru(HR).

The FR DAP was rated for IHR. IHR tms maintain the Shooting Standards & Assaulting Techniques of an HR tm, but do not train for the entire Op Cycle of HR. This raises the Quality of shooting in DA but is not necessary to perform DA missions.

Hostile Boardings have no such risk. It is strictly a DA mission, its room clearing Top to Bottom. The only difference btwn that & what USMC Rifle Plts are doing now is more Fire Discipline.

When coupled w/MOUT & the EMP (Confined Space Shooting) course it can be done by adding a 2-3wk Discplined CQB course followed by a few wks of Scenario driven training. This can be added to their work-up prior to deploying.



There's a 30man Template to a 44man Plt. The Strongest Shooters are your Assaulters, next your Trailers, the weakest are your blockers. It wouldn't be that hard just more funding.

SWC comes through again. This has been a very useful discussion in my current work and research.

Where can one find a transcript of RADM Guillory remarks from the SNA Lunchen? Is it online?

I think the number 30 is potentially being driven by the manpower payload support capacity of the Littoral Combat Ship. 30 has been a hard number I have heard regarding a potential Marine Corps module for LCS.

I really appreciate the inputs in this conversation, what Guillory is discussing (Marines for VBSS) is something I have been pushing on my blog for several months regarding how to overcome the manpower challenges the Navy faces in the littorals.

I see Marine VBSS as a step towards the Navy taking a serious look where they fit in a SC MAGTF framework at sea, which as we are seeing in several littoral places today, may be the best way to engage at phase 0 in ungoverned spaces where embassey's can't facilitate engagement.

Quote:

---

I see Marine VBSS as a step towards the Navy taking a serious look where they fit in a SC MAGTF framework at sea

---

When I hear VBSS I think of guys either dropping on the deck of a container ship, or climbing the rails once a zod pulls alongside. The ship is likely hauling some sort of contraband, or attempting to break a confinement zone.

How does this fit into security cooperation?

When it comes up in this context, I am thinking the interdiction of junks, dhows, and other small craft that are moving illegally for whatever reason. Seems to me that the only shooting marksmanship issues there are maintaining a 90 deg angle as you are providing overwatch from the boarding ship, and clearing deliberately if you are the boarders.

Doesn't seem like rocket science at all to me, and it doesn;t strike me as something that requires a higher training (and therefore funding to boot) standard...just guys with good sea legs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galrahn

SWC comes through again. This has been a very useful discussion in my current work and research.

Where can one find a transcript of RADM Guillory remarks from the SNA Lunchen? Is it online?

---

I 1st got the intel talking to fellow former SCCO Marines, some are now in MARSOC some are training the Navy's new Riverine Sqdr. Their getting alot of Ground level buzz b/c their experience is being called on. I then Googled it, only using Info fr/ Official sources. Off the top of my head, "Inside The Navy" has touched on it.

A lot of it has been the Navy Brass saying, "Hey, your planning on deploying a Company on our Littorals, we think we can use some of that muscle to assist in our missions." With the Corps answering, "Makes sense to us, lets draw it up." Thats where they're at now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I think the number 30 is potentially being driven by the manpower payload support capacity of the Littoral Combat Ship. 30 has been a hard number I have heard regarding a potential Marine Corps module for LCS.

---

I Agree, but the Corps is looking to deploy a Company-sized Det fr/ the LCS, but not looking to maintain more than a Plt on board @ a time.

I think the #30 could be the result of alot of factors.
1) I think like you said payload & equipment support: The LCS will only have the capacity for maybe 1-2 RHIBs + 1-2 small Navy Helos (maybe SH-60's ) Organic.
2) If..., its a situation where all Plt's are trained &whichever Plt is onboard @ the time will conduct the Boarding, the #30 provides for something alot of Marines know... You dont always deploy w/your T/O 44man Plt. This allows for a more Universal #.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I really appreciate the inputs in this conversation, what Guillory is discussing (Marines for VBSS) is something I have been pushing on my blog for several months regarding how to overcome the manpower challenges the Navy faces in the littorals.

I see Marine VBSS as a step towards the Navy taking a serious look where they fit in a SC MAGTF framework at sea, which as we are seeing in several littoral places today, may be the best way to engage at phase 0 in ungoverned spaces where embassy's can't facilitate engagement.

---

The Navy will also be deploying they're "Global Fleet Stations" Concept inconjunction w/the SC MAGTF. Some of them will have Marine Dets on them along w/the Navy's new Riverine Sqdr.

Its very interesting & the SC MAGTF Concept could pan out to be a real game changer; Persistent, Fwd Presence, in real #'s.

COMMAR,

A tought, an old Marine Gunnery Sgt. once pontificated that "you can expect a minimum of 10%, sick, lame or lazy no matter what the circumumstances might be.
Marine infantry, including a Navy Corpusman - minus 5 - 10 percenters leaves you with 39 effedftives. Now factor in the C&C command structure and you are looking at about 35 Marines.

It is not a big deal. The 5 above are now usable replacements for any Marine killed or wounded in action.

Seems to me, a full Platoon is the minimum the Navy need's to utilize on Hostile Takedowns. Better one or two extra, than one or two short. They can accomodate the larger platoon structure

Force Recon platoons are smaller than rifle platoons, even with some enablers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufel

Force Recon platoons are smaller than rifle platoons, even with some enablers.

---

But if they pick up the SOP fr/ the old MEU(SOC)-MSPF days then they'll be reinforced by the Trailer Plt which is always at least 25 CQB trained Grunts fr/the Boat Co. that deploys in stacks & sweeps behind the FR DAP Assault tms in Trailer tms of 3-6.

But RJ's referring to the proposal by a Navy RADM for the USMC to form VBSS tms fr/ the Inf. Company Dets that the USMC is planning to embark on their new Littoral Combat Ships.

Tuefel,

Force Recon use to have a 9 man squad - 8 paddlers and a coxsun! I may be dating myself with that observation, but Force Recon would be wasted in the effort we have been discussing. Any regular Infantry Bn. platoon could train up and handle the Hostle Takedown mission.

We are not dealing with super stealth, ninga Spetznaz troops. We are dealing with teenagers who have been given AK-47's and RPG's and training that would be termed "Numba 10" in quality in the Village of Hennoko outside of Camp Schwab, R. Is.

There are litterally hundreds of ships transversing the waters of the AO of the Somali pirate punks. There are not enough Force Recon assets to handle a tenth of the traffic that is exposed to the attacks.

I watched a ship owner testify before Congress yesterday.
He made an eloquent request to allow American Flaged carriers arm their crews. The Captian of the Marsk Alabama, took the stand right after him and said the same thing. Having a few shooters (in the crew) or as supercargo would eleminate the threat.

The pirates are adapting to the unarmed crews who keep them away with water cannons during daylight. They are attempting to board in the dark of night, as stealthy as possible.

Put a couple of riflemen, equipped with starlight scopes during the hours of darkness on the bow and fantail and you eleminate the night attack threat.

Over thinking this threat, with all the command drag and political oversight involved is going to cause some very large embarrasing moments if we let those negative's get in the way.