IC4’s Strategy for Transforming Network Resourcing and Cybersecurity
In an era defined by peer competition and ubiquitous information, the ability to decide and act faster than the adversary is the central requirement for victory. Recognizing this, the Information Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (IC4) for Headquarters Marine Corps drafted a Deputy Commandant of Information strategy to transform the Marine Corps’ approach to network operations and cybersecurity. The blueprint for this transformation is the Marine Corps Cyberspace Environment (MCCE) Convergence Strategy, a focused effort to build a communications and cybersecurity ecosystem that is more lethal, connected, and capable of enabling command and control in the most complex and contested environments.
For years, the Marine Corps has operated a collection of purpose-built networks and information systems. While effective for their intended functions, these systems often created information silos, fragmented environments where data could not be easily defended. This stove-piped architecture limits situational awareness, slows decision making, and inhibits the Corps’ ability to fully leverage its information-gathering assets. In a modern conflict, where victory is measured in seconds, these limitations present an unacceptable risk.
The MCCE Convergence Strategy directly addresses this challenge and is IC4’s contribution to Force Design and Project Dynamis Pillar 1. It is not a single program or a new piece of technology but rather a guiding vision for a multi-year effort. The strategy aims to converge the disparate elements of the MCCE into a single, data-centric ecosystem. The goal is to ensure that critical information is visible, accessible, understandable, and trustworthy for any Marine, on any device, in any clime and place. This article, based on the drafted foundational strategy, will outline the core logic, guiding principles, and intended outcomes of this essential transformation.
Defining the MCCE
The Marine Corps Information Environment Enterprise is an ecosystem of people, processes, and systems that together provide capabilities that connect users with data to accomplish a mission, unifying organizations, data, and processes across both classified and unclassified networks. The MCCE is the Marine Corps’ specific portion of the larger DOD information network. The MCCE encompasses all Marine Corps information systems used for collecting, processing, storing, and transmitting information on all network classifications, and it includes the cyber elements of the Marine Corps Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Enterprise. This enterprise is composed of various components, including programs of record, tactical networks, the Marine Corps Enterprise Network, extensions to commercial cloud providers, and Commercial Solutions for Classified, among others.
Flexibility, survivability, and unity of effort in cyberspace are undermined by our current approach. (Figure provided by authors.)
The Strategic Imperative: Why Convergence is Necessary
The modern battlespace is information-saturated. Adversaries employ sophisticated methods to contest the electromagnetic spectrum, cyberspace, and the information environment itself. To succeed, the Marine Corps must achieve and maintain information advantage, a state where the friendly force can exploit a persistent and decisive information superiority over the enemy. The current C4 architecture, however, was not designed for the speed and complexity of this environment.
The Marine Corps’ ability to provide assured command and control (C2) is at significant risk due to a fragmented MCCE management approach. This fragmentation creates a cascade of problems that jeopardize Service-level compliance and resourcing, and it fuels misaligned investments and engineering efforts that hinder operational success. When seconds matter, our forces struggle to share common operating pictures and targeting data, creating self-imposed limitations that our pacing threats are positioned to exploit. This challenge is set to intensify, as departments increase mandates for advanced capabilities, such as artificial intelligence and Combined Joint All Domain Command and Control.
The Vision: A United, Federated Information Environment Poised to Support Global Operations
The central vision of the MCCE Convergence Strategy is the creation of a unified digital ecosystem with assured access to capabilities spanning from undersea to orbit. By integrating diverse networks, from garrison to the tactical edge, into a seamless platform, it will connect Marines across every warfighting domain. This comprehensive approach is aligned with five strategic themes.
(Figure provided by authors.)
The Five Strategic Themes
The MCCE Convergence is built upon five interconnected themes that guide its implementation. First, it will provide commanders assured C2 across warfighting functions, enabling rapid decision-making at every echelon. Second, it will adopt modern cybersecurity principles and capabilities by increasing visibility and automation to allow for timely incident response. Third, the plan will standardize governance for C2 and the operation of the MCCE with clear lines of authority. Fourth, it will optimize the application of resources to provide ready and mature capabilities to the total force by realigning personnel and funding. Finally, it will modernize communications forces and training to ensure Marines and their formations are prepared for the future fight.
The Way Forward: End State and Immediate Action
The end state is clear: a unified, federated information environment poised to support global operations. Whether coordinating fires, sharing data, or enabling supporting establishment functions, Marines will have secure, reliable access to the digital capabilities they need to fight and win. While detailed implementation guidance is forthcoming, the work has already begun. Critical initiatives to modernize transport infrastructure, implement the Zero Trust Framework, unify the Marine Corps Enterprise Network, and modernize the communications occupational field and its formations are already being executed to secure immediate gains while the full transformation roadmap is developed.
The ultimate outcome of this strategy will be a Marine Corps that is better equipped for the challenges of the 21st century. By breaking down information silos and creating a united, data-centric C4 ecosystem, the MCCE Convergence Strategy will empower Marines at every level. It will shorten the kill chain, enhance situational awareness, and provide commanders with the information advantage needed to out-maneuver and defeat any adversary. It is a foundational effort that will ensure the Marine Corps remains the Nation’s premier expeditionary force in readiness for years to come.
The MCCE Convergence Strategy. (Graphic provided by authors.)
>As the driving force behind MCCE Convergence, this Information Command, Control, Communications and Computers branch develops the vision, strategy, and policy for future communications, governs the Marine Corps Tactical Grid, and serves as the primary interface between Headquarters Marine Corps and Operational Force Communicators, ensuring MAGTF’s continued command, control, communications, and computers operational effectiveness.
A task force staff deployed a workflow agent to reduce friction across planning and sustainment. It lived in a developer’s toolchain, connected through a remote tool server, and could pull data, draft products, open tickets, and route approvals. For weeks, it worked flawlessly until an urgent sustainment action arrived during a high-tempo period.
The agent read the plan, selected a task, and initiated a chain of actions: vendor research, draft language, routing, and packet generation. The packet arrived looking complete, the routing looked normal, and the staff trusted the system’s prior performance. Under pressure, reliable substituted for verified. The agent was not malicious. It was over-permissioned.
Months earlier, broad roles were granted to get the prototype working. They were never removed. Credentials were cached. Privileges were inherited. When the agent encountered a compromised input, it did not need sophistication. It needed only standing access. The resulting actions were technically successful and operationally damaging because no one could answer the continuous accountability question: who authorized this action, on whose behalf, with which privileges, at that moment?
The command paused execution to validate outputs. Intelligence provenance became suspect. Sustainment actions were rolled back, and then the audit questions arrived, simple questions with no defensible answers about ownership, authorization basis, and least-privilege evidence.
The lesson landed: warfighting credibility and financial credibility now rise and fall together, and both depend on identity governance.
Argument
Multi-domain operations depends on decision advantage at machine speed, but machine speed also amplifies the oldest problem in warfare: authority without accountability. Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) introduces a surge of non-human identities, delegated tool calls, and cross-domain connectors that make identity and access the new control plane of operations. Winning in this environment requires treating human and non-human identities as warfighting infrastructure and governing them through an identity-centric approach anchored in Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM), Zero Trust, and continuous auditability.
Supporting Argument 1. The Pattern: Same Attack, New Control Plane
Across technology waves, the exploit pattern stays consistent. Adversaries don’t break in, they login. What changes are where “login” occurs and how fast it propagates.
Evidence 1. Agentic AI accelerates non-human identity sprawl: one “agent” becomes many identities across platforms, toolchains, and workflows.
This is not a niche cyber issue; it is an operational risk because permissions become the fuel that turns benign automation into uncontrollable action. The risk is not intelligent agents. The risk is agents with forgotten permissions.
Evidence 2. Agentic AI does not introduce a new class of threat so much as it compresses multiple historic lessons into one operational reality:
• The insider-risk lesson (Snowden as a reference model): Trusted access plus weak governance yields catastrophic data compromise, often with no “break-in.”
• The corruption-and-oversight lesson (Fat Leonard as a reference model): Opaque processes and weak accountability create seams where influence, fraud, and mission distortion thrive.
Agentic systems widen both seams simultaneously because delegated, tool-driven actions can look procedurally valid while bypassing the intent of policy.
Supporting Argument 2. What Changed: Agents Behave Like Non-Deterministic Operators
Agents are AI systems that can autonomously plan and execute complex tasks. Unlike workflows (defined paths), agentic behavior is open-ended and difficult to predict. That unpredictability collides with traditional identity and access management, which was designed for humans, static roles, and session-based tokens.
Evidence 3. In an agentic environment, three things are consistently true:
• The identity surface area explodes. Agents call tools, tools call services, services call APIs—each hop can carry a distinct credential.
• The delegation chain becomes the attack chain. If provenance and authorization basis aren’t captured, accountability collapses.
• Static identity and access management breaks down. Coarse permissions cannot express runtime intent, and audit trails fail to capture the true authorization basis.
This is why governance must shift from point-in-time access to continuous validation: identity behavior over time, contextual access decisions, and enforcement that follows the agent.
Supporting Argument 3. Identity-Centric Warfare and the Warfighting Functions
Identity-centric warfare is the deliberate use and governance of identity, credentials, and access as operational instruments.
Evidence 4. It maps cleanly to the warfighting functions:
• Command and Control: Identity determines who can see, decide, and direct at speed. If identities are not governed, command and control devolves into “trust me” operations.
• Intelligence: Collection and dissemination depend on assured identity and authoritative sources. Agents that pull, summarize, and route intel must be attributable and constrained.
• Fires: Digital authorities gate kinetic and non-kinetic effects. Uncontrolled delegation becomes uncontrolled fires, especially where target data and authorities traverse tools.
• Movement and Maneuver: Access to navigation, timing, logistics systems, and mission apps depends on trust signals that increasingly must be machine-speed.
• Protection: Zero Trust is protection doctrine for the digital fight, never trust, always verify; least privilege; micro-segmentation; real-time monitoring.
• Sustainment: Identity governs contracting actions, supply workflows, and service access. Sustainment is where speed meets accountability and where fraud exploits seams.
Multi-domain operations require convergence across domains and partners; convergence requires trust at machine speed; identity is how the Joint Force measures and enforces trust.
Supporting Argument 4. ICAM: The Governance Spine for Warfighting and Auditability
Identity, Credential, and Access Management is the set of enterprise capabilities that establish trusted identities (human and non-human), issue and manage credentials, and enforce auditable access decisions across systems.
Evidence 5. In the Agentic Age, ICAM enables:
• Identity proofing and authoritative identity data (people, Services, agents, non-person entities).
• Credential issuance and lifecycle management (including revocation).
• Federation and interoperability across organizations and environments.
• Audit-ready logging and accountability that ties actions to authority.
This is where an “additional element” becomes equal to warfighting: the ability to pass an unmodified audit opinion. Auditability is not administrative overhead; it is institutional legitimacy. If the Department cannot prove who acted, with what authority, for what purpose, it cannot credibly govern itself under stress. In today’s climate of transparency and accountability, that is a strategic liability.
A workflow agent—an AI identity—with improper permissions can lead to technically successful but operationally damaging actions on the battlefield. (Photo by Cpl Ryan Ramsammy.)
Conclusion
Multi-domain operations demands convergence at speed, but speed without governance is a liability. Agentic AI is forcing a return to fundamentals: authority, accountability, and control. Identity-centric warfare recognizes that identity is now the control plane of modern operations—and ICAM is the governance spine that makes trust enforceable across humans, systems, and agents.
The decisive advantage will not belong solely to the force that automates fastest. It will belong to the force that can prove continuously who is acting, with what authority, for what purpose, and under what constraints. That is how the Department preserves operational trust and earns an unmodified audit opinion in the agentic age.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
>Capt Rosario is a Cyberspace Warfare Officer and is currently serving at Headquarters Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Information, Information Command, Control, Communications, and Computers–Compliance Chief Information Officer Section as the Technology Integration Officer overseeing Identity, Credentialing, and Access Management across the Marine Corps.
Sgt Jones is a member of a Marine littoral regiment reconnaissance team, operating deep within the adversary’s weapons engagement zone. He identifies a time-sensitive surface threat. The targeting data is perfect, captured with high fidelity, yet it remains a fleeting digital image on a single screen. To act on this intelligence requires Sgt Jones to exit one application, manually transcribe coordinates into another, and then pray that a voice call can find its way over a strained satellite link so he can verbally pass information that there was no option to enter digitally. In the precious minutes this takes, the opportunity is lost, and Sgt Jones’ transmissions have compromised his position.
This is not a hypothetical scenario; it is the central warfighting challenge of our era. It is the precise reason that Marine Forces Cyberspace Command, by direction of the Commandant, has issued the MCCE Battlespace C2 Execution Order, formally operationalizing the Marine Corps’ transition to a new way of thinking about and codifying major subordinate commands’ boundaries and responsibilities across secure, operate, and defend missions. It is the reason that the Deputy Commandant for Information published the Marine Corps Transport Strategy in 2025, and the reason that Information, Command, Control, Communications, and Computers is developing the Marine Corps Cyberspace Environment (MCCE) Convergence Strategy. We are moving beyond the theory of data-centricity and into the hard, practical work of execution.
The Problem
The problem is clear; data silos degrade operational effectiveness in a multi-domain conflict. Limited means of data transport outside the silo degrade effectiveness by creating artificial limitations within command-and-control systems. The Service’s traditional approach to acquisition and procurement of weapon systems, command-and-control platforms, sensing capabilities, and data systems has built data stovepipes into the ecosystem, where manual transcription is still sometimes the solution for passing data between systems. Proprietary hardware and software for prototypes and programs of record do not seamlessly integrate into the larger Service transport, and the data ecosystem’s slow transmission of information to speeds renders even the most exquisite sensing and engagement systems useless in denied, degraded, intermittent, or limited connectivity environments. The lag, as online gamers would call it, that this creates in the chain from sensed to targeted to engaged will only continue to degrade the effectiveness of kill webs.
The Solution
The solution is two-pronged. To enable concurrent, decentralized operations envisioned by our (not so) future operating concepts, the Marine Corps must re-architect its digital battlespace from a collection of disconnected systems into a cohesive environment where information moves across systems and enclaves at machine speed. These strategies are not static concepts; they are being actively implemented by the Service. The Marine Corps is already making this a reality through two key, interconnected strategies. The MCCE Convergence Strategy provides the blueprint for a seamless hybrid cloud ecosystem, the destination for our data and the home for our warfighting apps. The Marine Corps Transport Strategy builds the foundational highway to get it there, creating a single, agnostic transport layer to fuel the entire ecosystem with data. Together, they provide the vision to enable decision dominance.
Simultaneously, the Marine Corps must adapt its acquisition and procurement strategies to reinforce this vision. Internal progress is not enough; the Service must ensure that every dollar spent and system procured actively align to and supports a data-centric model. This will require sending a clear, consistent demand signal to our industry partners.
For Marine littoral regiment reconnaissance teams to report in real time without compromising themselves requires the Corps to remove artificial limitations within command-and-control systems. (Photo by Cpl Ernesto Lagunes)
Demand Signal for Change
The Marine Corps cannot achieve this vision alone. Efforts and progress made through efforts like Marine Corps Enterprise Network Unification, Sensing the MCCE, and other Deputy Commandant for Information and Marine Forces Cyberspace Command initiatives demonstrate the Service’s resolve. Despite this progress, the problem requires a demand signal to be sent to the Service’s industry partners. The statement is this: To achieve decision dominance and fight and win, this is what we need and this is what we will prioritize.
We need to embrace data sharing. We will prioritize and procure systems that serve as nodes within our broader ecosystem. Systems that silo their data and require additional effort to integrate into our enterprise will be at a competitive disadvantage.
We need to embrace agnostic transport. Your systems must be engineered to connect seamlessly to our unified transport infrastructure. We are building the highway; your products must be able to use the standardized on-ramp, fit in the lane, and comply with safety and operational requirements. Cars without blinkers, headlights, and seatbelts will not be allowed.
We need to compete on capability, not on data hoarding. We need applications and analytics that work together to build situational awareness and accelerate decision-making. Your competitive advantage will now be judged by how well your system shares and enriches data for the entire kill web, not by its ability to perform a single function in isolation.
Conclusion
With the principles from this statement in mind, we are moving this vision from theory to practice. The question for our industry partners is no longer about understanding our vision but about having the agility and foresight to align with its implementation. The partners who embrace their new role as application providers on a common platform will be the ones who help us deliver victory in the information-driven conflicts of the future.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
>Maj Raymond is is a Supply Officer serving his Data Systems Management Officer payback tour at Headquarters Marine Corps, Deputy Commandant for Information, Information Command, Control, Communication, and Computers.
>Maj Wleklinski is is a Cyberspace Warfare Officer and Data Systems Management Officer currently serving at HQMC, Deputy Commandant for Information, Information Command, Control, Communication, and Computers.
The Marine Corps has mastered the kill chain—finding, targeting, and engaging threats—through constant innovation in fires and maneuver. Yet, the logistics chain that sustains those operations remains underdeveloped. The Corps still lacks the doctrine, culture, and training mechanisms to command and control sustainment with the same rigor as combat functions.
Logistics too often becomes an afterthought. Resupply plans go unrehearsed, timelines drift, and the tempo collapses when sustainment fails. The absence of standardized logistics control measures and overlays on the Common Operational Picture (COP) prevents timely decisions about resupply, risk, and the protection of critical units. Meanwhile, the logistics combat element (LCE) generally operates without a clearly enforced training and readiness sustainment, leaving Marines underprepared for convoy operations involving live-fire and night maneuvers. This reflects a lingering bias that treats logistics as secondary to combat arms—an assumption incompatible with modern war.
