Guam Invasion. After the battle of Saipan, U.S. troops invaded the island of Guam 500 miles south. I think this is a great picture and could easily have been any island in the Pacific war SEIZURE OF THE MARIANAS Harrowing WWII photos show the brutal battle fought by US Marines to liberate the island after it was invaded by Japan Stunning pictures show the American struggle to reclaim island of Guam after it was seized by Japan in 1941 The Americans lost more than 1,700 men during the fierce fighting and the Japanese lost more than 18,000 Guam was settled by seafarers from South East Asia in about 2,000BC but Europeans discovered it in 1521 The Spanish claimed it in 1565 and colonised it in the 17th century but the US captured the island in 1898 Now bustling Guam - threatened by North Korea - home to over 160,000 people with a booming tourist trade Spectacular black-and-white photographs showing American military campaigns in the Pacific island of Guam have emerged as North Korea threatens to annihilate the territory with nuclear missiles.  The images show US Marines in action during the 1944 battle to retrieve Guam, which was occupied by Japan in 1941.  Soldiers can be seen bandaged-up on stretchers after the savage fighting that left about 20,000 people killed on both sides, while American ships and high-ranking personnel are also photographed.  Guam is thought to have first been settled in about 2,000BC but wasn't discovered by Europeans until Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived on the island in 1521.  It soon became part of the Spanish Empire and remained so until, during the Spanish-American War of 1898, the USA captured it with a single ship. After an eventful history under American rule - and three years under Japanese imperial rule - Guam has evolved into a flourishing economy of more than 160,000 people famous for its beautiful beaches and excellent food. But modern citizens of the island are faced with fresh anxiety over the nuclear threat from North Korea as Stalinist dictator Kim Jong-un makes Guam a target for his nuclear weapons and US President Donald Trump threatens remorseless retaliation.   +22 Pictured: A US Marine is given water as he lies on a stretcher with bandages covering his wounds after seeing action during the 1944 Battle of Guam. The island Guam is thought to have first been settled by humans in 2,000BC when people from South East Asia managed to get there in small boats. The original inhabitants are known as the Chamorro. They flourished for nearly three and a half millennia before the island was discovered by Europeans when Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived on the island in 1521 +22 Pictured: Japanese POWs bow their heads after hearing Emperor Hirohito announce Japan's unconditional surrender in August 1945. Guam was claimed by Spain in 1565 and colonised in the 17th century, but the territory was lost to the USA during the 1898 Spanish-American War. It was envisioned as something of a 'Gibraltar in the Pacific' but was left insufficiently fortified until its capture in 1941 by the Japanese. Three years of tyranny came to an end in 1944 when the Americans liberated the island +22 Pictured: Stretchers abandoned on a road in the Nidual River valley leading to the Third Marine Division field hospital, which was attacked in a surprise dawn raid by the Japanese in 1944. The history of the island after its liberation from Japanese rule has been revolutionary. It went from being a military outpost - America's 'only permanent aircraft carrier - to being a civilian-run territory after 1950. In 1952, all of the islanders were granted US citizenship, and in the 1960s visitors were no longer required to obtain a security clearance to visit - clearing the way for a tourism-fuelled economic boom +22 Pictured: The US Coast Guard Cutter Sassafrass seen close to Guam during the Second World War. Though the island is still essential to the American military, it has become increasingly focused on tourism in recent decades. One consequence of this openness has been a shift in the island's demographics, with only 37 per cent of the population now from the original Chamorro ethnic group. The next-biggest group is Filipino, accounting for 26 per cent of the population  +22 Pictured: US Coast Guard Cutter Basswood, Marianas Section, Victor Wharf, Agana Heights, Guam. The island is an unincorporated United States territory, but in 1982 there was a referendum on its status. Ultimately, 73 per cent of voters chose to see the island become a commonwealth, but despite the referendum it remains an