As the 39th Commandant warned, contested logistics is now a top priority: the Corps must “close and sustain the force” in a communications-degraded, threat-heavy environment. We must move beyond merely supporting maneuver to making logistics a driving force that enables it. As Col Angell and Mark Schouten wrote, “Tactical prowess is irrelevant for a force that cannot get to the fight or lacks the material to endure.”1
This article proposes four lines of effort (LOEs) that will better enable logistics units and logisticians to catch up to other elements of the MAGTF we are supporting in all phases of an operation—from planning throughout execution. The purpose is to conduct business as deliberately, rehearsed, and agile as the kill chain itself: • Rehearse sustainment as you rehearse fires. • Make sustainment visible and controllable on the COP. • Train the LCE like an aviation squadron. • Institutionalize the logistics support playbook.
Together, these efforts will transform the sustainment of the MAGTF from a passive tail getting proverbially left in the dust into the proactive combat system as designed.
LOE 1: Rehearse Sustainment as You Rehearse Fires
In the Marine Corps, nothing is “ready” until it is rehearsed. Fire-support teams walk through calls-for-fire; maneuver units practice schemes of maneuver to friction-proof execution. Yet, logistics rehearsals remain rare. During MAGTF Warfighting Exercise 1-25, for example, the LCE operations officer was told to “hurry along” so more time could be given to the fires discussion. The result was brilliant maneuver plans that faltered when fuel, water, or medical evacuation failed to align. A concept of logistics support written in an order is meaningless unless commanders and logisticians walk through it together. Rehearsing sustainment at confirmation briefs and rehearsal of concept drills exposes critical gaps: Where are the resupply points? What are the unmasking criteria or decision authorities for redirecting support? How do logistics units conduct link-ups in a communications-degraded environment? Such questions belong at every rehearsal table.
Every field exercise should integrate sustainment rehearsals alongside tactical ones, using realistic injects such as casualty evacuation, link-up between supporting and supported units, and no-communications plans. Commanders should discuss the criteria to unmask logistics and make this known across the formation. Is it the supported company commanders’ authority to push forward a low-density, high-value logistics formation? Is
“The history of war proves that nine out of ten times an army has been destroyed because its supply lines have been cut off.” –GEN Douglas MacArthur
survivability more important than supporting the supported unit—how and who makes these risk-based decisions? These questions must be addressed with commanders across the MAGTF discussing decision-making criteria and authorities. Rehearsing sustainment with the same intensity as fires signals a cultural shift: logistics is part of the fight, not an administrative detail. The outcome is a MAGTF that fights with confidence, knowing the logistical links will hold fast and or support across is understood.
LOE 2: Make Sustainment Visible and Controllable on the COP
Today’s operations centers display impressive digital maps of maneuver units and fires. Yet, too often, logistics is invisible—convoys, refuel points, casualty collection sites are absent from the picture. Without that visibility, commanders are having difficulty with command and control of logistics formations as evidenced by the Marine Corps Logistics Operations Group during MAGTF warfighting exercise and other collective training events. Further, MAGTF headquarters often struggled to locate dispersed convoys or distribution sites. Leaders could not answer the simplest questions: How much water remains? When is the next resupply mission scheduled? This uncertainty paralyzed tempo. As MCDP 4 reminds us, “Logistics visibility provides insight on reach and endurance … shaping decisions to adjust tasks, priorities, and resources.”2 You cannot protect or maneuver what you cannot see or control—or it becomes unnecessarily difficult to communicate perceived air superiority to desperate units.
A logistics overlay—updated and layered onto the main COP—turns sustainment into a controllable system. Logistics-oriented tactical control measures, like rapid resupply points, ambulance exchange points, and other critical areas, should appear on every COP. When an infantry commander can plan around their next resupply, they can develop courses of action that are feasible and prevent culmination, as logistics is intended. In one MAGTF warfighting exercise instance, once LCE movements were plotted, the GCE coordinated fires to shield a convoy under threat—saving the sustainment flow from interdiction.
Technology can help. Emerging “LOGCOP” tools fuse data on convoy locations, stock levels, and maintenance status using real-time data. The goal is secure, near-real-time sustainment visibility without revealing positions to the enemy. However, the procedures matter more than the software: standardized logistics tactical control measures, clear update cycles, and mandatory log-status reporting must become habitual across the MAGTF. Commanders must enforce the importance of Logistics Status, akin to positional reports, to support the timely application of fires.
Once visible, sustainment becomes controllable. Commanders can dynamically redirect convoys, shift resupply priorities, or activate contingency routes. Logistics thus becomes a maneuver system—one that sets the fight’s tempo rather than merely trailing behind it.
LOE 3: Train the LCE Like an Aviation Squadron
While deployed as part of the 13th MEU embarked aboard the USS Makin Island on the WESTPAC 23.1 deployment, we observed the strict training and readiness standards, deck qualification landings, or night qualifications of the air combat element and asked why this does not exist in the LCE? This discipline ensures combat readiness. Yet, no equivalent culture exists for logistics formations. Too often, LCE units spend training time on administrative or garrison tasks rather than tactical proficiency.
Doctrinally, “effective logistics depends on continuous, challenging, integrated training.”3 However, many logisticians reach major exercises having never executed a live-fire convoy or having conducted night convoy operations. Yet, we can generally all agree that there is a need for logistics units to conduct force protection and conduct movement using the concealment of night. Why is it that we can track individual training like combat and physical fitness tests or cyber awareness, yet we do not know if our sustainment interval is maintained for operating crew-served weapons and driving vehicles at night? Both are critical individual tasks required to accomplish the collective tasks associated with the assigned mission of the LCE. The LCE formations must treat logistics as a warfighting formation, not a service provider, and begin tracking these intervals during weekly command meetings—like command and staff or review via existing systems such as the Marine Corps Training Information Management System. When logistics Marines train like aviators—constantly evaluated, continuously improving—the result is a force that can maneuver, survive, and sustain under pressure. In a peer fight, there will be no safe rear area.
LOE 4: The Logistics Support Playbook
Even with rehearsed plans and trained units, combat chaos will disrupt communications and command. To thrive amid that friction, logisticians need tools that enable rapid, decentralized execution. The logistics support playbookis one such tool: a menu of pre-planned, flexible sustainment “plays” that can be executed with minimal comms—analogous to a fire-support matrix for logistics.
MCDP 4 emphasizes that maneuver warfare demands “flexibility and agility in our logistics plans … ensuring logistics itself does not become a critical vulnerability.”4 The playbook builds that flexibility by pre-deciding how to act when the unexpected occurs. It also enables the discussion between the supported and supporting units to conduct quick and detailed planning to enable link-up during execution.
Each “play” is a predetermined package of support or contingency action, rehearsed and encoded for quick execution. Suppose a battalion burns through ammunition repelling an ambush. Instead of drafting a long request, it transmits a simple code: “7-Eleven Option 1 execute.” Everyone already knows what that means—perhaps a six-pallet resupply of 155 mm, water, and MREs.
The LCE immediately launches the designated convoy “Lucky” to the pre-set linkup grid. A single burst transmission accomplishes what would normally take multiple messages.
These plays compress decision cycles, sustain tempo, and enable initiative at the lowest level. They embody mission tactics—allowing subordinate leaders to act within the commander’s intent even when cut off. Developing the playbook requires deliberate staff work. MAGTF planners identify likely sustainment challenges—emergency casualty evacuation, mobile fuel runs, alternate routes—and craft shorthand solutions. Each play includes triggers, responsibilities, and code words. Plays are standardized, disseminated, and rehearsed across the force. Used in the same manner as we observe any given Sunday.
The Marine Corps can perfect its kill chain, but without an equally disciplined sustainment chain, combat power will grind to a halt.
Like immediate-action drills, playbook codes do not restrict flexibility—they empower it. Because decisions are front-loaded, Marines can act faster when friction strikes. Training cycles should validate these plays, including emission control and degraded-comms scenarios. RAND analysis supports this approach: distributed operations require sustainment forces to “operate effectively with inconsistent communications.”5 The playbook provides precisely that capability. It also aligns with Force Design 2030 and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations concepts, emphasizing distributed, autonomous sustainment. Commanders, depending on the command relationships, must trust subordinates to execute playbook codes without seeking permission. That trust converts logistics from a centrally managed process into a responsive network. Like a well-drilled football team executing an audible, a MAGTF using its logistics playbook can adjust instantly—maintaining tempo given the anticipated fog and friction as part of the nature of war.
Logistics is commonly referred to as the linchpin of maneuver warfare. The Marine Corps can perfect its kill chain, but without an equally disciplined sustainment chain, combat power will grind to a halt. The four LOEs outlined here chart a path forward: rehearse sustainment like fires; make it visible and controllable on the COP; train logisticians to the same warfighting standard as aviators; and institutionalize the Logistics Support Playbook to thrive in degraded conditions.
These reforms rely upon and demand leadership emphasis, doctrinal updates, and cultural change. They require time, resources, and persistence. But their payoff is immense: a MAGTF capable of sustaining itself in any clime and place, with logistics functioning not as a vulnerability but as a decisive weapon system. To win tomorrow’s fight, the Marine Corps must go beyond the kill chain—and command and control logistics as deliberately as it commands and controls firepower.
Featured Photo (Top):An accurate logistics COP can ensure visibility of critical classes of supply including bulk fuel.(Photo provided by Cpl Eric Allen.)
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Col Zimmerman is a Logistics Officer and is currently serving as the Commanding Officer of Combat Logistics Regiment 17, 1st Marine Logistics Group.
Maj Zimmer is a Logistics Officer currently serving as a Faculty Advisor at the Marine Corps Logistics Operations Group.
NOTES:
1. Col Aaron Angell and Jeff Schouten, “Leveraging Logistics above the MAGTF,” Marine Corps Gazette 107, No. 3 (2024).
There is a conversation we must have as a Corps. It is a difficult, uncomfortable conversation that strikes at the heart of our culture, our expectations, and the future of our warfighting readiness. In my estimation, there is a perfect storm gathering on the horizon, a storm that is now approaching our bases and stations. The collision of our necessary and ambitious modernization with the brutal reality of our fiscal constraints has brought us to a breaking point with facilities. We can no longer afford what we have, let alone what we say we need.
Installations serve as the crucible where Marines are forged and prepared for combat, providing the critical infrastructure for training, equipping, and deploying our forces. Failure to invest in these platforms directly compromises our ability to project power and deter aggression. Realistic training environments that simulate the complexities of modern warfare are essential, including ranges equipped with advanced targetry, urban training facilities, and cyber ranges. Investment in live, virtual, and constructive training capabilities allows Marines to hone their skills across varied, realistic scenarios, preparing them for the multi-domain battlefield they will face. This is the reason we exist; however, none of this can be accomplished without power, water, wastewater, and other basic utilities. Likewise, our commitment to warrior and family readiness through adequate housing, healthcare, and support services is not a luxury. A positive living environment is a necessity that directly impacts training, morale, and our ability to recruit and retain the high-caliber Marines and families that our Nation requires.
For two decades, as a Corps, we made the right and necessary choices. We prioritized the immediate needs of the warfighter in Iraq and Afghanistan, ensuring they had the weapons, armor, and technology to win on the battlefield. We consciously accepted risk in our installations portfolio, leveraging sustainment, restoration, and modernization funds to pay for urgent operational requirements. This was the correct answer at the time, but the installations bill is now due. The accumulated debt from years of deferred maintenance has collided with a perfect storm of external pressures: staggering inflation, a strategic pivot to the highly expensive Pacific theater, and the necessary, but costly, demands of accelerated Force Design modernization. The result is a fiscal crisis that threatens the very foundation of our readiness. As Marines, we must face this problem, attack, and win.
The challenge before us is not academic; it is a clear danger to our warfighting ability. The gap between what our installations require and the resources we receive is no longer a gap; it is a chasm. Analysis reveals an average shortfall of 55 percent between the requirement and the budget received for our facilities. Compounding this, military construction costs have exploded by an average of 30 percent since 2020, while unpredictable budget cycles and continuing resolutions have made long-term planning an exercise in futility. We are being asked to do more with less, but the laws of physics and finance are unforgiving.
The consequences of this resource crisis are not abstract. They are visible in the crumbling interior conditions of our barracks and the at-risk electrical grids that threaten our high-tech training simulators. The Marine Corps faces a $28 billion backlog in deferred maintenance, with a significant portion concentrated in the Pacific region, that grows each passing day. In a recent Naval Facilities Command analysis of 200 buildings in the East and National Capital regions, eleven percent were found to be at moderate to severe risk of structural failure. This is about operational risk. An F-35 is a museum piece without a powered hangar. A cyber warrior cannot train for network defense on a system that is constantly down. A Marine cannot maintain focus on their mission when their barracks room has mold, and the chow hall is closed for emergency repairs. For too long, we have viewed our installations as sanctuaries, administrative rear areas separate from the fight. That view is now dangerously obsolete. Our installations are operational platforms, integral to every phase of conflict, from deterrence to high-end combat. Continued underfunding is no longer a budget problem; it is an operational failure in the making.
But in this crisis lies our opportunity. This is not a time for despair; it is a time for action. The future we envision is one of operationally ready, resilient, and lethal installations that directly generate readiness, but more importantly, are ready to fight. Imagine our bases not as liabilities, but as unsinkable aircraft carriers and forward logistics hubs—the very springboards of power projection. From the shores of Camp Lejeune to the forward-deployed positions of Camp Hansen, our installations are part of the battlespace. This must be reality in today’s environment, and it is within our grasp if we have the courage to shed the institutional habits of a bygone era and forge a new, more disciplined path.
First, we must have the discipline to fund what is foundational. These are the must-pay bills: the minimum set of infrastructure, services, and security measures necessary, regardless of the installation’s mission, to sustain assigned personnel, protect assets, and support training. Think protection, power, water, barracks, and chow halls. These are not discretionary items to be traded away; they are the bedrock that underpins all other capabilities. This funding must be incorporated into every Program Objective Memorandum and remain untouchable—similar to the manpower account.
Second, for every new requirement, we will relentlessly pursue the concept of Minimum Viable Project. This is not about building cheap facilities; it is about building smart. It is the architectural equivalent of our “fight light” ethos—stripping away every non-essential feature and every square foot that does not directly contribute to putting rounds on target.
Third, we will attack our own footprint. We have too much aging, inefficient, and costly infrastructure. Our goal is to execute an aggressive, deliberate, and conditions-based demolition plan that reduces our total facility footprint by more than ten percent of the existing square footage. Every square foot we take off our books is a recurring cost we no longer must pay, freeing up resources to invest where they matter most. This is not retreat; it is shedding dead weight to become faster and more lethal.
Fourth, our first question for any facility requirement will no longer be where do we build new? but what can we renovate or repair? We must pivot from a reliance on new military construction to a smarter, more sustainable model of restoration and modernization. A well-renovated maintenance bay that is back in the fight in eighteen months is far superior to a new MILCON project that will not break ground for five years.
This is not just a theory; we at Marine Corps Installations Command are already on the attack. We have declared war on inefficiency. We are developing a portfolio of standardized facility designs, challenging the outdated Unified Facilities Criteria, and using more advanced construction methods. And we are leveraging new Other Transaction Authorities granted by Congress to accelerate project delivery. These are our proof points—concrete actions that demonstrate a faster, leaner, and more affordable model is not just possible but is already being implemented.
This brings us to the final, unavoidable truth. The principles of Minimum Viable Project, demolition, and renovation will make us far more efficient, but they cannot reverse decades of underinvestment by themselves. Efficiency alone cannot blunt a $28 billion maintenance backlog and simultaneously modernize our bases to support the exquisite and complex equipment of Force Design. To do that, the Service must make a committed, sustained investment in its platforms.
The professional, data-driven standard for maintaining a large and complex infrastructure portfolio is to fund Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization at a set percentage of the total Plant Replacement Value. The Marine Corps must commit to funding our installations at a sustainable and consistent rate of Plant Replacement Value annually. This level of investment is not for building monuments. It is the fuel required to work off our crushing maintenance backlog, to execute our plan of targeted demolition, and to resource a sustainable cycle of repair and renovation that will ensure our platforms can support the warfighter.
The path ahead requires a unified effort and a profound cultural shift. It demands that our leaders champion the 80 percent solution that can be delivered now over the 100 percent solution that may never arrive. Our mission is to defend the force and our families, support the MEF, and improve the lives of our warriors. By embracing this new, leaner approach, and resourcing it appropriately, we are not diminishing our capabilities; we are sharpening them. We are converting fiscal discipline into a strategic advantage, ensuring our installations are the resilient, operational platforms our Corps requires to meet any challenge, anywhere on the globe. The storm is here, but we have a plan. We are Marines. We will attack this problem, and we will win.
That path forward, the bridge from our current crisis to our future vision, is built on a ruthless return to our core identity as a frugal and expeditionary force. It is not about simply asking for more money—though we must; it is about fundamentally changing how we spend every dollar we get. This new model is built on four unwavering principles.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
MajGen Woodworth currently serves as Commander, Marine Corps Installations Command; Commanding General, Marine Corps National Capital Region; and Assistant Deputy Commandant, Installations and Logistics, Facilities and Services.
Drones have provided significant tactical advantages to both sides during the three years of brutal fighting in the Russo-Ukraine war. So, it is not surprising that uncrewed autonomous and first-person view drones and other uncrewed platforms are being heralded as the war-winning technology of the future.1 This euphoria was magnified by Ukraine’s June 2025 Operation SPIDERWEB, which masterfully employed drones to attack Russian air bases approximately 2,500 miles from the static front.2 This led some commentators to declare that the attack was Kiev’s Pearl Harbor.3
Moreover, two authors have proclaimed that the “drone era” is a military revolution and will remove the element of fear from war.4 This is an astonishing statement given that human beings fight wars to intentionally inflict violence on others out of “greed, fear, and ideology,” making it unlikely humans will disappear from tomorrow’s battlefields.5
This article contends that drones and artificial technology (AI) will continue to transform how future wars are fought; however, technology alone is unlikely to generate the required vic-tories to qualify as the next revolution in military affairs (RMA).
Evolution or Revolution?
Drones have transformed the battlefield in Ukraine, but in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary fashion, as their impact falls short of the truly disruptive change that constitutes an RMA.6 Neither side has been able to decisively break through their opponent’s fixed, layered defenses and transition to sustained offensive operations necessary to achieve their respective political aims and “theories of victory.”7 A recent RUSI study concluded between 60–80 percent of Ukrainian first-person view, tactical drones failed to reach their target in 2024.8 Those that did were unable to destroy the armored vehicles they were trying to kill due to Russian electronic warfare jamming, poor weather, unfavorable terrain conditions, and operator error. A lack of Ukrainian artillery often prevented suppressive fires from being effectively employed with drones against Russian air defenses and dismounted soldiers protecting key targets. All told, first-person-view drones have proven most effective against enemy troops in the open. However, armies that disperse, conceal, maneuver with stealth, and deceive will likely lessen the effectiveness of adversary kill chains in the future.
… two authors have proclaimed that the “drone era” is a military revolution …
Revolutions in military affairs occur when a new technology is combined with innovative operational concepts and organizational adaptation to fundamentally alter the character and conduct of conflict.9 The RMAs dramatically increase the combat potential and military effectiveness of fighting forces relative to a specific adversary, but these three ingredients must be amalgamated before a true RMA is born.10
Revolutions in military affairs are rare occurrences—Andrew Krepinevich cites only ten since the 14th century.11 Nevertheless, premature pronouncements that a new RMA has arrived are not new. In 2004, Stephen Biddle cited six such examples: the inventions of dynamite, the machinegun, the naval torpedo, the airplane, strategic bombing, and the atom bomb.12 Biddle believed these new technologies led military thinkers of their day to overestimate the impact they would have on warfare.
This trend continues today and, on one level, it makes sense. War’s inherent brutality has long incentivized humans to seek short wars and “silver bullets” that can reduce its cost in casualties and national treasure. Moreover, the reliance on advanced technology has been a central pillar of the American Way of War since at least World War II, as the United States places greater emphasis on technology in planning and waging war than any other nation.13
Yet, in the context of the Russo-Ukraine War, drone performance has been exaggerated despite compelling evidence otherwise. Amos Fox argues that drones in protracted land campaigns, like Ukraine and Gaza, have proven strategically irrelevant given their inability to take or retake territory, hold ground, seal borders, and protect populations.14 Other studies question drone reliability and effectiveness.15 Thus, claims that drones have revolutionized the character of war deserve closer scrutiny.
Generating Leap-Ahead Combat Capabilities
As noted above, RMAs change the character of war because they generate an asymmetrical advantage in combat capabilities vis-à-vis one’s adversary. What is revolutionary is not the pace of change, but rather, the character of the change and the degree of overall improvement in military capabilities.16
Such improvement can occur absent new technology, as was the case with the 18th-century French “levee en masse” (i.e., forced conscription) that tripled the size of Napoleon’s Army in less than a year.17 It can also result from repurposing and imaginatively using old technology, as Germany did with tanks—first employed by the British in the 1917 World War I battle of Cambrai—by integrating armor with radio communications, airplanes, and mechanized infantry to generate a potent combined-arms team that became the blitzkrieg.18
Yet, it is important to acknowledge that the introduction of new technology is a key incubator that can alter the character of war, as witnessed with the precision-strike revolution that came of age in the 1991 Gulf War.19 Some three decades later, the precision strike RMA enabled the United States to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER.20 But battlefield context matters, as it took eleven weeks of bombing from fourteen NATO nations (some 40,000 aircraft sorties flown) along with the threat of ground invasion during Operation ALLIED FORCE before Serb leader, Slobodan Milosevic, backed down.21
Coming of Age
In almost all cases, new technologies mature more slowly than military planners and operators desire. The 1972 Linebacker II bombing campaign against North Vietnam expended approximately the same number of laser-guided munitions as the 1991 Gulf War.22 The qualitative improvements that allowed the same number of munitions to be exponentially more effective than their forbearers took nearly two decades.
The same is true with ground-launched anti-tank weapons systems. What started in the late 1970s with the Dragon and family of wire-guided missile systems eventually matured into the “fire and forget” Javelin that proved so effective against Russian armor in 2022.23
… RMAs change the character of war because they generate an asymmetrical advantage in combat capabilities vis-à-vis one’s adversary.
Drones, too, have a long lineage that traces back to 1917–1918 when the British and American’s respectively, developed the Aerial Target and Kettering Bug pilotless aerial platforms.24 Yet, it was not until the Vietnam War that drones were deployed in relatively large numbers.
In sum, a lengthy maturation process ensues before new technologies, innovative warfighting concepts, and organizational adaptations successfully combine to ignite revolutionary, leap-ahead combat capabilities. This time-consuming process is not exclusively the fault of tech developers, engineers, and an unwieldy defense acquisition process. Rather, lengthy, but essential, military experimentation must also occur to provide the Services and Joint Force practical insights into how its concepts and organizational design should be adapted to effectively campaign with the new technologies.25
Maintaining Asymmetrical Advantage
The competitive asymmetrical advantages new technologies bring to warfare are fleeting. Being a “first mover” or early adopter of enhanced capabilities incentivizes competitors to counterbalance, especially if the new capabilities are widely proliferated.26
Today’s rapid diffusion of technology means smaller powers and non-state actors can easily and cheaply manufacture or commercially acquire drones, satellite imagery, global communications devices, and a host of other technologies for battlefield use. The Houthis recently demonstrated this with their drone attacks against Red Sea shipping.27 Thomas Mahnken describes this phenomenon as one of “emulation,” which will continue to erode, if not eliminate, the comparative asymmetrical advantage drones and other emerging technologies afford the U.S. military.28
When the barriers of emulation are too high, adversaries will attempt to develop countermeasures to thwart new combat methods.29 As an example, to offset U.S. firepower and mobility advantages in Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy’s weapon of choice was the improvised explosive device (IED)—the legacy “boobytrap.”30 Decades earlier in Vietnam, the Viet Cong used the low-tech entrenching tool to turn the Cu Chi area outside of Saigon into 155 miles of underground tunnels and mini-subterranean cities to counter America’s air power advantage.31
Thus, smart adversaries will rapidly emulate or develop countermeasures to negate the asymmetrical advantages afforded by real or faux RMAs. In Ukraine, the world has watched this process play out in realtime, which makes the Russo-Ukraine conflict a revolution in adaptation war vice a universal RMA.32
Weighing the Risk of Military Innovation
Military innovation is a “balancing act between destroying traditional ways of war and creating new ones,” a gamble that risks losing more by abandoning legacy capabilities than is created with new innovations.33 Past, but flawed high-risk bets about the changing character of future wars include the development of British armored doctrine before World War II;34 the U.S. Air Force embracing the long-range nuclear bombing mission in place of close air support and air superiority competencies needed in the Korean War; and the U.S. Army restructuring itself into Pentomic formations to fight on a nuclear battlefield.35 According to Kendrick Kuo, in each case, militaries divested themselves of critical capabilities and competencies they needed in the next war.36
… prudent observers of modern war are right to question any technology being championed as a “war-winner”…
Fear of missing the next military revolution and being relegated to “second mover” status can seductively entice force planners to bet and invest in the wrong RMA. Sir Lawrence Freedman argues that Ukraine’s drone environment is context-specific and may not be germane to future battlefields that are not characterized by static front lines and slow-moving, long-range drones that have trouble penetrating well-defended targets—in need of more effective integration with other traditional military capabilities such as aircraft, armored vehicles, and artillery—to prove decisive.37 Freedman is not alone in his thinking, which makes it risky to adopt the drone tactics, techniques, and procedures from the stalemated Russo-Ukraine War as a perfect template for future conflicts.
The Pitfalls of Technological Determinism
Historians Williamson Murray and McGregor Knox believe the lessons of history demonstrate that technological superiority does not guarantee success in war.38 In World War II, U.S. materiel and technological dominance still required grueling battles across the Pacific to the Japanese homeland before an exhausted and starving adversary ultimately capitulated.39 More recently, technologically-backward states like North Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan denied the United States its war aims, notwithstanding the latter’s overwhelming firepower advantage.
Clausewitz argued that war is fundamentally a contest of human wills, which means there is more to war than simply “blowing up targets.”40 Ultimately, human factors such as leadership, training, discipline, and doctrine—not weapons—are the final arbiter of battlefield success or failure. Thus, underestimating the tenacity and staying power of a technologically inferior underdog comes with a high price tag.
Forward into the Unknown
Until the Russo-Ukrainian War ends, both sides will continue to rapidly adapt. Lessons observed during the war’s early years may provide new insights that will help inform how the United States and other nations transform their militaries for future conflicts. However, rushing to judgment about the efficacy of specific technologies in a protracted war that has no clear end in sight only impedes this learning process. Thus, prudent observers of modern war are right to question any technology being championed as a “war winner” until the war being used as an exemplar is won.
The late British historian, Sir Michael Howard, remarked in a 1973 lecture on Military Science in an Age of Peace, “that whatever doctrine the Armed Forces are working on now, they have got it wrong. I am also tempted to declare that it does not matter that they have got it wrong. What does matter is their capacity to get it right quickly when the moment arrives.”41
Hopefully, Sir Michael’s prescient words will stimulate continued sober analysis of the strengths and limitations of drones and AI on the modern battlefield. This will require some intellectual humility that we may all be wrong, including this author.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Col Greenwood is a Research Staff Member at the Institute for Defense Analyses. He was an Infantryman who commanded the 15th MEU (SOC), served as Director of the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and completed multiple assign-ments in the Pentagon and on the National Security Council staff.
NOTES:
Tomas Milasauskas and Livdvikas Jaskunas, “FPV Drones in Ukraine are Changing Mod-ern Warfare,” Atlantic Council, June 20, 2024, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrai-nealert/fpv-drones-in-ukraine-are-changing-modern-warfare.
Kateryna Bondar, “How Ukraine’s Operation ‘Spider’s Web’ Redefines Asymmetric Warfare,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 2, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-ukraines-spider-web-operation-redefines-asymmetric-warfare.
Roger Boyes, “Kyiv’s Drone Attack is a Pearl Harbor Moment,” The Times, June 3, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2025/06/02/ukraine-drone-strike-at-tack-russia-pearl-harbor/83987304007.
Antonio Salinas and Jason P. Levay, “Military Revolutions from the Spanish Tercio to First-Person View Drones,” War on the Rocks, May 15, 2025, https://warontherocks.com/2025/05/military-revolutions-from-the-spanish-tercio-to-first-person-view-drones.
Margaret MacMillan, War: How Conflict Shaped Us (New York: Random House, 2020).
Stacie Pettyjohn, “Evolution Not Revolution: Drone Warfare in Russia’s 2022 Invasion of Ukraine,” Center for a New American Security, February 2024, https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep57900.
Thomas C. Greenwood, “Why Ukraine’s Breakthrough Operations Are So Difficult,” The National Interest, December 31, 2022, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-ukraines-breakthrough-operations-are-so-difficult-207815; and J. Boone Bartholomees, “Theory of Victory,” Parameters 38, No. 2 (2008).
Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds, “Tactical Developments During the Third Year of the Russo-Ukraine War,” Royal United Services Institute, February 2025, https://www.rusi. org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/tactical-developments-during-third-year-russo-ukrainian-war.
Andrew F. Krepinevich, “Calvary to Computer: The Pattern of Military Revolutions,” The National Interest, No. 37 (1994).
James R. Fitzsimonds and Jan M. Van Toll, “Revolution in Military Affairs,” Joint Forces Quarterly (Spring 1994).
“Calvary to Computer: The Pattern of Military Revolutions.”
Stephen Biddle, Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
Thomas G. Mahnken, Technology and the American Way of War (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).
Amos Fox, “Drones Are Game-Changing, But They Are Not the Answer to the Inherent Challenges of Land Warfare,” Small Wars Journal, August 6, 2025, https://smallwarsjournal. com/2025/08/06/drones-are-game-changing.
Jakub Jajcay, “I Fought in Ukraine and Here’s Why FPV Drones Kind of Suck,” War on the Rocks, June 26, 2025, https://warontherocks. com/2025/06/i-fought-in-ukraine-and-heres-why-fpv-drones-kind-of-suck.
Andrew W. Marshall, “RMA Update,” Memorandum for the Record, Office of the Secretary of Defense (Washington, DC: May 1994).
Williamson Murray, “Thinking About Revolutions in Military Affairs,” Joint Forces Quarterly (Summer 1997).
Mark Cartright, “Blitzkrieg: The Lightning War Tactic of Combined Arms,” World History, November 28, 2024, https://www.worldhistory. org/Blitzkrieg.
David R. Mets, The Long Search for a Surgical Strike: Precision Munitions and the Revolu-tion in Military Affairs (Montgomery: Air University Press, October 2001).
Joseph Rogers, “What Operation Midnight Hammer Means for the Future of Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 23, 2025, https://www.csis. org/analysis/what-operation-midnight-hammer-means-future-irans-nuclear-ambitions.
Ivo H. Daalder and Michael E. O’Hanlon, Winning Ugly: Nato’s War to Save Kosovo (Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2000).
“Calvary to Computer: The Pattern of Military Revolutions.”
Charlie Goo, “American Dragon: This Missile Launcher Turns Tanks to Dust,” The National Interest, June 30, 2021, https://nation-alinterest.org/blog/reboot/american-dragon-missile-launcher-turns-tanks-dust-188853.
John F. Keane and Stephen S. Carr, “A Brief History of Early Unmanned Aircraft,” Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab Technical Digest 32, No. 9 (2013).
Tom Greenwood and Jim Greer, “Experimentation: The Road to Discovery,” Strategy Bridge, March 1, 2018, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/html/trecms/AD1223471/index.html.
John D. Maurer, “The Future of Precision-Strike Warfare: Strategic Dynamics of Mature Military Revolutions,” Naval War College Re-view 76, No. 3 (2023).
Alison Bath, “Navy Fired More than 200 Missiles to Fight Off Red Sea Shipping Attacks, Admiral Says,” Stars and Stripes, January 16, 2025, https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2025-01-16/houthis-navy-red-sea-missiles-drones-16500246.html.
Thomas G. Mahnken, “Weapons: The Growth & Spread of the Precision-Strike Regime,” Daedalus 140, No. 3 (2011).
“Weapons: The Growth & Spread of the Precision-Strike Regime.”
Jason Shell, “How the IED Won: Dispelling the Myth of Tactical Success and Innovation,” War on the Rocks, May 1, 2017, https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/how-the-ied-won-dispelling-the-myth-of-tactical-success-and-innovation.
MSW, “The Cu Chi Tunnels,” WarHistory. Com, July 15, 2020, https://warhistory.org/@ msw/article/the-cu-chi-tunnels.
Mick Ryan, “The New Adaptation War,” Substack.com, April 16, 2025, https://scsp222. substack.com/p/adaptation-war-with-mick-ryan.
Kendrick Kuo, “How to Think About Risks in US Military Innovation,” Survival, February-March 2024, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2024.2309077.
Kendrick Kuo, “Dangerous Changes: When Military Innovation Harms Combat Effectiveness,” International Security 47, No. 2 (2022);
“How to Think About Risks in US Military Innovation.”
“Dangerous Changes: When Military Innovation Harms Combat Effectiveness.”
Lawrence Freedman, “Are Drones the Future of War?” Substack.com, July 29, 2025, https://samf.substack.com/p/are-drones-the-future-of-war.
MacGregor Knox and Williamson Murray, The Dynamics of Military Revolution, (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Colin S. Gray, Weapons Don’t Make War: Policy, Strategy, and Military Technology (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993).
Pat Garrett and Frank Hoffman, “Maneuver Warfare Is Not Dead, But It Must Evolve,” Proceedings, November 2023, https://www.usni. org/magazines/proceedings/2023/november/maneuver-warfare-not-dead-it-must-evolve.
Michael Howard, “Military Science in the Age of Peace,” The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Journal 119 (1974).
2025 LtCol Earl “Pete” Ellis Essay Contest: Second Place
On an early morning outside Jõhvi, Estonia, a Marine Corps light armored reconnaissance (LAR) company occupies a screen along a narrow corridor of farmland interspersed with pine forest. One hundred kilometers to the southwest, a MEU and a NATO battlegroup stage to seize key terrain across the Baltic. Bound to the road network due to heavy forest, the company pushes its eight-wheeled, 25mm armed light armored vehicles (LAV-25) forward, establishing observation posts and seeking to gain and maintain contact with the advance guard of an approaching enemy battalion tactical group. Mounted in vehicles designed in the 70s and fielded in the 1980s, the company’s mission is straightforward but unforgiving: provide early warning of enemy activity and provide decision space for higher-echelon commanders.