unincorporated territory +22 Pictured: Chief of Naval Operations Admiral William D Leahy, who said in 1939 that an airbase must be developed on Guam before it can offer any value either militarily or commercially. Calls for an increase in the defences of Guam long went ignored, and in 1941, the Japanese Empire seized the territory with a small force of ships and about 6,000 men. The Americans had only 547 men and a few small boats to defend the island +22 Pictured: Two US soldiers plant an American flag attached to a boat hook on the beach at Guam, just eight minutes after U.S. Marines and Army assault troops landed on the Central Pacific island on July 20, 1944. The Americans lost more than 1,700 men in the fight to reclaim the island and the Japanese lost over 18,000 +22 Pictured: Jeannette Pickering Rankin in 1939, the first woman to hold national office in the United States. She argued against the fortification of Guam +22 Pictured: A Water Buffalo vessel loaded with Marines and bound for Tinian Island near Guam makes its way through a churning sea. Nearly 60,000 men were deployed by the USA in the battle to reclaim Guam  +22 Pictured: Rev Asbury Smith, another official who argued against fortifying the island. He represented the Maryland Keep Out of War Congress +22 Pictured: Marines walk by the wreckage of a Japanese dive bomber on their way to Agat beach, Guam +22 Pictured: 221 Japanese prisoners of war are sprawled on the deck of a ship. They were being brought to a Coast Guard manned troop transport at Guam for transfer to Pearl Harbor. Three years previously, the Japanese Empire had attacked the US naval base of Pearl Harbor and brought the country into the war. It was just a day later than Japanese forces invaded Guam  +22 Pictured: American actor Danny Kaye (centre) put his hand on the forehead of the wounded Bob Comish as Rear Admiral CB Jones looks on. The photograph was taken in 1967, during the Vietnam War, when Guam was once again used for military operations  +22 Pictured: Guam today, a beautiful island noted for its stunning beaches and varied cuisine. It is the largest island in Micronesia - about a third of the size of London - and attracts around a million Japanese tourists every year thanks to its consistently hot weather of between 75 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit. It also features gigantic hotel complexes, luxury shopping malls and plenty of chapels for the perfect Pacific Ocean wedding +22 Pictured: Guam today. Because of its long history of colonisation by the Americans, Spanish and original South East Asian settlers, it has a varied cuisine. You can get chorizo sausages, sushi or classic American favourites - as well as plenty of fresh coconut water and Guam-style barbecued meat  +22 Pictured: The magnificent Guam coastline. The tourism economy on the island suffered after the Asian financial crisis of the 1990s, which particularly affected Japan - the country with most pronounced fondness for the American territory. To add to that setback, the island was hit by devastating typhoons in 1997 and 2002 +22 Pictured: Hotels overlooking turquoise waters and beautiful beaches on Guam. The tourism industry has recovered somewhat after the troubles of the 1990s and early 2000s. Not only are Japanese tourists beginning to return to the island for holidays, but the US military has also increased spending on Guam +22 +22 Pyongyang's volatile dictator (right) warned he was 'carefully examining' plans to make 'an enveloping fire' around the US island of Guam - hours after Donald Trump (left) had told the hermit state it faces 'fire and fury like the world has never seen' over its nuclear programme +22 Kim Jong-un's officials organised a mass rally in the centre of Pyongyang yesterday to protest against tough new UN sanctions North Korea holds massive rally to protest UN sanctions Loaded: 0% Progress: 0% 0:50 Previous Play Skip Unmute Current Time0:50 / Duration Time1:21 Fullscreen Need Text SHARE THIS MORE VIDEOS Japanese Prime Minister welcomes UN sanctions on … North Korea holds massive artillery drill in late April North Korea holds rally in support of the army Tillerson discusses North Korea sanctions, Russia rel… U.N. Security Council sanctions target North Kore… US sanctions North Korea over human rights violations +22 The world is holding its breath amid fears the crisis over North Korea could spiral into global war after Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un made unprecedented threats to trade devastating missile strikes +22 Pictured: A B-1B Lancer bombers taking off from Guam air base