Within minutes, the company is in contact. Overhead, small drones loiter freely, marking positions for enemy artillery and dropping shaped charges onto the static and exposed LAVs. First-person-view (FPV) quadcopters slip under the dense canopy, striking the vehicles concealed in hasty hide sites. Enemy infiltration teams mounted on civilian all-terrain vehicles probe the screen line, dismounting to bypass the company’s fixed observation posts to sniff out routes for exploitation. What began as a classic security mission for which LAR has trained for 40 years, unspools into a disaggregated unmanned aerial system (UAS) and sensor fight for which the Marines are ill-equipped. As the fight deteriorates, radio nets clog with reports of enemy precision fires, mobility kills, and rapid attrition. The company evaporated faster than any retrograde or recovery plan could absorb.
As the firefight built ashore, unmarked commercial watercraft, part of a “shadow fleet” operating under layered ambiguity, sailed the coastal traffic patterns north of Jõhvi.1 Exploiting flags-of-convenience paperwork, Automatic Identification System gaps, and routine harbor clutter, a 30-person raid force disembarks, quickly moving inland along forest tracks to harass the main NATO supply routes. Using low-power radios, commercial quadcopters, and cached munitions, the infiltration team stages hasty ambushes, lays counter-mobility obstacles, and cues indirect fire from standoff positions. Their aim is tempo vice destruction: delay, disrupt, seed doubt. In under two hours, the LAR company is combat ineffective. Friendly vehicles are fixed, the MEU’s screen penetrated, and LAR is violently pulled into a reality its design and doctrine were never built to endure.
What happened outside Jõhvi was not just a tactical failure—it was a systems failure. It exposed the growing gap between legacy platforms and modern threats, between the doctrine we have and the fight that is already here. Additionally, it also clarified the path forward. This article proposes a restructured four-platoon LAR company: two security platoons, a reconnaissance platoon, and a fusion platoon. This practical and immediate concept bridges the gap to evolve the LAR force from a platform-bound screen line into a modern sensor-enabled, reconnaissance-integrated network. By leveraging fieldable technology and rethinking organizational structure at the company level, this model provides MAGTFs with a scalable advantage: sensing earlier, making decisions faster, and imposing costs across domains and environments. This evolution of LAR is more than a one-off fix; it reflects a broader challenge across the Marine Corps: how to adapt legacy systems and structures to meet the demands of a rapidly changing fight without waiting for the perfect solution.
The Challenge
The issue facing the Corps’ LAR community is not direction; it is velocity. The ongoing transformation within the LAR community mirrors the larger shift across the Marine Corps. Central themes include disciplined experimentation under Force Design: aggressive use of accessible, often commercial off-the-shelf technology; preparation for new vehicles and tools; and the development of concepts of employment that meet today’s tasks while anticipating tomorrow’s fight. Force Design’s message to the LAR community is unambiguous: transition from platform-centric LAR to all-domain mobile reconnaissance inside the emerging mobile reconnaissance battalion—integrating land, maritime, and unmanned reconnaissance to link sensors to shooters and build joint/combined kill webs in contested littorals.2 This shift pushes LAR into the multi-domain fight while demanding we fully embrace new ways of sensing and communicating. These shifts enable us to generate aimpoints and close kill chains without friction and redundant reachback. Layered over this is a familiar strain of insecurity about identity and purpose, an unease that has long shaped debates inside the Corps, which some (half-jokingly) call the “platypus syndrome.” Change is assumed; tempo is the test; LAR must evolve fast enough to preserve core advantages while integrating pervasive digital capability.
Much good work is already on the table, but more must be done in the near term. LtCol John Dick and 3d LAR demonstrated the value of a bottom-up approach: building organic FPV strike teams inside the ground com-bat element, training to a repeatable cue-confirm-strike drill, treating power, electromagnetic action, and airspace as fire-support problems, and deliberately using commercial tools to balance cost, sustainment, and risk.3 Maj Brent Jurmu, Maj Brandon Klewicki, and LtCol Matthew Tweedy emphasize the structural need for change: move now toward the mobile reconnaissance battalion, prioritize sensing over platform identity, organize for teaming between manned and unmanned systems, open-architecture command and control to enable any sensor to feed any shooter, and resource resilient communications, power, and logistics as combat enablers rather than afterthoughts.4 Retired Col Philip Laing’s earlier thesis reinforces this by asserting that LAR is a mind-set, not a hull. The focus must be on reconnaissance pull, tempo, deception, dispersion, and mounted—dismounted integration—while warning against let-ting the vehicle define the unit.5
A company of UTVs and LAVs occupy positions in a densely forested hide site. (Photo provided by author.)
What these contributions do not fully solve is the immediate bridge between what LAR and the MAGTF currently retain and what we need next. We require a tactical force construct that operates with legacy LAVs and available light vehicles yet delivers stand-in sensing and fast sensor-to-shooter handoffs. This includes a practical gear list, training progression, and command-and-control habits that work tomorrow morning, not just in the out-years. Additionally, we must prioritize survivability, particularly armor survivability, ensuring that our vehicles can withstand emerging threats while maintaining operational flexibility. That is the bridging solution.
The Bridging Solution
What follows is a concept of employment and equipment, validated by Apache Company’s role within 2d LAR’s Task Force Destroyer during our Baltic deployment in the summer of 2025. The concept preserves LAR’s core reconnaissance and security functions while providing a practical framework to integrate enhanced sensing, fusion, and shaping capabilities expected of next-generation formations. Drawing on recent conflicts and years of community experimentation, the design postures usable capabilities now with the equipment on hand while providing on-ramps for the force to swell additional kit to expand our force offering. The result is a highly mobile, flexible formation that leverages existing assets and tactics, creates clear on-ramps for accelerated fielding of new sensors and systems, and reduces operational risk while preserving maneuver and survivability. The design works at the company level for MEU and MAGTF requirements and scales to a three-line company battalion construct. Finally, this sensor-laden formation travels well. It nests naturally within the Joint Force and exploits the Marine Corps’ inherent strength, our expeditionary character.
How Apache 2d LAR Fights
Apache Company was organized around three complementary platoon constructs that executed concurrent reconnaissance and security. The company can cover a 20 km² land area of operations and sense more than 30 miles off the coast. In effect, Apache fielded a multi-domain, long-range sensor company and stood up company-level command, control, communications, and computing with mostly on-hand equipment. The company was reinforced by 2d LAR’s intelligence section, Marine Forces Europe and Africa, II MEF 2d MarDiv enablers, and a few proactive contract partners. This concept has been greatly influenced by the vision outlined by Dr. Jack Watling in his book Arms of the Future.6
Reconnaissance Platoon
Built on ultra-light vehicles and operating near/on the contact line, the platoon carried long-range communications, Group-1 sUAS, multi-domain sensors, and medium direct-fire weapons (machineguns and recoilless rifles). Small in signature and highly mobile, it served as the company’s contact element—confirming or denying information requirements from higher and contributing new information to feed the intelligence cycle through timely ground reporting to the fusion platoon. It executed rapid ambushes to harass, disrupt, and buy time in restrictive terrain. By trading armor for speed, the platoon consistently punched above its weight.
Security Platoon
Positioned in depth behind the reconnaissance platoon, the security platoon operated LAV-25 and anti-tank variants. It preserved the company’s freedom of maneuver by providing armored overwatch and reinforcement for the reconnaissance platoon. From a relative standoff, it employed stabilized, long-duration sensors and Group-1 sUAS to detect and track enemy axes of advance. This posture enabled us to orient killing systems without becoming decisively engaged. As the company’s backstop, it delivered the armored punch to interdict maneuver, absorb pressure, and maintain tempo.
Fusion Platoon
Operating from a suite of LAVs tailored to specific mission requirements and a small complement of utility task vehicles (UTV) for last-mile mobility and logistics, the platoon provided Group-2 sUAS, mesh communications to tie into higher headquarters, a light surveillance and reconnaissance coordination center package, and expeditionary sustainment and maintenance inherent to any LAR formation. It was also where, as Apache dubbed it, a “Reconnaissance Integration Network” was exercised: information drove decisions, and mission command stayed forward. The fusion platoon pulled feeds from the furthest-forward sensors and pushed critical data across the battalion network, working in near real time with the S-2 to turn raw detections into targetable tracks. With our company dispersed to provide significant “depth by default,” our maritime domain awareness team employed sensors, meshed with partner-nation feeds, and flew group-2 sUAS over the littorals. Fusion packaged and distributed; battalion prioritized and matched effects. The result was a rapid targeting rhythm by which reconnaissance, security, fusion, and the S-2 moved as one system.
We did uncover a few key gaps, however, in lethality and sustainment. To supercharge the next iteration, the company must leverage the full potential of our force by enhancing both capability and reach. First, field command-launch units to amplify our armored killing power, enabling faster, more agile responses to emerging threats. Expand UTV capacity for increased power generation and cargo carry, allowing for sustained operations in austere environments. Integrate additional sensors to broaden our sUAS screen and strengthen the fusion network, improving situational awareness and intelligence flow across units. Bring in the next wave of sUAS and counter-UAS tools to stay ahead of evolving threats in the air. Finally, provide access to, and training for, modernized data-driven targeting software that seamlessly connects company-level targeting with MAGTF and joint fires, ensuring precise and synchronized engagements. These enhancements would not only elevate LAR’s operational capabilities but also ensure it is an even more effective and indispensable asset to the broader mission, increasing efficiency, accuracy, and the ability to project power across the deep battlespace.
Advantage
Together, these three elements produced a survivable, organically supported company that sensed, decided, and acted at the tempo the deep fight demands; feeding higher headquarters while shaping the fight in front of it. Following the Baltic deployment, Apache stood up a second security platoon, establishing one reconnaissance platoon, two security platoons, and a fusion platoon, for a total of 31 vehicles: 20 LAVs and 11 UTVs.
This concept of employment shows how LAR can evolve from a legacy cavalry formation into a modern stand-in sensor ecosystem. It retains traditional reconnaissance and security capabilities while posturing to absorb new technology as it arrives. Light reconnaissance brings agile, low-signature sensing and harassment. Armored security preserves freedom of maneuver, provides lift and power, and delivers the kinetic punch. Fusion, as the sensor and sustainment hub, closes the sensor-to-shooter chain and keeps the company supplied and computing forward.
The outcome is a formation that can operate independently for ten to fourteen days, answer commanders’ priority information requirements in stride, and sustain operations across littoral terrain while contributing to the broader kill web. It aligns with past experimentation proposals while refocusing on the enduring tasks of reconnaissance and security. This modern formation turns today’s kit into near-term advantage.
A LAV-25 followed by a UTV make movement along a wooded corridor in the Baltics. (Photo provided by author.)
The Counter
At the tactical edge, legacy hulls with bolt-on tech are delicate. Power and computing are often the first to fail; when they do, the “sprint” stops. Edge-level processing, exploitation and dissemination and target formatting can compress time but widen risk: deconfliction with close air support; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; long-range fires on a tight MSR turns into information overload, and one bad grid buys fratricide. A LAV used as a node is still a hot, loud, tall target, often easier to find than to fuel. Adding maritime domain awareness to land feeds risks data overload and slower decisions, and roles blur: infantry battalions already field scouts and recon battalion owns the deep fight. Where does an LAR stand-in sensor company end and its missions begin?
This construct is built to fight through the loss of fragile links, with Group-1/2 feeds treated as temporary: valuable when up, replaceable when not. We layer sensors and plan graceful degradation, reverting to traditional methods if the network fails. First-person-view provides precision fires, task-organized and rationed by target value, with conventional fires as backup. Edge-level processing, exploitation, and dissemination safeguards ensure target packets follow rules of engagement, grid-quality checks, and restricted-operating-zone discipline to prevent fratricide. Light armored vehicles as nodes operate from defilade, acting as generators and routers before becoming targets. Endurance is key, supported by low-mobility screens, low signature-long duration observation, and pre-staged supplies. Light-armored reconnaissance is self-sustained, with maintenance, recovery, power, and logistics under armor that outranges infantry battalions. Maritime domain awareness is just another sensor lane, with priority information requirements and named areas of interest feeding into a fusion platoon, which in turn generates tracks and releasable aimpoints for higher echelons. Light armored reconnaissance and recon overlap naturally in the deep fight, but LAR is uniquely equipped to push deep and extract without relying on external lift or sustainment, supporting operations beyond a single frontage.
The stand-in sensor company concept is not a concept for the distant future. It is a working answer to today’s problem: how to turn legacy formations into lethal, relevant forces across all domains. Apache Company’s construct shows that with the right organization and fielded tools, a LAR unit can deliver the decisive advantage MAGTFs need: sensing early, striking fast, and shaping tempo in complex, contested terrain. It proves that innovation doesn’t always mean waiting on new platforms; it means rethinking how we fight with what we have. The LAR community’s evolution is a microcosm of the Corps-wide challenge: adapt fast, fight smarter, and build toward the future without waiting for the perfect solution. This is not about replacing cavalry, it is about making it and the MAGTF writ large matter in the fight ahead.
Reconnaissance platoon occupies a hide side and inserts dismounted teams. (Photo by Cpl Xavier Alicea)
Tomorrow’s Fight
Capt Ellis awoke with a start and quietly replayed the dream where his legacy company was torn apart; unprepared for the battlefield he now faced. Reality would be different. He stepped into his enhanced LAV-C2 and oriented on the sensor displays and the common operational picture. Hours before the enemy advance guard pushed toward Jõhvi, geospatial stand-off sensors flagged movement along likely avenues of approach. Tucked into hide sites with vehicles camouflaged, Apache’s reconnaissance platoon confirmed with Group-1 systems and set hasty ambushes to disrupt the axis of advance. As the column entered the kill zone, direct-fire systems killed the lead and trail vehicles, fixing the formation. At the same time, Group-2 platforms observed and adjusted long-range fires, streaming feeds to the fusion platoon and higher.
While the fight built ashore, the maritime picture stayed warm: Automatic Identification System and coastal radar returns, rapid reports, and Group-2 pay-loads over the water fed the battalion to track craft along the coast. A suspected grey-fleet vessel broke pattern north of Jõhvi; the cue moved from S-2 through fusion to the northern security screen. A UTV team maneuvered to the beach exits, found the landing sites cold, and laid obstacles and observation to deny a raid force its easy off-ramps.
Ten kilometers behind the FLOT (forward line of troops), security platoons screened in depth, watching the contact forward and reorienting on alternate approaches as the enemy tried to bypass the kill zone. In coordination with fusion, they finalized a rearward passage once reconnaissance platoon finished its harassment and shaping mission against the lead trace.
Inside the company’s architecture and surveillance and reconnaissance collection cell, Marines worked with the battalion S-2 (intelligence section) in near realtime: pushing critical data up and pulling refined intelligence down. Targets were packaged, prioritized, and effects queued for ultimate impact. At higher echelons, commanders saw rapid updates and live feeds through the shared portal. Decision cycles accelerated with expanded options made possible by a symbiotic relationship between sensors, intelligence, and higher echelon fires. In practice, the stand-in sensor construct bought time and space for follow-on forces now shifting from one area of operations to the next and shaping the fight before it fully arrived, ashore and along the coast.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Capt Marshall is the Company Commander of Company A, 2d Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2d MarDiv.
NOTES:
Michael Kofman and Matthew Rojansky, “Russia’s Growing ‘Dark Fleet’: Risks for the Global Maritime Order,” Atlantic Council, September 30, 2025, https://www.atlanticcoun-cil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/russias-growing-dark-fleet-risks-for-the-global-maritime-order.
Headquarters Marine Corps, Force Design 2030 (Washington, DC: 2020).
John Dick, “From Concept to Capability–Building an Organic FPV Strike Team in the Ground Combat Element (Part I),” The CX File, July 9, 2025, https://thecxfile.substack. com/p/from-concept-to-capability-building.
Brent Jurmu, Brandon Klewicki, and Mat-thew Tweedy, “Equip the Mobile Reconnaissance Battalion Now,” Marine Corps Gazette, May 2024, https://www.mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/Jurmu-May24-WEB.pdf.
Philip Laing, “More Than a System: LAR as a Mindset” (master’s thesis, Marine Corps University, Command and Staff College, 2011).
Jack Watling, The Arms of the Future: Technology and Close Combat in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023).
2025 LtCol Earl “Pete” Ellis Essay Contest: First Place
As a Chinese amphibious task force advances toward a narrow chokepoint in the Western Pacific, a Marine littoral regiment positions itself to deny access. Traditionally, combat engineers relied on labor-intensive minefield emplacement. Alternatively, they used scatterable systems such as the Family of Scatterable Mines, which often had unreliable timers. Both methods left hazards that outlived their purpose and slowed friendly maneuver.1
Instead, a coordinated operation unfolds. A swarm of drones—ranging from small first-person-view (FPV) platforms to larger attritable aerial and ground vehicles—launches from cover. Carrying anti-tank (AT) and anti-personnel (AP) charges, they create a precise, reversible minefield in minutes. Command and control of the operation is meticulously structured; commanders authorize deployments after thorough assessments and monitor drone movements through secure communication channels. Support drones sustain concealment and command links, ensuring continuous oversight. Commanders maintain the ability to reseed or recover mines as the fight evolves, adjusting operations dynamically in response to battlefield developments. The enemy halts long enough for fires and maneuver to destroy the force.2
What once required days is now achieved with tempo and accountability, setting the stage for new operational approaches. Drone-delivered minefields—leveraging commercial swarms, quantum navigation in GPS-denied environments, and human-in-the-loop autonomy—transform mines into adaptive tools for distributed operations.3 By imposing disproportionate costs at minimal expense to Marines, they embody asymmetric warfare and deliver the “unfair fight” envisioned by Force Design 2030.4
Background
Minefields have long shaped combat. In World War I, belts of barbed wire and mines slowed offensives across no man’s land, forcing attackers into corridors exploitable by machineguns and artillery.5 During World War II, vast mine belts were used in North Africa, where both British and German forces emplaced hundreds of thousands of mines to control maneuver across the open desert.6 These examples demonstrate how obstacles amplify combat power by channeling an adversary into predetermined kill zones.