Dog-Day + 0. This was the plan at 6:05 am June 15, 1944 when the order was given to board the landing craft. 8,000 U.S. Marines started the 20 minute trip to the beaches of Saipan. By the end of the first day nearly 2,000 were dead. Today few people know the color names of these beaches and even what actually happened there. Aerial photos show WWII wrecks in watery graves off remote Pacific Ocean tropical islands  Aerial images show submerged planes, abandoned tanks and tractors and shipwrecks off the coast of islands The images were taken on the Solomon Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and Rock Islands in Palau They also show old piers, submerged tanks and remnants of planes that crashed in thick jungle The abandoned relics are from the Pacific conflict in the Second World War which lasted from 1941-1943 Stunning aerial images have revealed remnants from the Pacific conflict in the Second World War which are strewn across forests, shorelines and beaches of islands in the Pacific Ocean. The remnants were photographed on the Northern Mariana Islands, Solomon Islands and the Rock Islands in Palau.   They include tanks, tractors, artillery, shipwrecks, including naval transport vessels, debris from Japanese Imperial Navy destroyers and even personal items from soldiers such as helmets. +35 A United States M4 Sherman tank remains in shallow water off Chalan Kanoa beach in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Debris of a United States Naval transport vessel remains abondoned after being stranded in Nggela Islands, Solomon Islands The Pacific conflict, often referred to as the Pacific Theatre, was part of the Second World War where Japanese forces fought primarily against the US Navy, US Marine Corps and US Army. The UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and other Allied nations also contributed forces until a turning point in the war - the defeat of the Japanese at Guadalcanal in February 1943.  There were more than 41,000 US Army ground troop causalities, while the Marine Corps and Navy corpsmen suffered total casualties of 23,160.   In one image, the Japanese Imperial Navy destroyer Kikuzuki is seen partially sumberged at Tokyo Bay in Nggela Islands, Solomon Islands, with small mangrove trees growing from it. Another shows a US tank in shallow water off Chalan Kanoa beach in Saipan, in the Northern Mariana Islands, while the wing of an Imperial Japan fighter named 'Zero' is seen sticking up in the air in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, in the Solomon Islands.  +35 Mangrove trees grow from debris of the Japanese Imperial Navy destroyer Kikuzuki at Tokyo Bay in Nggela Islands, Solomon Islands +35 Pictured is debris of the Imperial Japan fighter 'Zero' in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, in the Solomon Islands +35 More debris of the Imperial Japan fighter 'Zero' in a jungle on Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 Local people are pictured playing near debris of the Japanese Imperial Navy transport vessel Kinugawa Maru at Tassafaronga beach in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 Debris of the Japanese Imperial Navy fighter A6M 'Zero' in a field on Pagan Island, Northern Mariana Islands +35 An aerial image showing a general view of a lone island in the Rock Islands in Palau +35 Another image of debris of the Imperial Japan fighter 'Zero' in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 The wing of the Imperial Japan fighter 'Zero' remains in thick jungle in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 A Type 96 15 cm howitzer used by the Imperial Japan Army is seen in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 A close-up of debris from the Imperial Japan fighter 'Zero' in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 An aerial view shows more debris from the Imperial Japan fighter 'Zero' remains in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 An aerial image showing various piers used by the Imperial Japanese Navy in Gavutu Island, Solomon Islands +35 A former prison used by Imperial Japan is seen at Garapan area in Saipan,  on the Northern Mariana Islands +35 More debris of the Imperial Japan fighter 'Zero' in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 An aerial image of Seventy Island in Palau, taken 75 years after the war with Imperial Japan started +35 An aerial image showing debris of the Japanese Imperial Navy fighter A6M 'Zero' in a field in Pagan Island, which is in the Northern Mariana Islands +35 Debris of the Japanese Imperial Navy destroyer Kikuzuki lies partially submerged at Tokyo Bay in Nggela Islands, Solomon Islands +35 A girl walks in a bunker at the Last command post in Saipan, which is in the Northern Mariana Islands +35 Debris of the United States Marine Corps amphibious tractor in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 In this aerial image showing debris of the Japanese Imperial Navy transport vessel Kinugawa Maru lies at Tassafaronga beach in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 An aerial image of debris of the Imperial Japan Navy Type Zero Reconnaissance Seaplane in shallow water in Solomon Islands +35 An aerial image showing the remains of the Japanese Imperial Navy destroyer Kikuzuki, lying in Tokyo Bay in the Solomon Islands +35 Debris of the United States Marine Corps amphibious tractors in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 An aerial view of debris from the Japanese Imperial Navy destroyer Kikuzuki lies at Tokyo Bay in Nggela Islands, Solomon Islands +35 Debris of Imperial Japan fighter 'Zero' remains in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 The Japanese Imperial Navy transport vessel Kinugawa Maru lies at Tassafaronga beach in Guadalcanal Island, in the Solomon Islands, to this day +35 Debris of the United States Marine Corps amphibious tractors in a jungle in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 A young mangrove tree grows amid the debris of the Japanese Imperial Navy destroyer Kikuzuki at Tokyo Bay in Nggela Islands, Solomon Islands +35 Pictured is a helmet sitting on a rock that was used by Imperial Japan soldier in a jungle in Barana, Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 A Type 96 15 cm howitzer used by Imperial Japan Army in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 An aerial image showing the Japanese Imperial Navy transport vessel Kinugawa Maru at Tassafaronga beach in Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands +35 Debris of the Japanese Imperial Navy destroyer Kikuzuki at Tokyo Bay in Nggela Islands, Solomon Islands The remains of the Japanese Imperial Navy transport vessel Kinugawa Maru lies at Tassafaronga beach