Legacy systems carried significant costs. During the Gulf War, scatterable mines produced high dud rates—over 1,900 unexploded mines were recorded at Al Jabar Airbase sector alone, with similar patterns across six other sectors in Kuwait—leaving hazards that risked civilians’ safety and delayed reconstruction.7 In Kosovo and Iraq, unexploded ordnance likewise undermined legitimacy and fueled political backlash. To mitigate such risks, the International Committee of the Red Cross codified restrictions in Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.8 As Marines consider innovations in mine deployment, it is essential to anticipate how humanitarian backlash could shape future rules of engagement. Building reversibility and accountability into mine warfare ensures operational effectiveness while preserving political credibility.
Recent U.S. policy shifts provide an opening. Executive Order 14307, Secretary of Defense guidance, and the revocation of National Security Memorandum 17 collectively restored authorities for drone integration and limited landmine employment.9 Together, these measures provide Marines with both the legal authority and strategic mandate to reinvent mine warfare. The challenge is to adapt these restored authorities responsibly, balancing combat effectiveness with humanitarian considerations.
Discussion
Drone-delivered minefields offer Marines decisive advantages over legacy systems. First, they provide precision and accountability. Using realtime kinematics Global Positioning System or quantum-enabled navigation, aerial and ground drones can emplace mines exactly where doctrine requires while producing digital logs that ensure accountability.14 Human operators play a critical role throughout this precision workflow, ensuring oversight and control. During deployment operations, human authorization occurs at key decision nodes, such as the initial activation of the system, confirmation of target coordinates, and upon any reseeding or retrieval of mines. This human-in-the-loop approach aligns with the emerging Department of War autonomy policy, providing reassurance to those skeptical of fully autonomous operations. In Europe, Marines supporting NATO could seed a river crossing in under an hour, delaying adversary armor long enough for fires to strike.15
Second, these minefields deliver dynamic control. Unlike fire-and-forget scatterables, drone-delivered obstacles can be armed, disarmed, and redeployed in minutes.16 This allows commanders to deny an avenue, reopen it for maneuver, and then reseed it as the fight evolves. Such reversibility ensures Marines preserve tempo while denying it to the enemy.
Third, drones enable doctrinal versatility. They can mass mines across a chokepoint to block reinforcements or cluster AT and AP mines to disrupt breaching efforts.17 This flexibility provides commanders with a scalable toolset for shaping enemy movement.
Fourth, drones create opportunities for deception and camouflage. Spray drones can obscure emplacements with terrain-colored coatings, while decoy mines generate false signatures.18 In practice, false fields force hesitation at critical moments and complicate adversary decision making.
Finally, drone-delivered minefields integrate seamlessly into the MAGTF and Joint Force. Obstacles become dynamic elements that complement fires, maneuver, and electronic warfare. Small FPV drones, such as the Neros Archer, offer an affordable near-term option for testing terrain-shaping tactics at the company level.19 By employing FPVs today, Marines can validate doctrine and reinforce the engineer community’s role as the Marine Corps’ countermobility specialists.
Technology Enablers
Civilian industries already demonstrate the feasibility of drone-delivered minefields. Drone swarms, such as those by companies like Verge Aero, synchronize hundreds of aircraft with centimeter accuracy during public light shows.20 These algorithms can be adapted for military use, enabling engineers to deploy mines with doctrinal precision. Proven swarm techniques provide Marines with an immediate advantage, eliminating the need for lengthy research cycles.
Commercial logistics proves scalability. Companies such as Zipline operate fleets of drones that navigate complex airspace and deliver payloads with precision and accuracy.21 These operations show drones can reliably carry ordnance-sized weights, providing confidence that swarms can sustain repetitive sorties in contested environments.
Artificial intelligence (AI) further enhances swarming potential. Vision-based AI allows drones to recognize terrain and optimize mine placement, while machine learning enables swarms to adapt mid-mission.22 This autonomy allows commanders to designate intent—“fix armor here” or “block this pass”—while swarms execute with minimal supervision.
Command-and-control resilience remains a decisive challenge. Army experimentation during MSPIX 2025 revealed that stacked drone swarms and RF decoys generated significant com-munication demands and integration challenges.23 Marines must learn from these lessons by prioritizing mesh networks, relay drones, and training in degraded environments. Building trust in autonomy and resilient communications will ensure these systems function under electronic warfare pressure. To mitigate electronic warfare threats, Marines will implement advanced electronic warfare training programs that simulate electronic attacks, equipping personnel with the skills to rapidly adapt and sustain operations. Regular drills will integrate electronic warfare scenarios with standard procedures, ensuring that Marines are adept at maintaining operational capability and communication integrity even when contested by adversarial electronic tactics.
Finally, quantum navigation and sensing offer a breakthrough. Recent demonstrations using magnetometers and gravimeters achieved centimeter-level accuracy without satellites, proving navigation without GPS is no longer theoretical.24 Russia and China have already been jamming and spoofing GPS in Ukraine and the Pacific, but ruggedized systems from companies such as SandboxAQ, Q-CTRL, and Infleqtion are being accelerated by DARPA and allied militaries.25 For Marines, quantum-enabled navigation ensures drone-delivered minefields remain accurate and accountable even under electronic attack.
Employment Options
Drone-delivered minefields enable doctrinally precise obstacle deployment. Using realtime kinematics Global Positioning System or quantum-enabled navigation, unmanned aerial system swarms can seed mines in fixing, turning, blocking, or disrupting patterns with each emplacement digitally logged for accountability.26 A commander could seed a river crossing in under an hour, delaying an adversary long enough for long-range fires to attrit the lead elements. Such speed and precision impose dilemmas without committing large forces.
Separate or clustered mines expand tactical flexibility. The AT mines delay armored formations, while AP mines deter dismounted infantry and breaching engineers. When clustered, these systems magnify effects, as engineers clearing AT lanes are disrupted by nearby AP threats.27 This layered approach forces adversaries to expend time and resources while Marines preserve tempo.
Reversibility provides commanders with dynamic control. Drone-emplaced mines can be armed, disarmed, and redeployed in just minutes rather than days.28 For instance, commanders have historically faced delays stretching up to 48 hours to reposition traditional mine systems. This rapid redeployment enables Marines to close a corridor to delay an advance, reopen it for friendly maneuver, and reseed it to deny pursuit. Such flexibility directly addresses long-standing criticisms of minefields as static liabilities by significantly reducing response times and enhancing operational tempo.
Drones also enable deception and counterattack facilitation. False mine-fields and decoys can create uncertainty across the battlespace, while commanders can predesignate corridors to allow counterattacks and then reseed behind them.29 These techniques transform obstacles from static hazards into adaptive enablers of maneuver.
Combat engineers must remain the primary operators of these systems. Countermobility, demolition, and terrain shaping are core engineer tasks and already own the training and readiness standards and demolition authorities.30 Anchoring these systems in the engineer community ensures doctrinal integrity and synchronization with fires. If the capability scales, a dedicated military occupational specialty for unmanned aerial system obstacles may be explored, but initial investment must remain engineer-led.
Lessons from Current Conflicts
Ukraine highlights both the utility and costs of legacy mines. Russian scatterable mines disrupted maneuver but left farmland contaminated for decades.31 Dud rates and the absence of digital control created hazards that slowed civilians and friendly forces long after combat. By contrast, Ukrainian forces adapted commercial drones to deliver precision charges against armored vehicles, demonstrating the potential of adaptive drone-enabled obstacles.32
Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 underscored the vulnerability of static defenses. Armenian mine belts slowed Azerbaijani advances, but swarms of Turkish-supplied drones systematically destroyed armor and artillery supporting the defense.33 The lesson for Marines is clear: without adaptability and synchronization with fires, modern reconnaissance-strike complexes will render fixed minefields ineffective.
Adversaries are rapidly innovating with unmanned deception. Russia has combined decoy drones with live systems to saturate defenses, while China’s precision drones demonstrate the potential for swarm deception at scale.34 These experiments show that adversaries are already exploring the same technologies Marines must adopt, and delaying risks ceding initiative in countermobility.
Coalition partners also highlight the importance of accountability. NATO allies in Eastern Europe and humanitarian groups in post-conflict zones face heavy clearance burdens from unexploded ordnance.35 Drone-delivered minefields, equipped with digital emplacement records and remote disarmament capabilities, could alleviate these challenges, reducing political costs while enhancing alliance interoperability.
Doctrine
The Marine Corps should update MCWP 3-17, Engineer Operations, and MCWP 3-12, Combined Arms Countermobility, to codify precision, reversibility, and deception as core tenets of mine warfare. Engineer units must add scalable “drone obstacle platoons” capable of supporting MLRs and MEUs. MARADMIN 416/25, which announced the fielding of the Neros Archer FPV drone, illustrates both the opportunity and the challenge of integration—momentum toward low-cost drone employment, but also the risks of dependency and doctrine lagging behind capability.36
Organization
The pioneer battalion provides the ideal structure for experimenting with drone-delivered minefields. Its littoral engineer reconnaissance teams and littoral explosive ordnance neutralization sections are already tasked with countermobility and terrain shaping.37 Embedding drone-enabled obstacle platoons within this formation would align with its campaign of learning mandate and validate swarming minefields in littoral terrain.
Doctrine and Concept Alignment
The Maritime Terrain Shaping and Area Denial (MTS-AD) Functional Concept emphasizes that the Marine Corps is not currently organized, trained, or equipped for scalable terrain shaping.38 Drone-delivered minefields directly fulfill these requirements by providing reversible, deception-enabled, and recoverable obstacles that assure friendly maneuver.
Joint Integration
The Army is investing heavily in terrain-shaping prototypes through the Army Applications Laboratory and MSPIX. Experiments have shown that stacked drone swarms, RF decoys, and autonomous unmanned ground vehicles are viable engineering tools.39 Marines should observe and shape these efforts while avoiding redundant costs—“let the Army spend, Marines adopt”—and focus resources on doctrine, naval integration, and operational tactics, techniques, and procedures.
FPV Options
The FPV drones, such as the Neros Archer, provide a near-term, affordable method to validate terrain-shaping tactics. They can deliver explosive charges, reinforce countermobility lanes, and be integrated into Service-level training exercises. By employing FPVs now, Marines can refine doctrine, build trust in autonomy, and accelerate field adoption without waiting for larger programs of record.40
Operator Ownership
Combat engineers must remain the primary operators of drone-delivered minefields. Countermobility and demolition are core engineer tasks, and the community already owns the training standards and authorities required for safe and effective obstacle employment.41 Anchoring these systems in the engineer community ensures doctrinal integrity and synchronization with fires. If the capability scales, a dedicated unmanned aerial system obstacle military occupational specialty may be explored, but initial investment must remain engineer-led.
Training
The Engineer School curriculum should incorporate swarming, digital accountability, and AI-enabled planning. Training must include degraded communications scenarios and integration into Service-level and coalition training exercises. Reserve units, drawing on civilian drone expertise, are particularly suited to accelerate adoption.
Materiel
Attritable drones with modular mine kits should be prioritized, supported by 3D-printed components to reduce logistics burdens. A pilot program fielded in both an active-duty and a reserve engineer unit within 24 months would validate the concept and refine tactics, techniques, and procedures.42
Facilities and Policy
The Marine Corps should establish ranges for inertly emplaced drone minefields. Current executive guidance permits experimentation, but accountability and coalition releasability must remain central. Early NATO integration will ease interoperability and strengthen legitimacy.43
Roadmap
Implementation should follow a phased approach. Year 1: demonstrate commercial swarming, Year 2: equip pilot units, Year 3: integrate into exercises, Year 4: establish a program of record. Future systems must incorporate resilient command and control, deception, and reversibility as mandatory features while framing employment as compliant and humanitarian focused.
Conclusion
In the 1950s, basketball slowed until the introduction of the shot clock forced tempo and creativity back into the game. Legacy scatterable mines have created a similar problem in maneuver warfare. They are static, unreliable, and strategically costly—slowing friendly operations, creating enduring hazards, and undermining legitimacy.44 Without reform, the Marine Corps’ countermobility capability risks irrelevance in an era defined by tempo and adaptability.
Drone-delivered minefields are the shot clock for maneuver warfare. They enable Marines to emplace, camouflage, arm, disarm, and redeploy obstacles in minutes. The opening scenario illustrates the point: a Chinese amphibious force was delayed for 36 hours, then destroyed in a withdrawal kill zone. The same logic applies globally: NATO shaping Russian maneuver in Europe, FPVs denying approaches in the Middle East, or drones rapidly seeding choke-points in the Arctic.45
The Marine Corps cannot afford to lag behind adversaries already experimenting with swarms and deception. Maintaining tempo and adaptability will determine whether Marines impose costs or suffer them. Drone-delivered minefields impose disproportionate costs on adversaries at minimal expense, embodying the essence of asymmetric warfare.46 Just as the shot clock revitalized basketball, these systems will revitalize Marine Corps obstacle warfare—ensuring engineers deliver the unfair fight envisioned by Force Design 2030.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Capt Trossen is a prior-enlisted Combat Engineer Officer with over 22 years of experience in the Marine Corps engineer community, serving in both enlisted and officer capacities. He has previously served as a Company Commander in an engineer company within a Marine Wing Support Squadron and as a Company Inspector-Instructor in South Bend, IN. He currently commands Company B, 8th Engineer Support Battalion.
NOTES:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Military Operations: Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War, GAO-02-1003 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2002).
David Hambling, “Mine Craft: Ukrainian Drones Add a New Dimension to Mine War-fare,” Forbes, April 3, 2025, https://www.forbes. com/sites/davidhambling/2025/04/03/mine-craft-ukrainian-drones-add-a-new-dimension-to-mine-warfare.
Army Applications Laboratory, Engineer Operations: Autonomy Cohorts and Terrain Shaping Experimentation (Austin: May 2025); and Headquarters Marine Corps, MARADMIN 416/25, Guidance for the Fielding of the Neros Archer (Washington, DC: September 2025).
Headquarters Marine Corps, Force Design 2030 (Washington, DC: 2020).
Gary Sheffield, The First World War in 100 Objects (London: Imperial War Museum, 2017).
Ian Gooderson, A Hard Way to Make a War: British and German Minefields in North Africa, 1941–43 (London: Routledge, 2001).
Government Accountability Office, Military Operations: Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War.
International Committee of the Red Cross, Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Amended Protocol II to the CCW) (Geneva: October 1996).
The White House, “Executive Order 14307: Expanding Drone Integration to Increase Efficiency and Productivity,” June 6, 2025; Secretary of Defense, “Unleashing U.S. Military Drone Dominance,” (Washington, DC: July 2025); and The White House, “Revocation of National Security Memorandum 17 on Anti-Personnel Landmine Policy,” (Washington, DC: July 2025).
Timothy L. Thomas, “Russia’s Reflexive Control Theory and the Military,” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 17, No. 2 (2004).
Staff, “China Celebrates Lunar New Year with 3D Dragon Drone Display,” South China Morning Post, February 2021.
U.S. Army, Final Report–MSPIX 2025: Deep Terrain Shaping and Remote Breaching of Obstacles (Fort Leonard Wood: Army Applications Laboratory, May 2025).
Engineer Operations: Autonomy Cohorts and Terrain Shaping Experimentation.
Military Operations: Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War.
David C. Isby and Charles Kamps, Armies of NATO’s Central Front (London: Jane’s, 1985).
Emma Dodd and Caitlin Welsh, “Demining Ukraine’s Farmland: Progress, Adaptation, and Challenges,” CSIS, December 5, 2024, https://www.csis.org/analysis/demining-ukraines-farmland-progress-adaptation-and-needs.
Headquarters Marine Corps, Force Design 2030 (Washington, DC: 2020).
Staff, “Operation False Target: How Russia Plotted to Mix a Deadly New Weapon among Decoy Drones in Ukraine,” Associated Press, November 2024, https://apnews.com/video/ukraine-drones-russia-aerospace-and-defense-industry-war-and-unrest-76742f121c4d-4081a87b504b1a48afc7.
Force Design 2030.
Staff, “Flight Control System,” Verge Aero, n.d., https://verge.aero.
Paul Scharre, Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War (New York: W.W. Norton, 2018).
U.S. Army, Final Report–MSPIX 2025: Deep Terrain Shaping and Remote Breaching of Obstacles (Fort Leonard Wood: Army Ap-plications Laboratory, May 2025).
David Hambling, “GPS Just Became Optional for Military Navigation. Quantum Sen-sors Are Why,” Forbes, September 2025, https://www.forbes.com.
U.S. Department of Defense, “DARPA’s Robust Quantum Sensing Program,” Defense. gov, 2025, https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/roqs-robust-quantum-sensors.
Military Operations: Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War.
International Committee of the Red Cross, Anti-Personnel Landmines: Friend or Foe? (Geneva: ICRC, 1996).
Emma Dodd and Caitlin Welsh, “Demining Ukraine’s Farmland: Progress, Adaptation, and Challenges,” CSIS, December 5, 2024, https://www.csis.org/analysis/demining-ukraines-farmland-progress-adaptation-and-needs.
“Operation False Target: How Russia Plot-ted to Mix a Deadly New Weapon among Decoy Drones in Ukraine.”
U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Task List (MCTL), Engineer Section (Washington, DC: 2023).
Anti-Personnel Landmines: Friend or Foe?
“Mine Craft: Ukrainian Drones Add a New Dimension to Mine Warfare.”
Michael Kofman and Leonid Nersisyan, “The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War: Lessons for Future Conflict,” War on the Rocks, December 2020.
“Operation False Target: How Russia Plotted to Mix a Deadly New Weapon among Decoy Drones in Ukraine;” and “China Celebrates Lunar New Year with 3D Dragon Drone Display.”
International Committee of the Red Cross, Amended Protocol II to the CCW (Geneva: October 1996).
Headquarters Marine Corps, MARAD-MIN 416/25, Guidance for the Fielding of the Neros Archer (Washington, DC: September 2025).
U.S. Marine Corps, Pioneer Battalion Concept of Employment (Quantico, VA: Capabilities Development Directorate, February 2024).
U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Func-tional Concept: Maritime Terrain Shaping and Area Denial (Quantico, VA: Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, July 2022).
Final Report–MSPIX 2025: Deep Terrain Shaping and Remote Breaching of Obstacles.
MARADMIN 416/25.
Marine Corps Task List (MCTL), Engineer Section.
U.S. Department of Defense, “Drone Operator Career Field Development,” Defense. gov, 2025.
“Executive Order 14307: Expanding Drone Integration to Increase Efficiency and Productivity”; Secretary of Defense, Unleashing U.S. Military Drone Dominance (Washington, DC: July 2025); and Revocation of National Security Memorandum 17 on Anti-Personnel Landmine Policy.
Military Operations: Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War. Force Design 2030.
“Operation False Target: How Russia Plot-ted to Mix a Deadly New Weapon among Decoy Drones in Ukraine”; and “China Celebrates Lunar New Year with 3D Dragon Drone Display.”
The Commandant’s Rapid Response Essay Contest: Second Place
The Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron (HMLA) has long served as the Marine Corps’ rotary-wing utility and attack aviation workhorse. Centered around the UH-1Y Venom and the AH-1Z Viper, the HMLA structure was born of Cold War legacy platforms updated to meet post-9/11 operational demands. While the H-1 upgrade program succeeded in modernizing those platforms with improved powerplants, rotor systems, and avionics, the strategic environment has since changed. As the Marine Corps pivots to great-power competition, the legacy of the H-1 plat-form must be re-evaluated.
The 1990s decision to continue with the Bell H-1 Upgrade Program instead of shifting to the Sikorsky H-60 series was appropriate for its time. It allowed for parts commonality, reduced acquisition costs, and leveraged existing maintenance infrastructure. However, the assumption underpinning that decision—that the HMLA structure could meet future expeditionary and distributed warfare needs—no longer holds.
Background: Proven Performance in a Changing World
The H-1 aircraft have served admirably across decades of conflict. The UH-1Y offered a major step up in survivability, digital cockpit integration, and mission flexibility, especially when paired with the AH-1Z. The platforms boast 85 percent parts commonality, a critical enabler in logistics efficiency during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and MEU deployments.
However, those successes were rooted in a context of low-intensity conflict, permissive airspace, and robust forward operating bases. Today’s reality is defined by dispersed operations, denied logistics chains, anti-access/area-denial environments, and contested maritime domains.
In parallel, the Marine Corps has introduced the Stand-In Forces (SIF) concept—a doctrinal shift focused on persistent, forward-deployed units operating inside an adversary’s weapons engagement zone. These forces must be agile, survivable, and interoperable with joint and partner forces.
The Role of Rotary-Wing Close Air Support in the Future Fight
The Marine Corps possesses a deeply rooted close air support (CAS) culture, forged through decades of joint operations and integrated fires. This institutional knowledge enables Marine aviators to work seamlessly with ground forces and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers, making the Marine Corps the go-to Service for CAS in the Joint Force. The enduring emphasis on combined-arms operations reinforces the value of rotary-wing CAS as an essential tool in contested and austere environments.
Marine AH-1Z Viper and UH-1Y Venom helicopters with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 263 (Reinforced), 22nd MEU (Special Operations Capable), fly in a formation during operations underway in the Caribbean Sea in September 2025. (Photo by Sgt Tanner Bernat.)
As unmanned aerial systems proliferate and prove effective in conflicts such as the Russo-Ukrainian War, questions have emerged regarding the enduring relevance of rotary-wing CAS. While drones offer low-risk, long-endurance surveillance and precision strike capabilities, they cannot fully replace the flexibility and responsiveness of manned rotary platforms.
Rotary-wing CAS provides commanders with realtime decision making, coordinated fires, and the ability to adapt to dynamic ground combat conditions. Helicopters are not only weapons delivery platforms; they are versatile airframes that can deploy and support drone operations, serve as airborne command and control nodes, and offer casualty evacuation or resupply under fire.
Moreover, CAS conducted from helicopters fosters joint terminal attack controller integration and enhances combined arms effectiveness. This layered approach ensures redundancy and resilience on the battlefield—qualities that are critical in peer or near-peer engagements. A hybrid model that combines rotary-wing CAS with drone capabilities will likely dominate future battlefields.
The MH-60S platform, especially with the armament kit making it an Armed Black Hawk (ABH), supports this hybrid future. It can deliver suppressive fire, coordinate strikes, or act as a launch and relay platform for unmanned aerial systems. Its ability to integrate into naval operations and expeditionary bases makes it a critical enabler of persistent close air support in contested environments.
The Case for the MH-60S/ABH: Flexibility, Interoperability, and Logistics
In addition to its combat utility, the MH-60S enhances the Marine Corps’ ability to contribute to joint operations in other mission areas. When embarked aboard amphibious shipping, Marine-operated MH-60s can augment search and rescue capabilities, providing rapid response and recovery for personnel in distress. This dual-purpose role strengthens naval force protection and humanitarian assistance during expeditionary missions.
MH-60S Sea Hawk on the fl ight deck of the world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). (Photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Brianna Barnett.)
The MH-60S with the ABH kit offers substantial operational and logistical benefits over the current HMLA construct:
Multi-role Capability: The platform performs armed reconnaissance, vertical assault, medevac, ISR, armed escort, and anti-armor missions when equipped with the ABH kit.
Naval Integration: Designed for shipboard use, the MH-60S seamlessly operates from amphibious ships (LHDs, LPDs) and other amphibious platforms.
Logistics Commonality: Shared components with the MH-60R/S enable integration into the Navy’s global sustainment architecture.
Interoperability: Already fielded by partner nations, the platform enhances joint and coalition mission execution.
Growth Potential: Capable of incorporating mine detection systems, extended range tanks, and directed energy weapons in the future.
Since logistics often relies on commercial services and contracted sustainment pathways, the Marine Corps would benefit from the MH-60’s alignment with allied logistics infrastructure. The widespread use of H-60 variants across more than 30 countries enables the Marine Corps to tap into allied nations’ parts programs, boosting availability and mitigating domestic logistical shortfalls in a contested or resource-constrained environment. Logistics operations could also hide in plain sight by leveraging the parts commonality with host-nation inventories, allowing Marine Corps supply and maintenance activities to blend with existing allied infrastructure, reducing the visibility and vulnerability of logistical nodes in contested environments. The Marine Corps could also further increase resilience by prepositioning key supplies with allied forces who operate the same platform, ensuring rapid access to critical components in theater and enabling quicker recovery from attrition or supply chain disruption. This global adoption also enables greater coalition interoperability and access to multinational sustainment hubs during joint operations.
Furthermore, the H-60’s operational pedigree is unmatched among rotary-wing platforms. The platform’s modularity has allowed for adaptations across mission sets—from humanitarian assistance to special operations. Most notably, a stealth-modified version of the Black Hawk was used in Operation NEPTUNE SPEAR—the mission that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden. This high-risk, high-precision operation demonstrated the H-60’s adaptability, stealth modification potential, and elite mission success under extreme conditions.
Another distinct advantage of the H-60 platform is its ability to conduct aerial refueling, reducing the reliance on aviation-delivered ground refueling. In distributed maritime and expeditionary environments where forward arming and refueling points may be limited or compromised, this capability allows for greater operational endurance and tactical flexibility. Aerial refueling extends mission range and dwell time for rotary-wing platforms, enabling deeper penetration into contested areas without the logistical risk associated with groundbased refueling operations.
The Marine Corps already has VH-60N pilots stationed at HMX-1. These pilots could act as the instructor cadres during the transition. These seasoned pilots possess institutional knowledge of the H-60 platform and could assist in converting both the training pipeline and the fleet, ensuring a smoother and faster implementation of the MH-60 transition.
Organizational Implications: From HMLA to HMMA
Adopting the MH-60S would require structural changes to the HMLA designation and table of organization and equipment. The HMLA designation would need to shift to Marine Medium Attack Helicopter (HMMA) Squadron, reflecting the new platform’s capabilities and dual-role nature. The Marine Corps would require table of organization and equipment changes, as well as updates to training pipelines and maintenance protocols. Since the MH-60 variant can perform both utility and attack missions, the total number of aircraft fielded may be reduced allowing for streamlined fleet management.
Additionally, the reorganization of personnel will be necessary. Fewer aircraft could lead to a surplus of qualified aircrew and maintainers. Rather than reduce manpower, the Marine Corps should repurpose this talent to establish an aviation liaison company modeled after air naval gunfire liaison companies. Instead of coordinating fires, this unit would consist of experienced pilots and maintainers focused on building aviation capacity with allied and partner nations. These teams could deploy to enhance coalition air interoperability, provide training, and strengthen forward aviation operations in alignment with SIF objectives.
This transformation is not without cost, but the benefits are profound. In an era of constrained logistics, dispersed operations, and joint warfighting, the Marine Corps cannot afford to field legacy systems that fail to meet the threat.
Recommendations
Initiate a phased replacement of H-1 aircraft with MH-60S variants equipped with ABH kits.
Redesignate HMLA squadrons as HMMA and revise the table of organization and equipment accordingly.
Integrate training and maintenance pipelines with Navy MH-60R/S programs.
Enhance forward-deployed logistics nodes to support MH-60 operations under SIF doctrine.
Partner with allied forces operating MH-60 variants to standardize coalition interoperability.
Stand up an aviation liaison company to expand partner capacity and joint mission support.
A New Acquisition Opportunity: Capitalizing on Army Transition
The Army is transitioning from the H-60 platform to the Bell V-280 Valor tiltrotor, a move that will phase out thousands of existing Black Hawk helicopters. The Marine Corps could take advantage of this transition by acquiring surplus Army H-60s at a reduced cost and converting them to the MH-60S variant. This would accelerate modernization while avoiding the cost of new airframe production.
Additionally, the Marine Corps could mothball the legacy HMLA fleet. By placing H-1 airframes in long-term preservation, the Service would retain surge capacity for major conflicts while focusing current efforts on building a more integrated and survivable rotary force aligned with SIF doctrine.
The Bell V-280 Valor. (Photo: Courtesy of Bell/U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center.)
Conclusion
The H-1 program has served the Marine Corps with distinction, yet the emerging operational environment demands more. The MH-60S variant—with its modularity, interoperability, and logistical advantages—provides a pathway to modernize Marine aviation. Combined with doctrinal shifts like SIF, adopting the H-60 strengthens the Corps’ ability to operate forward, fight distributed, and support allies and partners across the globe.
Modernizing to the MH-60S not only responds to current operational needs but also prepares the Marine Corps for future contingencies by leveraging the broader DOD ecosystem. If the Marine Corps acquires surplus H-60s from the Army, then it allows for cost-effective transition and rapid fielding. With the excess aircrew and maintainers, the Marine Corps has the capacity to establish liaison elements modeled after air naval gunfire liaison companies and enhance strategic partnerships while preserving legacy platforms for potential large-scale conflict and providing depth in the force.
This transition supports the Marine Corps’ enduring role as a premier crisis response force, ensuring aviation remains a lethal, flexible, and forward-postured capability. Rotary-wing CAS—when aligned with SIF principles and integrated across the naval and Joint Force—remains indispensable. Rethinking HMLA is not merely about replacing platforms but evolving the Corps’ posture to prevail in the contested, distributed fight of the future.
> Maj Healy is a Faculty Advisor at Expeditionary Warfare School.
Human-enabled targeting within the first island chain
Humans are more important than hardware, and every human is a sensor. Focusing on humans as a meansof crowd-sourcing intelligence, by as-sisting them with technology (both old and new), Marine Forces Special Op-erations Command (MARSOC) can fundamentally transform the way we gather intelligence as an organization. Below are three vignettes, all taking place in a futuristic scenario of a cross-strait invasion, that highlight potential use cases of a crowdsourced, versatile, and human-centric platform to find, fix, and finish. All the vignettes incen-tivize intelligence gathering on threat networks and utilize crowdsourcing to both source and verify information. The proposed crowdsourced kill web is persistent and reliable, offering cel-lular capabilities in a contested environ-ment and high frequency (HF) digital capabilities in a denied environment. Overall, a crowdsourced kill webs offer MARSOC the ability to transform the way we do intelligence gathering by turning every human in the contested littoral environment into a thread in the kill web.
Vignette 1: Freedom of the Seas
Somewhere in the Philippine Sea: Capt Remy was steaming toward his favorite fishing grounds north of his hometown in Luzon. He had been fishing these grounds since he was a kid, but he had not been back here in a couple of months. Back in the day, he did not have to worry about getting boarded by Chinese Coast Guard vessels, but their patrols of this area had kept Remy away for the past couple of months. Remy was not a political guy, but when someone came after him and affected his ability to make a living and feed his family, it felt like a personal attack. He was struggling to make ends meet, and every time he got pushed off the fishing grounds, all he could think about was the sunk cost going down the drain. Last week, his buddy showed him this app on his phone. He said this was a way of making some quick cash out on the boat in case you got run off by anyone while trying to stand up for his fishing rights at the same time. He was not too sure at first, but after a couple of days of mediocre catches, Remy was warming up to the idea of standing up for his fishing grounds, and it did not hurt that he could make a quick buck at the same time. Just then, through a break in the fog, a Chinese Coast Guard vessel appeared, cutting a collision course straight across Remy’s bow. As he changed course to avoid a collision, Capt Remy pulled out his phone and snapped a pic of the Chinese Coast Guard vessel. As the loudspeaker harassed him in broken propaganda, he changed his course for home and resigned himself to another day without a catch. Once he had cleared the vessel, he took out his phone to look at the picture. Remy was done dealing with getting chased off his fishing grounds; he was done coming home without anything to show for it. With bitter resolve, he opened the app and uploaded the picture, filled out a couple of details, and hit the submit button. Remy’s report was quickly validated via AI, and he was rewarded with $50 into his PayPal.
Operations Center: Got another one, Capt Kim said to himself. Reports had been flooding in since his intel fusion cell had launched the crowdsourced intel program earlier this week. Higher (headquarters) did not seem as bought off on the idea as he had initially hoped, but they did grant him and his team two months to beta test it, and he knew that was all the time he needed to show how game-changing this capability would be. As the reports flowed in, Kim and his team assisted the AI program in sorting and grouping the reports as it automatically compiled intel summaries and updated the common operation picture accordingly. Reports came in of varied qualities, but users were incentivized financially to provide as much detail as possible, and once the report was corroborated via other modes of intelligence, they were rewarded.
“I still don’t get why you’re wasting your time with this,” Kim’s coworker, LT Smith, snarled.
“You still don’t get it, do you? We have essentially created a crowdsourced intelligence platform for the entirety of the Pacific. Fishermen, merchant marines, recreational pilots, sailors, everyone that is out there with a smartphone in the littorals is a sensor working for us.” Kim retorted defiantly.
He knew it would work; nobody bought an idea on the first sell. Everybody said it would be too expensive, but unmanned sensors could be expensive too and often less reliable. Drones crashed, sensors broke, and weather caused delays, but humans could persist and prevail.
An HC-130J Super Hercules airplane crew from Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak observes two Russian Border Guard ships and two Chinese Coast Guard ships approximately 440 miles southwest of St. Lawrence Island on 28 September 2024. This marked the northernmost loca-tion where Chinese Coast Guard vessels have been observed by the U.S. Coast Guard. (Photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Travis Magee.)
Vignette 2: Return of the Coast Watcher
Two weeks have passed. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) invaded Taiwan and established a total blockade of the first island chain. In addition to the blockade, PLA Cyberspace Forces eliminated all cellular and satellite services.
Ishigaki Island: On the island of Ishigaki, Henry Smith, an Australian studying abroad, just summited the final step of the Tamatorizaki Observation Platform. This is crazy, Henry said to himself as he set down his backpack and started setting up his kit. Henry’s grandfather was one of the legendary Australian Coast Watchers in the Solomon Islands during World War II. Maybe I’ll get a shoutout in the his-tory books one day too, Henry thought to himself as he finished tuning his five-watt QRP (ham radio speak for “reduced power”) HF radio. He pulled out his old bird-watching binos and focused them on a Chinese warship on the horizon. Henry had flown into Ishigaki about three weeks ago, unaware of the global turmoil mounting in the South China Sea. Cell and satellite services had been nonexistent for at least two weeks; he figured this was pretty serious and he might as well try to make a difference. Luckily, he happened to bring his ham radio equipment along, hoping to get some Summit on the Air contacts from this remote Pacific island during his short vacation. Summit on the Air was an amateur ham radio organization that rewarded people based on their ability to establish “contacts” from remote summits utilizing portable ham radio equipment. As both a ham radio and outdoor enthusiast, Summit on the Air was the perfect hobby for Henry to challenge him both physically and intellectually. Until this moment, he had not realized it also happened to be the best preparation for being a modern-day Coast Watcher out there. He jotted down the description, heading, and estimated speed of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) Warship on his notepad and quickly translated the message into Morse, connected his paddle, and started transmitting.