Tinian Invasion After the Battle of Saipan the 2nd and 4th Marine divisions invaded Tinian island two miles south. For the 2nd Marines this was the fourth beach invasion in 18 months. American naval warships and landing craft staged a fake landing on the southern beaches of Tinian, which was the only logical invasion location. The Japanese pulled troops from around Tinian and sent them south for their defense of the island. Troop transports then returned to a small beach in the north of Tinian where the Marines simply walked to shore. It was a near perfect beach invasion. Beach Bunker 3 A Japanese WWII bunker on invasion beach in Saipan. In the morning on June 15, 1944 tens of thousands of U.S. Marines landed on this beach at the start of the three week battle of Saipan.   Guam in the Mariana Islands is pictured on Jul. 27, 1944, during U.S./Japanese warfare March 10, 1945: U.S. troops in the Pacific islands continued to find enemy holdouts long after the main Japanese forces had either surrendered or disappeared. Guam was considered cleared by August 12, 1944, but parts of the island were still dangerous half a year later. Here, patrolling Marines pass a dead Japanese sniper. These Marines may belong to the Fifty-second Defense Battalion, one of two black units sent to the Pacific.   The precipice in the picture above is known as Suicide Cliff, off which over 20,000 Japanese civilians jumped to their deaths to comply with their fascist emperor's desire - mothers flinging their babies off the cliff first or in their arms as they jumped. Anyone reluctant or refused, such as the Okinawan or Korean slaves, were shoved off at gunpoint by the Jap soldiers.  Then the soldiers themselves proceeded to hurl themselves into the ocean to drown off a sea cliff afterwards called Banzai Cliff.  Of the 31,000 Japanese soldiers on Saipan , the Marines killed 25,000, 5,000 jumped off Banzai Cliff, and only the remaining thousand were taken prisoner. The extent of this demented fanaticism is very hard for any civilized mind to fathom - especially when it is devoted not to anything noble but barbarian evil instead.  The vast brutalities inflicted by the Japanese on their conquered and colonized peoples of China, Korea, the Philippines and throughout their "Greater East Asia   Near the Bird Sanctuary. Ashore on Saipan a Japanese soldier, member of the 9th Tank Regiment, wrote of the strike in his diary: At a little after 1300, I was awakened by the air raid alarm and immediately led all men into the trench. Scores of enemy Grumman fighters began strafing and bombing Aslito airfield and Garapan. For about two hours, the enemy planes ran amuck and finally left leisurely amidst the unparallelledly inaccurate antiaircraft fire. All we could do was watch helplessly. At night we went to extinguish the mountain fires which had been caused by gun fire. They were finally brought completely under control. In spite of the magnitude of the attack, the Japanese command on Saipan apparently did not realize on the 11th that this was the prologue to a full-size invasion. General Saito felt that in "the event of a battle occurring at the shore, there would be a great danger of the direction of the battle being hindered by an immediate interruption of communication.   Marines land on coral reefs during U.S./Japanese warfare, Guam, Mariana Islands, Jul. 21, 1944.