Operations Center: Beeeeep-Beeeeep-Beep-Beep-Beep. GySgt Johnson shot up from his desk and flipped over his coffee as the squawk box in front of him burst to life, beeping out Morse code in a hurried tone. Johnson could hardly contain his joy as he opened SOF-Chat to translate the message. He was not sure if he was more excited about the first intelligence report they had received in days or because of his absurd idea to monitor the ham radio Military Auxiliary Radio System band had actually yielded fruit.
“Sir, you’ve got to get a load of this,” Johnson hollered, motioning to Capt Kim furiously with one hand as he copied down the message with the other.
“This is the gold,” said Kim as he alerted the command operations center, resulting in a flurry of battle drills. Once the strike had been prosecuted, Kim came back over to Johnson and said flatly, “We need more intel, our system hasn’t yielded any reporting since the blockade started, and the cellular networks went down. Is there a way to pair our app with ham radios so we can get back to crowd-sourcing intel and building targeting data?”
“I’m glad you asked, sir. I have been going back and forth with VK7JQP, that’s our boy on Ishigaki, and I think we may have a solution. Unfortunately, not everyone out there has a ham radio kit like our man VK7JQP, but he recommended an existing low-cost commercial-off-the-shelf kit for under $200, pairing a small five-watt QRP HF radio, smartphone, a small solar charger, and a simple set of instructions. The smartphone will be preloaded with our app capable of pulling targeting data from a video of the target and then automatically sending that data in an HF data package through the radio. Sir, if you can get your team to adjust our system to receive reports over HF digitally, we’ll be able to build back the kill web and end this blockade.” Johnson sat back, excited that his ham radio knowledge had finally paid off.
Vignette 3: Contested Littoral Coast Watchers
On the outskirts of Hualien in Taiwan: It was early morning, and the fog was thick along the eastern coast of Taiwan. Weilong walked down the shore with his younger brother, Yi, and looked for a break in the surf where they could cast their lines. The PLA soldiers had not made it to Hualien yet; for now, the mountains protected them. The coast was a different story; the PLAN patrolled there and would harass anyone along the beach, forcing them to fish in the morning fog. Food had grown short in the city, but luckily, Weilong and Yi’s father, who came from a line of indigenous Taiwanese people, taught them at an early age not to rely on the grocery store. As Weilong and Yi walked toward their morning fishing spot, Wei-long spotted a strange box floating in a tide pool. Before he could caution his younger brother to be careful of the foreign object, Yi jumped upon the box, hauled it to the dry sand, and ripped it open. Weilong hurried over and peered inside, reached into his hand, and pulled out a small, cheaply made smartphone, something that looked like an old radio with a string of wire, a small solar char-ger, and an instruction manual. Weilong opened the instruction manual and read the introduction page:
To the People of Taiwan, you have been unjustly occupied, and the United States is here to help. Inside this box is a ham radio, a phone, and a solar power charger. If you follow the simple instructions in this manual, you will be able to fight back and reclaim your homeland in a peaceful manner. All you must do is follow these simple instructions. Every report you send up is a day closer to breaking the blockade and reclaiming your homeland.
Weilong flipped through the other pages and skimmed the instructional graphics as he went. He had played around with walkie-talkies when he was younger, but that was about the extent of his radio knowledge. The graphics clearly laid out how to set up the antenna, utilize the radio, and send reports via the phone. What the hell, he thought. Might as well do something instead of sitting here waiting for the PLA to come take our land.
“Come on, Yi, we got work to do,” Weilong said to his brother, and they headed up into the mountains to break out of the fog layer and start their unknown journey to submit the first intel reports on PLAN movement on the east coast of Taiwan since the war had begun.
The crowdsourced kill-web system would prove pivotal in turning the tide of the PLAN blockade, providing crucial targeting data on PLAN vessels that would facilitate the joint kill web and lead to the liberation of Taiwan. It was entirely instrumented by allies, partners, and concerned citizens submitting crowdsourced intelligence reports of PLAN ship movements along the coast. Opening the app and following a set of simple instructions, users take a video of the enemy threat system. Artificial intelligence analysis built into the app pulls all relevant targeting information from the video and transmits that data to the paired radio system in binary code. That code is then sent via HF digital transmission to a distributed network of processing centers where AI and human analysts sort the data and compile firing solutions. Even after the PLA found such radios and learned of the existence of the program, they were unable to hinder the mass influx of reporting.
Conclusion
Overall, crowdsourced kill webs will give MARSOC the ability to transform the way we do intelligence gathering by turning every human in the contested littoral environment into a thread in the kill web. Through this simple, low-cost, resilient, and commercial off-the-shelf solution, we will enable allies, partners, and concerned citizens to report on threats in a timely, safe, and nearly untraceable manner. The crowdsourced kill web system is built on the premise of open-source intelligence gathering, utilizing both smartphone and ham radio technology to build intelligence awareness in both permissive and denied environments. Humans will be more important than hardware in the fight to come. Crowdsourced kill webs will enable allies, partners, and concerned citizens across the littorals to join the fight to protect their homeland.
>Capt Ignotus is an officer serving in MARSOC. He is writing under a pseudonym due to security concerns.
Throughout its 250-year history, the Marine Corps, in the words of 1980s comedian Rodney Dangerfield, “Don’t get no respect.” Dangerfield’s line describes the treatment of the Marine Corps by four presidents, congressmen, the Army, and the Navy. Non-combat battles for Marines took place between the 1780s through the 1950s. Challenges included proposals to move the Marines into the Army, eliminate the Marines, reduce the size of the Marines, and pull Marines from ships.
After only eight years in operation, the United States disbanded the Marine Corps on 3 September 1783. That was the same day that Great Britain formally recognized the independence of the United States by the Treaty of Paris. President George Washington returned the Marines to action in 1789.
A major attack on the Marines came from President Andrew Jackson. On 8 December 1829, Jackson addressed Congress. He recommended merging the Marine Corps into the artillery or infantry, thus “curing the many defects in its organization.” The Marine Corps Commandant, LtCol Archibald Henderson, defended the existence of the Marine Corps. Henderson said, “As the commandant of the Corps, if I thought such a change necessary for the public interests, I should be among the first to recommend it. It is my fixed opinion that no such change will eventuate in the promotion of either economy or utility.” Henderson’s response led to Congress passing legislation placing the Marine Corps under the Secretary of the Navy in 1834. Jackson signed the bill, ending the placement of Marine functions into the Army.1
In 1864, during the Civil War, a resolution came before Congress to transfer the Marine Corps to the Army. The Marine Corps Commandant, Col Jacob Zeilen, once Henderson’s aide, gathered support from senior Navy officers. That resolution died in a House committee. Three years later, Zeilen faced a new challenge—legislation to abolish the Marine Corps. Again, Zeilen gathered the support of senior naval officers. That legislation failed to get out of committee.2
While the Army and Navy had four-star leaders since 1866, Gen Alexander A. Vandegrift, 18th Commandant of the Marine Corps, became the first Marine to earn a fourth star in 1945. That was 89 years after GEN Ulysses S. Grant and ADM David C. Farragut received their fourth stars.3
Between 1894 and 1908, the Marines faced a reduction in responsibility when naval officers wanted Marines off ships. Then, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt agreed with those officers. In 1908, President Roosevelt acted by ordering Marines off the Navy’s ships. Roosevelt’s 9 November 1908 order came one day before the Marine Corps’ 133rd birthday. Under Roosevelt, the Marines were landbased only.4 Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft, former Secretary of War under Roosevelt, reversed his predecessor’s decision on 26 March 1909.5
While researching generals in the Marine Corps, author Glenn M. Harned said, “Before 1916, the United States Marine Corps did not have a general officers corps. Five Marine officers served as Commandant in the grade of brigadier general or major general, but none of them advanced to the permanent grade above that of colonel.”6
In 1933, ADM William V. Pratt, chief of naval operations, called for “amalgamation of the Marine Corps into the Army.” Pratt explained that Marines were once needed to suppress mutinies by sailors in what was called the “Pratt Memo.” According to Pratt, “As the world became more settled and as colonization settled, the need for small expeditionary forces grew less.” Pratt said other nations abolished or reduced the size of their Marine units, while the United States built “a small Army” within the Navy. Pratt added, “The principal weapons of the larger proportion of the Marine Corps are the rifle, bayonet, and machine gun, exactly the same for the infantry of the Army.” Pratt’s argument suggested that cost savings would result. Pratt said, “Everything except the combat element of the Marine Corps could be eliminated,” adding that administration, training, and supply could be handled by the Army in existing facilities.7
Even during World War II, Gen Vandegrift had to defend the Corps when he spoke to the House Select Committee on Post War Policy on 11 May 1944, 34 days before Marines landed on Saipan. Vandegrift explained the Marine Corps had to fight for its existence throughout its history. Vandegrift reminded committee members of the 1867 proposal to abolish the Marine Corps and assign their responsibilities to the Army. That failed, Vandegrift added.8
Post World War II, the War Department reorganization into the Department of Defense nearly ended the Marine Corps. The 1947 reorganization created the United States Air Force from the Army Air Force. Leaders of the Army, Navy, and Air Force were named full members of the newly created Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The Marines were not included. Gen Vandegrift battled to keep the Marine Corps a separate Service. On 6 May 1946, Vandegrift spoke before the Senate Naval Affairs Committee during a hearing on bill S. 2044 to place the responsibilities of the Marine Corps under the Army. Proponents of S. 2044 included President Harry S. Truman, War Department leaders, and Army Chief of Staff GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower. Vandegrift made his case to senators in what became known as the “bended knee” speech. Vandegrift spoke about the impact of S. 2044 on the Marine Corps. The general explained that the bill would “spell the extinction of the Marine Corps.” Vandegrift added, “For some time I have been aware that the very existence of the Marine Corps stood as a continued affront to the War Department general staff.” Pointing to the World War II victories in the Pacific, Vandegrift outlined the Marine Corps’ amphibious capabilities. Speaking from a historical point of view, Vandegrift explained the impact of the Marine Corps. The general said the Marine Corps forecasted a pattern of war with Japan in 1921. Vandegrift said:
In conjunction with the Navy, we provided the nation with a doctrine, technique, method, and equipment which became the standard pattern of amphibious warfare adopted not only by our own Army but by the armies and navies of eight United Nations as well. It proved to the key to victory in every major theater of the war.
With a backhand to the Army, Vandegrift described the Marines as a “skilled body of specialists” who received “world-wide professional prestige without benefit of West Point tradition or War Department direction.” Again, referencing the Pacific in World War II, Vandegrift explained the Marines are the nation’s “primary force of readiness.” He added that the operation at Guadalcanal could not have been launched by the Army, as that Service was not trained for an amphibious assault landing. Vandegrift explained the end of the Marine Corps would be offset by “the part-time assignment of Army troops for naval purposes.” He praised the Army’s ability to organize and prepare operations “with care and deliberation.” Vandegrift argued, those abilities did not “make up an effective mobile, amphibious force.” He added, “The Marines have always viewed the landing operations as a specialty—their specialty.” Continuing his case against the Army taking on amphibious operations, Vandegrift pointed to the Army’s Field Service Regulations. It had only eight of 1,084 paragraphs covering amphibious operations. In response to the War Department’s contention that Marines’ amphibious efforts “are an invasion of the Army’s sphere,” Vandegrift said, “The Army is not and never has been in the amphibious field.” The general also reminded the Senate Committee that Army troops who carried out amphibious landings used Marine Corps techniques, and in some cases were trained by Marines. Vandegrift concluded with an emotionally charged statement:
The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps. If the Marine as a fighting man has not made a case for himself after 170 years of service, he must go. But, I think you will agree with me that he has earned the right to depart with dignity and honor, not by subjugation to the status of uselessness and servility planned for him asked by the War Department.9
Five days after Vandegrift’s Senate presentation, an Associated Press reporter asked GEN Eisenhower his take on Vandegrift’s statement. Eisenhower replied, “No one has paid more tribute to the Marines’ record,” than he (Eisenhower) did.10 Vandegrift’s speech paid off. Despite the War Department’s efforts, the Marine Corps stayed a separate Service. The Marines still did not have a position on the JCS.
With the unification of the Services finalized and the Marines still in business, the fight for the existence of the Corps continued. Alan Rems, writing in a June 2019 article for the magazine Naval History, described the post-World War II intra-Service efforts to minimize the role of the Marine Corps. For example, the Nation’s first Secretary of Defense, James V. Forrestal, held a meeting with the Service chiefs in Key West, FL, in March 1948. Forrestal did not include Gen Clifford B. Cates, Vandegrift’s successor. Truman wanted deeper defense cuts. Louis B. Johnson, Forrestal’s successor, advocated moving the Marines under the Army and placing Marine aviation with the Air Force. Legally, it was pointed out, Johnson could not do that. The battles among the Service chiefs led to hearings before the House Armed Services Committee in October 1949. The JCS Chairman, GEN Omar Bradley, told the committee that amphibious operations of the Navy and Marines would not be needed.11
While Vandegrift’s efforts helped keep the Marine Corps as a separate branch of the military, Pratt’s memo did not die due to retired Army GEN George Van Horn Moseley. Mosely served as GEN Douglas MacArthur’s Army’s vice chief of staff in the 1930s. In a 15 February 1949 letter to Eisenhower, Moseley mentioned Pratt’s memo. Moseley summarized the memo and added his view when he wrote:
The idea that Marines can be landed on the shores of a foreign nation without committing an international breach, is all baloney. It is perfectly absurd and entirely incongruous to maintain two armies. The continental existence of the Marine Corps adds greatly to duplication and expense. Why should the Marine Corps have a separate air force?
Moseley blamed the Marines’ Capitol Hill influence when he said, “This question would have been adjusted years ago.” Moseley took one more shot at the Marine Corps with this comment, “You (Eisenhower) accomplished all of your victories in Europe without a single Marine.” (Moseley’s comment was inaccurate, according the Royal Marines’ history that said, “While few in number and often forgotten, around 700 United States Marines were present on D Day either ashore [Omaha Beach] or as part of ships crews.” In addition, Marines served in London and Iceland. Other Marines were assigned to Navy ships.)12 Finally, Mosely mentioned he sent a copy of the “Pratt Memo” to former President Herbert Hoover, chairman of the Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch. The former President thanked Moseley for his letter and expressed “appreciation for his views.”13
Letters between Van Horn Mossley and Eisenhower; Pratt Memos calling for amalgamation of Marine Corps with the Army. (Photos provided by author.)
On 19 February 1949, Eisenhower replied to Moseley. While not directly agreeing with Moseley’s view, Eisenhower offered insight into his feelings about the Marine Corps issue with this statement:
The whole trouble with this question of the Marines, the distortion with which it is treated when it is dragged out into the open. It becomes a subject to which is applied a great deal of emotionalism, prejudice and hysteria, but very little logic and good sense.14
Eisenhower’s 8 April 1950 answer to World War II Marine veteran Richard W. Courchaine took a different tone than his response to Moseley. Courchaine wrote Eisenhower in April about a Saturday Evening Post article, “The Marine Corps Fights for Its Life.” Courchaine said, “I was very surprised to find it (the article) that you were for it, such as regulating it (the Marine Corps) to a very small size.” Eisenhower replied that he had not read the Saturday Evening Post story. He said, “I have never in anyway advocated the abolishment of the Marine Corps. I tremendously admire the Marine Corps.”15
Before the Korean War, Secretary Johnson called for a reduction of the Corps to six battalions and six squadrons. The onset of the Korean War stopped Johnson’s plan.16 When the North Koreans crossed the 38th parallel into South Korea in June 1950, the Nation needed the Marine Corps. Cates offered Marine ground and air forces and obtained Truman’s authorization to activate Marine reserves.17
On 29 August 1950, California Republican Congressman Gordon L. McDonough wrote President Truman asking him to place the Commandant of the Marines on the JCS. McDonough stated, “The United States Marine Corps is entitled to full recognition as a major branch of the Armed Services of the U.S., and should have its representative on the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Department of Defense.” President Truman angrily replied in a letter to Congressman McDonough. Truman said:
For your information, the Marine Corps is the navy’s police force and as long as I am President that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is about equal to Stalin.18
Marines in the field had a response to Truman’s propaganda comment. One example came from retired Marine Col Warren Wiedhan. Wiedhan, a private serving in Korea in 1950 before the Inchon Landing, said that Marines felt this way about Truman’s comment, “The Marine Corps propaganda machine is BETTER than Stalin’s.”19
On 6 September, nine days before the Inchon Landing in Korea, Truman issued a written apology and addressed the Marine Corps League’s national meeting in Washington, DC. Gen Cates told Marine Corps League members, “We in the Marine Corps appreciate courage, especially personal courage.” On the same day, Truman sent Cates a letter. Truman said, “I am profoundly aware of the magnificent history of the United States Marine Corps, and of the many heroic deeds of the Marines since the Corps was established in 1775. I personally learned of the splendid combat spirit of the Marines when the Fourth Marine Brigade of the Second Infantry Division fought in France in 1918.”20 While the president attacked the Marine Corps and then had to walk back his remarks, the Marines received high praise from a surprising source, GEN MacArthur, commander of the United Nations forces during the Korean War. MacArthur said this about the Marines in a statement confirmed by the MacArthur Memorial: “I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is no finer fighting force in the world.”21
The Marine Corps hymn includes the words “We fight our country’s battles on air, on land, and sea.” Post-World War II Marines should have added five words to the hymn: in the halls of Congress. The battle to gain a seat on the JCS continued in the early 1950s. In 1951, two Marine veterans serving in Congress battled to add the Commandant to the JCS. Congressman Mike Mansfield, a Montana Democrat, and Illinois Democratic Senator Paul Douglas joined forces with the Marine Corps League. Mansfield served as a Marine Corps private in the early 1920s. Douglas enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 50, earned a commission, and served with the 1st MarDiv in the Pacific, earning the Bronze Star and receiving two Purple Heart Medals.