 

War Preparation by US Against

Russia and China:Marines Seek  Anti Ship HIMARS

A Marine Corps HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System)

For the first time since December 1941, when Wake Island’s shore gunners sank the invading destroyer Hayate, Marine Corps artillery wants to kill ships. That could be a big boost for the Navy, which confronts ever more powerful Russian and Chinese fleets.

Army artillery is also exploring anti-ship missiles, and the Marines may buy the same one. The difference is that it’s the Marines who work most closely with the Navy and who land in hostile territory to seize forward bases to support the fleet. That role makes Marines the first choice for the first wave, while the larger but slower Army provides backup.

Imperial Japanese Navy destroyer Hayate, destroyed by Marine Corps shore batteries off Wake Island in 1941.

It also means the Marines need a highly mobile system that can come ashore with the grunts and keep moving to evade retaliatory fire while staying connected to Navy fire control networks. That’s a much more demanding mission than static coastal defense, the role of most anti-ship missile batteries around the world from Norway to Japan.

While the Marines haven’t committed to buying anything yet, they have requested information papers from industry, due on Nov. 30th, exploring a wide range of options. It might be the Army’s ATACMs, the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile, or something else. Based on interviews with four Marine officials, however, it’s clear they’d prefer a missile that can be fired from their existing HIMARS launcher, the truck-based High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System. Why? Because even if the Marines buy the minimum of new equipment for this new mission, it’s going to be “incredibly expensive” and tactically challenging.

For a small service like the Marine Corps, anti-ship missiles are “incredibly expensive,” said Kevin McConnell, deputy director of fires and maneuver on the Marine’s Combat Development & Integration staff. “Even if you consider (doing) a coordinated procurement with the Navy, it still becomes something far larger….than anything we’ve ever undertaken for ground (forces).”

Army ATACMS missile launch.

A missile meant to find and a hit moving target, like a ship, is much more costly than one that just has to strike static GPS coordinates. Prices depend on variant and production run, but reported costs for the standard Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) missile, used by both the Marines and Army, range from about $100,000 to $200,000 a shot. The larger Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), fired from the same HIMARS and MLRS launchers, costs roughly $750,000 to $820,000. In contrast, McConnell told me, “your bottom-basement going rate on a Harpoon missile or a Naval Strike Missile is somewhere around $1.5 million.”

But buying the missile is just the start. You need to integrate it with a launcher, a fire control network and a supply chain. Don’t forget training and wargames and staff planning.

“This type of mission is well beyond anything Marine artillery currently does, so, in some regards, in my opinion, finding the right piece of ordnance is the easy part,” said Pete Dowsett, the senior analyst for HIMARS in the Fires program at Marine Corps Systems Command. “The more complicated part is the logistics tail… the training…how do those fire missions come from a sensor that we’re not normally linked to…. It’s a pretty complex problem.”

Above all, the Marines told me, their new anti-ship mission must work with and for the Navy. That requires “integration into the naval cooperative engagement network,” McConnell said. “I can’t fathom trying to locate and shoot at ships without the Navy running that show.”

A notional future naval battle (CSBA graphic)

Serving the Navy

For decades, the Navy has helped Marines land and fight ashore — as far inland as Afghanistan. Now the Marine Corps wants to return the favor by helping clear the seas.

Oshkosh Expects Lower Defense Revenue As JLTV Buying Slows

Even 10 years ago, the Navy didn’t need the help. Now it does. Regional powers like Iran threaten coastal waters with shore-based missiles and short-ranged but high-speed patrol boats. Near-peers like Russia and China boost their ocean-going battle fleets with submarines, destroyers, and even aircraft carriers.

“For the past 70 years, the US Navy has had undisputed sea control when it wanted. That’s no longer the case,” said Art Corbett, who works in the concepts division of the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory. For the Marines, he said, “the last time we fought for sea control with the Navy was the Solomons campaign” in 1942.

US and Russian warships

The two services’ joint concept for Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment (LOCE, pronounced “Loki”) is reviving this concept of Marines supporting the fleet. “Any time Marines are going to be pointing missiles seaward, we’re going to be doing this, probably, at the direction of and in coordination with the Navy,” Corbett said. “This is… a naval, networked capability.”

Sharing targeting data with the fleet, Marine Corps anti-ship missiles would be in many ways an extension of the Navy’s Distributed Lethality concept. Distributed Lethality seeks to upgun every possible platform at sea — “if it floats, it fights” — including lightweight Littoral Combat Ships and even currently unarmed auxiliaries, to multiply both the Navy’s options and an enemy’s problems.

The Marines would provide additional “distributed” firepower from Expeditionary Advance Bases. Carved out of hostile territory by landing forces, kept small and camouflaged to avoid enemy fire, EABs would support F-35B jump jets, V-22 tiltrotors, and drones, as well as anti-ship missiles for the fleet. It’s a high-tech version of Henderson Field on Guadalcanal (part of the Solomons) in 1942. Like Henderson Field, the EABs would provide a permanent presence ashore, inside the contested zone, to support Navy ships as they move in and out to raid and withdraw. The forces ashore are the anvil; the fleet is the hammer.

Shore-based anti-ship missiles wouldn’t be as mobile as ones on ships. But they might be more survivable. Islands don’t sink, after all. Plus, especially in jungle, mountainous, or urban terrain, the land provides far more hiding spaces for a truck-sized HIMARS than the open sea provides for a 400-foot-long ship. Once you launch a rocket, however, the enemy can see your location on radar and infra-red, so the missile batteries must practice “shoot and scoot” tactics: move to a firing point, launch, and move again to a hiding place before enemy retaliation rains down.

Executing such operations in practice, however, requires specialized and costly technology.

Land-based missiles fired from Expeditionary Advance Bases (EABs) could form a virtual wall against Chinese aggression (CSBA graphic)

Technology & Its Limitations

The good news is that lots of friendly countries already have shore-based anti-ship missiles. The bad news is they may not fit with how the Marine Corps wants to operate: mobile, flexible, and aggressive.

The Marine Corps Request For Information asks for the state of the art because “we know many nations around the Pacific, many in Europe…have all had this kind of capability for decades,” McConnell said. “We would like to make sure it aligns with the Marine Corps concepts of being expeditionary, being able to move at will and being transportable by a variety of means. That was the subject of the RFI.”

“Several nations…. have created this standalone capability,” McConnell said (emphasis ours). “They command and control the missile, the radars, the sensors, in a unit that (only) does that kind of mission, that is permanently oriented on — to use an old term — coastal defense.”

“That kind of exquisite solution” — tailored for a single mission — is probably too expensive and too inflexible for the Marines, McConnell continued. Neither the Marines nor the Army can create a whole new type of unit for “a niche capability,” he said. Instead, the goal is to add anti-ship capability to existing rocket artillery without taking away any of its current capabilities to strike targets ashore.

There are two ways to do this, said Joe McPherson, deputy program manager for fires (i.e. artillery) at Marine Corps Systems Command: “One is modifying our existing missiles and the other would be trying to attempt to bring in missiles that already do this mission.”

The LCS Coronado test-fires a new anti-ship missile from Norway’s Kongsberg.

Preferably, any new missile would be able to fire from the existing Army and Marine Corps launchers, the wheeled HIMARS and tracked MLRS. “I wouldn’t at this point exclude something like Raytheon-Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile,” said McConnell. “There is a potential that it’s capable of being modified to fire from a HIMARS.”

The Kongsberg NSM is competing for the Navy’s Over-The Horizon (OTH) weapon, which will go on the Littoral Combat Ship and future frigates. The Marines are working closely with the Navy, McPherson told me, and the specifications they’ve set are sufficiently close to the Marine Corps’ needs that “whatever missile they pick” is worth considering for a joint buy, which would significantly reduce costs.

Another potential joint buy is with the Army. In the short term, the Army and the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office are upgrading the ATACMS, the biggest missile the HIMARS and MLRS can launch, with a range of roughly 187 miles. The long-term solution might be the Army’s Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) missile, supposed to be be half the size with 67 percent more range.

However, the Marine Corps RFI only asks for “ranges of 80 miles or greater,” which means they are at least considering lighter, cheaper missiles that a unit could carry more of, trading range for staying power. The Marines are also willing to consider a less sophisticated and therefore less expensive warhead: one good enough to destroy small craft, like missile boats, and damage larger vessels, but probably unable to penetrate the defenses of a full-size warship with sufficient precision to deliver a killing blow.

Bryan Clark

“That might be the capability we end up with,” McConnell told me. “That might be enough.” (Especially, I might add, if Army units fire longer-ranged ATACMS or LRPF missiles from further back).

Would an 80-mile missile be useful? Absolutely, said Bryan Clark, a retired Navy commander now with the Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments. “The 80 (nautical mile) minimum range could be relevant in scenarios in the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean, and possibly the South China Sea,” all relatively narrow waterways, he said. “That would be enough to threaten ships beyond realistic ranges for enemy helicopters and assault craft to attack the EAB (in retaliation).”

The downside is that even an 80-mile missile would need a relatively large launcher, like the HIMARS, and despite having “High Mobility” in its name, Clark is not sure the 12-ton truck is mobile enough for Expeditionary Advance Base operations. (The tracked MLRS is more mobile over rough terrain but weighs 22 tons). “I hope responses to the RFI will address mobility of the fires launcher,” he said.