Mansfield supported the Douglas-Mansfield Bill H.R. 2034 (S. 677-the Senate version) in his 24 January 1951, House speech. Mansfield said his proposal “would in unequivocal terms establish an organizational structure for the Marine Corps that would not be subject to the whims of the appropriations.” The bill called for establishing four combat divisions and four tactical air wings with a cap on total Marines at 400,000. Mansfield said that the 400,000 limit “is in this bill to emphasize that fact that we are not trying to develop a second army.” Speaking about Marine tactical air, Mansfield listed three reasons to establish four air wings. First, Marine aviation “originated dive bombing.” Second, Marine aviation developed “close air tactical air support. Third, helicopter use “from a tactical standpoint came about from Marine aviation. Referring to the Korean War, Mansfield said, “If this force had been in readiness, ready to move at the outbreak of the Korean incident, the situation might have been drastically altered in our favor.” In addition, Mansfield called for making the Commandant of the Marine Corps a permanent member of the JCS. While acknowledging that the Senate’s version of the bill had been amended to make the Commandant a JCS consultant “on all matters pertaining to the Marine Corps,” Mansfield argued for the House version. He posed this question, “Would not the commandant of the Marine Corps, a man thoroughly trained in ground, sea, and air war, fit into this group as a catalyst?” Mansfield added, “The commandant of the Marine Corps would add great experience and scope to these councils.”22
While Mansfield’s proposal had Congressional support, the JCS opposed adding the Commandant of the Marine Corps as a permanent JCS member. On 12 April 1951, Secretary of Defense George C. Marshall sent a letter to the Committee on Armed Services, Senate Chairman Senator Richard B. Russell, a Georgia Democrat. Marshall said the JCS unanimously opposed the proposal as “unnecessary, undesirable, and impracticable.” Secretary Marshall added that he concurred with the JCS. Marshall also explained,
In addition to the fact that full consideration is now given to the views of the commandant of the Marine Corps, the combat element of the Marine Corps are part of the operating force of the Navy and the headquarters of the Marine Corps is not staffed to consider all of the problems confront the Joint Chiefs of Staff.23
Also on 12 April 1951, Senator Douglas mentioned the letter he sent to his colleagues advocating adding the Commandant of the Marine Corps as a permanent JCS member. Douglas told fellow Senators that adding the Commandant “will place two voices trained in naval and amphibious matters in an organization which is now dominated by services that have little knowledge or interest in the problems of naval warfare.” Douglas highlighted the success of the Marines in the Korean War.24 Douglas pointed to the overwhelming Army influence within the JCS from Chairman, Army GEN Omar Bradley, and Army Chief of Staff GEN Joseph L. Collins. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen Hoyt Vandenberg graduated from West Point.25 Mansfield’s bill wound its way through the legislative sausage grinder. Truman signed the final bill, Public Law 416, on 28 June 1952. The law called for no less than three combat divisions and three air wings in the Marine Corps. Regarding the status of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the amended Senate version won out. The Commandant “shall indicate to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff any matter scheduled for consideration by the Joint Chiefs of Staff which directly concerns the United States Marine Corps.”26 For the Marine Corps, the new law was a step forward. The Marines remained a separate branch of the military and did get a larger force. The successes of Marines at Inchon, Seoul, and the Chosin Reservoir, along with World War II victories in the Pacific, earned the Marine Corps its new status. In addition, political winds were at the backs of the Marine Corps. Politically speaking, 800 Marine Corps League detachments worked with Douglas and Mansfield, demonstrating Marine influence with Congress. For Truman, then in his final months as a lame duck president, it was quite a change from his 1950 attitude about the Marine Corps. In the end, Truman’s intemperate remarks about the Marine Corps in 1950 likely helped the cause of the Marine Corps more than they hurt. 1952 was an election year and opposing the Douglas-Mansfield bill was not politically helpful.
In 1958, a new challenge to the existence of the Marine Corps arose. President Eisenhower and Secretary of Defense Neil H. McElroy, the former president of consumer-packaged goods giant Procter and Gamble, called for streamlining the DOD and boosting research efforts. One aspect of the change concerned the Marine Corps. That provision would allow McElroy to order the abolishment or transfer of combat functions. Gen Randolph M. Pate, Commandant of the Marine Corps, blasted the proposal when he said that an official could “rationalize the Marine Corps out of a job.”27 Pate, a veteran of World War II battles on Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, faced a bureaucratic war. House Armed Services Chairman Congressman Carl Vinson argued against giving the defense secretary that power. Vinson’s 51-year career in Congress included 14 years leading the Armed Services Committee. Pushing back against Eisenhower’s reorganization plan, Vinson changed the proposal to allow Services to appeal decisions to Congress. Vinson’s bill included this provision,
However, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no functions which have been or are hereafter established by law to be performed by the Department of Defense, or any officer or agency thereof, shall be substantially transferred, reassigned, abolished, or consolidated until thirty days after a report to the Congress in regard to all pertinent details in each instance shall have been made by the Secretary of Defense.28
Getting A Permanent Seat at the JCS Table When World War II Medal of Honor recipient Gen Louis (“Lou”) H. Wilson became the 26th Commandant of the Marine Corps in 1975, he called for Marines to be a full member of the JCS. To avoid giving the impression he wanted that for himself, Wilson waited until late in his term. “I was doing it for the Corps and my successors,” said Wilson. Wilson’s idea called for him to reach out to fellow Mississippian Senator John Stennis, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a few friends in the House of Representatives. Gen Wilson’s objective was legislation making the Commandant of the Marine Corps a full member of the JCS. An action in May 1978 spurred Wilson to move forward earlier than planned. When a JCS meeting was about to take place with the chairman unavailable, the Army’s vice chief of staff was named acting chairman. Wilson, who outranked that general, was upset and wanted to know why he could not chair the meeting. The answer: no one who is not a member of the JCS could be acting chairman. Wilson said that was the “catalyst” that he needed. “I determined to pursue it (full member of the JCS) vigorously,” Wilson added.29
To start, Wilson contacted the House Armed Services Committee ranking minority leader, California Republican Congressman Bob Wilson. The congressman, no relation to the Commandant, offered this guidance. Congressman Wilson said the authorization bill to fund the DOD had passed the House of Representatives. The congressman suggested getting the Senate to add the clause making the Commandant of the Marine Corps a full member of the JCS. Congressman Wilson said he could get that provision passed in the House. Gen Wilson worked closely with his legislative aide, BGen Albert E. (Al) Brewster. In 2023, Frisco Lakes Lifestyle wrote a cover story about Gen Brewster, who recalled his role in getting the legislation passed.
General Wilson’s assignment to Al was to implement a change to make the commandant an equal full-time member of the JCS. Leveraging an existing relationship between General Wilson and Senator Stennis that dated back to World War II, Al requested a meeting with the Senator and Frank Sullivan, SASC staff director. That meeting with Stennis set the effort underway. As a result, Stennis instructed Sullivan to draft the changes.30
After Brewster’s meeting, Wilson contacted Oklahoma Republican Senator Dewey Bartlett to introduce the measure. Bartlett, a World War II Marine pilot in the South Pacific, was, according to Gen Wilson, “delighted to comply.” Bartlett won the support of Georgia Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, who agreed to co-sponsor the provision.31 On the House Armed Services Committee side, New York Democrat Sam Stratton, a World War II veteran and a retired Navy reserve captain, supported the provision. Stennis said he asked Bartlett to speak on behalf of Gen Wilson’s idea. One hitch developed when Gen Wilson realized Stennis appeared to have forgotten about their discussion. Wilson questioned the senator. Gen Wilson told Stennis that “this means very much to me and I would deeply appreciate it if you would do it, and I will be very disappointed if you do not do this.” Stennis said that he would “see about it.” In fact, Stennis did more than see about it when he made this statement on the Senate floor:
I recognize that it may not be germane, but nevertheless this the time to make the commandant a full member. The Marine Corps has not had the opportunity in the past to express themselves and I think this bill should be passed tonight.”32
Bartlett’s remarks supporting the Marine Corps cited recent JCS history when he said, “In the past two years, the commandant of the Marine Corps has participated in every decision made by the Joint Chiefs, and his participation in recent years has averaged over 99%.” Bartlett said the amendment “would simply remove an archaic legal distinction.” According to Bartlett, the Marines were the only Service with air, sea, and ground combat forces. Bartlett added that the Marine Corps Commandant understands soldiers, sailors, and airmen.33
Wilson did not discuss his proposal with anyone in the DOD except Navy Secretary William G. Claytor, Jr., something he did in confidence. After the amendment passed the Senate, Wilson heard from the JCS chairman, Air Force General David Jones. Jones was unhappy that the amendment had not been discussed with him. Wilson told Jones he could call Stennis and express his opposition. Jones told Wilson, “Why, you know I can’t do that. But you used your influence with Senator Stennis to get this through.” Wilson sensed that the Army also did not agree with the amendment. However, ADM Tom Hayward, chief of national operations, supported the effort, according to Wilson.34
This was the second time Wilson tapped into his relationship with Stennis to equalize the Marine Corps with the other Services. Until 1975, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps held the rank of lieutenant general. The second-in-command of the other Services held the four-star rank. Both Stennis and Congressman Wilson supported that effort. During Wilson’s first year as Commandant in 1975, LtGen Sam Jaskilka became the Assistant Commandant and received a fourth star.
After the bill passed the Senate, media interest followed. Columnist Robert D. Heinl, Jr., a retired Marine colonel, praised Bartlett’s speech in support of making the Commandant of the Marine Corps a full JCS member when Heinl wrote Bartlett’s speech “represents a final act of loyalty to his old Corps.” Heinl added, “Don’t be surprised, one of these days when some future Marine becomes the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”35 Ted Bell, a reporter for the Sacramento Bee, asked Gen Wilson about an opposition argument to the amendment offered by the Air Force and Army that meant the Navy would get two JCS votes. Wilson replied, “I don’t recognize that the Marine Corps is not a separate service.”36
The bill went back to the House of Representatives, then to the conference committee, and finally passed both the House and Senate. President Carter vetoed the bill due to the authorization of a nuclear carrier that Carter opposed. Wilson thought that the next bill might give opponents a chance to “dissect the bill.” That did not happen. The amendment remained in the revised bill. On 20 October 1978, President Carter signed the bill with the amendment so important to the Marine Corps. Responding to a question about the Carter administration’s role with that amendment, Gen Brewster said, “They were not involved in any way in the change.”37 Wilson served as a full JCS member until his retirement in 1979.
After the bill was signed into law, the Army found another law that might have kept a Marine off the JCS. That law pointed out that the senior members of the armed forces included only the chiefs of staff of the Army, the Air Force, and the Chief of Naval Operations. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was not listed and therefore could not be the chairman. Wilson asked for a ruling from Secretary of Defense Harold Brown regarding that issue. The Commandant threatened to go to Congress to get that resolved. Secretary Brown ruled in favor of the Marine Corps position. Finally, the Commandant was ruled a full-fledged JCS member.38 Wilson’s Washington success eventually paid short and long-term dividends to the Marine Corps.39 In April 1979, President Jimmy Carter nominated Gen Robert H. Barrow to serve as Commandant of the Marine Corps and the first Marine to serve on the JCS for four years. Two months before Wilson died in 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Gen Peter Pace to become the first Marine to serve as chairman of the JCS. From 2001–2005, Pace held the post of vice-chairman of the JCS. Pace was also the first Marine to serve in that role. President Bush also named Gen James L. Jones to serve as United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe. As of 2025, Gen Jones is the lone Marine to hold that position. By 1981, veterans of the Army, Navy, and Air Force served as president of the United States.40 No Marine was ever elected president or vice president until the 250th year of the Marine Corps, when Ohio Republican Senator JD Vance became the first Marine to serve as vice president.
>Mr. Mesches is the author of The Flying Grunt, the Story of Lieutenant General Richard E. Carey, United States Marine Corps, (Ret) and Major General James A. Ulio, How the Adjutant General of the U.S. Army Enabled Allied Victory. An Air Force veteran, he served as a Public Information Officer with the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, NC, between 1972 and 1975. He is a graduate of Grove City College and the Defense Information Officers School (now Public Affairs Qualification Course).
Notes
1. R.D. Heinl, “The Cat with More Than Nine Lives,” Proceedings 80, No. 6, (1954), https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1954/june/cat-more-nine-lives.
2. Ibid.
3. Rhapsodyinbooks, “July 25, 1866–Ulysses S. Grant Becomes the First Four-Star General in U.S. History,” Legal Legecy, July 25, 2017, https://legallegacy.wordpress.com/2017/07/25/july-25-1866-ulysses-s-grant-becomes-the-first-four-star-general-in-u-s-history; and Staff, “David Glasgow Farragut,” Naval History and Heritage Command, n.d., https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/people/historical-figures/david-glasgow-farragut.html.
4. “The Cat with More Than Nine Lives.”
5. Staff, “President Taft Restores Marines on Board Ships,” Sacramento Daily Union, March 27, 1909.
6. Glenn M. Harned, Marine Corps Generals 1899–1936 (North Charleston: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2024).
7. Moseley Correspondence, DDEPre-l File Box 84, Moseley File.pdf, from the Eisenhower Presidential Library.
8. Staff, “The Marine Corps, An Essential, Integral Element of the Naval Service,’ Statement to the House Select Committee on Postwar Policy,” published in The Marine Corps Gazette 78, No. 6 (1994).
9. Alexander A. Vandegrift, “Bended Knee Speech,” (speech, Washington, DC, May 6, 1946).
10. Associated Press, “‘Ike See U.S. Pacific bases hinging on UN,” The Atlanta Journal, May 11, 1946.
11. Alan Rems, “A Propaganda Machine Like Stalin’s,” U.S. Naval Institute, June 2019, https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2019/june/propaganda-machine-stalins.
12. Si Biggs, “The USMC on D Day,” Royal Marines History, June 4, 2024, https://www.royalmarineshistory.com/post/usmc-on-d-day.
16. Nathan Parker, “Congress and the Marine, an Enduring Partnership,” MCU Journal 8, No. 2 (2017).
17. “A Propaganda Machine Like Stalin’s.”
18. Staff, “Letters to the Commandant of the Marine Corps League and to the Commandant of the Marine Corps,” Harry S. Truman Library Museum, September 6, 1950, https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/235/letters-commandant-marine-corps-league-and-commandant-marine-corps.
19. Email between author and Col Warren Wiedhan on August 17, 2024.
20. “Letters to the Commandant of the Marine Corps League and to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.”
21. Email between author and James Zobel, MacArthur Memorial, on March 5, 2025.
22. Statement of the Honorable Mike Mansfield,” Series 1, Box 11, Folder 3, Mike Mansfield Papers, Archives and Special Collections, Mansfield Library, University of Montana.
23. Marine Corps Personnel Strength Act of 1952: Hearings on S. 677, Days 1, 2, 3, Before the Subcomm. On Armed Services , 82nd Cong. (1951).
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Marine Corps Personnel Strength Act of 1952, Pub. L. 461, 61 Stat. 502 (1952).
27. John Jarrell, “Ike To Get Less Than He Wants,” Omaha World Telegram, May 4, 1958.
28. Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1958, H.R. 12541, 85th Cong. (1958).
29. Oral History Transcript, General Louis H. Wilson, United States Marine Corps (Ret), History Division, United States Marine Corps, Quantico, VA, 2008.
30. S. Sanderson and M. Yordy, “The Sky is Not the Limit for this Marine,” Frisco Lakes Lifestyle, July 2023.
31. Senator Sam Nunn was the great nephew of Representative Carl Vinson, long-time chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
32. Oral History Transcript, General Louis H. Wilson, United States Marine Corps (Ret), History Division, United States Marine Corps, Quantico, VA, 2008.
34. Oral History Transcript, General Louis H. Wilson, United States Marine Corps (Ret), by Brigadier General Edwin Simmons, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1978. History Division, United States Marine Corps, Quantico, VA. Accessed January 19, 2025.
35. Col Robert D. Heinl, Jr., “Marines March to the Top,” The Arizona Republic, August 11, 1978.
36. Ted Bell “Top Marine Pushes Attack Capability,” by The Sacramento Bee, August 1, 1978.
37. Email from Brigadier General Albert E. Brewster to the author, December 13, 2023.
38. Oral History Transcript, General Louis H. Wilson, United States Marine Corps (Ret), by Brigadier General Edwin Simmons, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1978. History Division, United States Marine Corps, Quantico, VA. Accessed January 19, 2025.
39. Oral History Transcript, General Louis H. Wilson, United States Marine Corps (Ret), by Brigadier General Edwin Simmons, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1978. History Division, United States Marine Corps, Quantico, VA. Accessed January 19, 2025.
40. Presidents by Service: Army—Presidents George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley,Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Navy—Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. Air Force—Ronald W. Reagan served in the Army Air Force, and George W. Bush served in the Air National Guard. These presidents served state militias: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James K. Polk, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, and Chester A. Arthur. Vice Presidents who served in the military and did not become president: Aaron Burr (Army), George Clinton (militia), Richard M. Johnson (militia), Henry Wilson (Army), Charles G. Dawes (Army), Spiro T. Agnew (Army), Walter Mondale (Army), Dan Quayle (National Guard), Al Gore (Army-only president or vice president to serve in Vietnam).