“The main thing we’re looking for is really what’s in the realm of the possible, both near-term solutions and far-term,” McPherson said of the RFI. Once the data comes back in December, the Marine officials said, they’ll look at their options and start work on an official requirement.

The Key to Success in War with Russia and China Could Be Missiles

For the foreseeable future, the United States and China are locked in a security competition. 

Here's What You Need to Know: Land-based missile batteries can threaten ships dozens or even hundreds of miles away.

Is There A War Brewing In The South China Sea?

Tensions in the South China Sea have been percolating for years now. Even in relatively calm times when the battling claimants of the contested waters manage to stay out of the headlines, the reality out on the sea is rarely tranquil. In fact, a recent report from the South China Morning Post has revealed that Chinese boats have been harassing Civilian vessels in the Malaysian and Vietnamese portions of the South China Sea “on a daily basis” for years.

Extending from Singapore and the Strait of Malacca in the southwest to the Strait of Taiwan in the northeast, the South China Sea is a geopolitical hotspot as one of the most important trade routes in the world, not to mention the home of valuable oil and gas reserves as well as lucrative fishing grounds. The United States Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that the South China Sea “contains approximately 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in proved and probable reserves.”

Huge, overlapping sections of the Sea are currently subject to claims by Brunei, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. China has staked the largest claims to the South China Sea (at more than 85% of the total area) and has been the most aggressive in defending these claims, with a huge show of military might and navy vessels patrolling the waters. Last year, during another flare-up of tensions, the Asia Times reported that China’s most recent rash of aggressions was a bid to shut down Vietnamese resource development projects “as Beijing aims to force all foreign oil companies out of the South China Sea, leaving itself as the only potential joint development partner for rival sea claimants.”

Vietnam is far from Beijing’s only victim, however. Indonesian drilling has also been targeted in the so-called “Tuna Block” in the Natuna Sea, in the same waters where these two nations have clashed in the past over fishing rights. And now, according to the recent reports from the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Malaysia has been bearing the brunt of Chinese bullying on a daily basis for the past two years. The Malaysian state-owned oil company Petronas has been developing several oil and gas fields in the Luconia Shoals, where Chinese vessels have been reportedly driving dangerously and erratically with the intention of dissuading civilians to take contracts in the area.

“Beijing’s competing claimants to territory in the South China Sea have long accused it of using a paramilitary maritime militia, consisting of hundreds of civilian fishing boats, to help enforce its claims,” The South China Morning Post reported this week. The Chinese government claims that these swaths of civilian fishing boats are not dispatched by the military, but that they join of their own accord, although many other governing bodies (including the United States) believe that the vessels are directly under the command of the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

An all-out oil war in the South China Sea would be extremely costly for China, and ultimately may not be in the country’s best interest. Invading another nation is costly, and in this region, the battle could easily turn into another kind of ‘forever war.” And then there’s the fact that China risks destruction in the very waters that it wants to claim, imperiling valuable infrastructure. There are a lot of reasons why China should not and likely will not push its competing claimants hard enough to start a war, and many more reasons that much lesser military powers like Malaysia and Indonesia should just grin and bear the abuse, but Beijing’s behavior over the past few years has shown that China is more than willing to test those boundaries.

Pentagon rattled by Chinese military push on multiple fronts

China’s growing military muscle and its drive to end America predominance in the Asia-Pacific is rattling the U.S. defense establishment. American officials see trouble quickly accumulating on multiple fronts — Beijing’s expanding nuclear arsenal, its advances in space, cyber and missile technologies, and threats to Taiwan.

“The pace at which China is moving is stunning,” says Gen. John Hyten, the No. 2-ranking U.S. military officer, who previously commanded U.S. nuclear forces and oversaw Air Force space operations.

At stake is a potential shift in the global balance of power that has favored the United States for decades. A realignment more favorable to China does not pose a direct threat to the United States but could complicate U.S. alliances in Asia. New signs of how the Pentagon intends to deal with the China challenge may emerge in coming weeks from Biden administration policy reviews on nuclear weapons, global troop basing and overall defense strategy.
- ADVERTISEMENT -


For now, officials marvel at how Beijing is marshaling the resources, technology and political will to make rapid gains — so rapid that the Biden administration is attempting to reorient all aspects of U.S. foreign and defense policy.

The latest example of surprising speed was China’s test of a hypersonic weapon capable of partially orbiting Earth before reentering the atmosphere and gliding on a maneuverable path to its target. The weapon system’s design is meant to evade U.S. missile defenses, and although Beijing insisted it was testing a reusable space vehicle, not a missile, the test appeared to have startled U.S. officials.

What war with China could look like

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the test was “very close” to being a Sputnik moment, akin to the 1957 launching by the Soviet Union of the world’s first space satellite, which caught the world by surprise and fed fears the United States had fallen behind technologically. What followed was a nuclear arms and space race that ultimately bankrupted the Soviet Union.

Milley and other U.S. officials have declined to discuss details of the Chinese test, saying they are secret. He called it “very concerning” for the United States but added that problems posed by China’s military modernization run far deeper.

“That’s just one weapon system,” he said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “The Chinese military capabilities are much greater than that. They’re expanding rapidly in space, in cyber and then in the traditional domains of land, sea and air.”

On the nuclear front, private satellite imagery in recent months has revealed large additions of launch silos that suggest the possibility that China plans to increase its fleet of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs.

Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, says China appears to have about 250 ICBM silos under construction, which he says is more than 10 times the number in operation today. The U.S. military, by comparison, has 400 active ICBM silos and 50 in reserve.

Pentagon officials and defense hawks on Capitol Hill point to China’s modernization as a key justification for rebuilding the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a project expected to cost more than $1 billion over 30 years, including sustainment costs.

Fiona Cunningham, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and a specialist in Chinese military strategy, says a key driver of Beijing’s nuclear push is its concerns about U.S. intentions.

“I don’t think China’s nuclear modernization is giving it a capability to pre-emptively strike the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and that was a really important generator of competition during the Cold War,” Cunningham said in an online forum sponsored by Georgetown University. “But what it does do is to limit the effectiveness of U.S. attempts to pre-emptively strike the Chinese arsenal.”

Some analysts fear Washington will worry its way into an arms race with Beijing, frustrated at being unable to draw the Chinese into security talks. Congress also is increasingly focused on China and supports a spending boost for space and cyber operations and hypersonic technologies. There is a push, for example, to put money in the next defense budget to arm guided-missile submarines with hypersonic weapons, a plan initiated by the Trump administration.

For decades, the United States tracked China’s increased defense investment and worried that Beijing was aiming to become a global power. But for at least the last 20 years, Washington was focused more on countering al-Qaida and other terrorist threats in Iraq and Afghanistan. That began to change during the Trump administration, which in 2018 formally elevated China to the top of the list of defense priorities, along with Russia, replacing terrorism as the No. 1 threat.

Combined Russian and Chinese military power will approach, but not exceed US: report

For now, Russia remains a bigger strategic threat to the United States because its nuclear arsenal far outnumbers China’s. But Milley and others say Beijing is a bigger long-term worry because its economic strength far exceeds that of Russia, and it is rapidly pouring resources into military modernization.

At the current pace of China’s military investment and achievement, Beijing “will surpass Russia and the United States” in overall military power in coming years “if we don’t do something to change it,” said Hyten, who is retiring in November after two years as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “It will happen.”

The Biden administration says it is determined to compete effectively with China, banking on a network of allies in Asia and beyond that are a potential source of strength that Beijing cannot match. That was central to the reasoning behind a Biden decision to share highly sensitive nuclear propulsion technologies with Australia, enabling it to acquire a fleet of conventionally armed submarines to counter China. Although this was a boost for Australia, it was a devastating blow to Washington’s oldest ally, France, which saw its $66 billion submarine sale to Australia scuttled in the process.

Taiwan is another big worry. Senior U.S. military officers have been warning this year that China is probably accelerating its timetable for capturing control of Taiwan, the island democracy widely seen as the most likely trigger for a potentially catastrophic U.S.-China war.

The United States has long pledged to help Taiwan defend itself, but it has deliberately left unclear how far it would go in response to a Chinese attack. President Joe Biden appeared to abandon that ambiguity when he said Oct. 21 that America would come to Taiwan’s defense if it were attacked by China.

“We have a commitment to do that,” Biden said. The White House later said he was not changing U.S. policy, which does not support Taiwanese independence but is committed to providing defensive arms.