Marine Corps Commandant General David Berger has suggested a role for Marine Corps forces in antisubmarine warfare (ASW). In “Resurrect the Hunter-Killer Group,” Captain Stephen Ilteris and Commander Michael Ilteris suggest embarking a destroyer squadron staff and supporting ASW helicopters on board an LPD-17 as an alternative ASW force. Marine Captain Walker Mills and Lieutenant Commanders Collin Fox, Dylan Phillips-Levine, and Trevor Phillips-Levine have outlined a concept for using Marine Corps assets, including the MV-22 and unmanned vehicles, in an ASW role from expeditionary advanced bases (EABs). The Commandant is building on an idea that both the Navy and Marine Corps have embraced in the major power fight: Navy and Marine forces will have to “fight forward,” pushing their way into contested waters and littoral regions. Present ASW capabilities are stretched thin, and the Commandant is right to be concerned about the U.S. ability to shield deployed forces from the Chinese and Russian submarine threat. However, in expanding ASW capability to include the expeditionary force, the key question is how to protect the basic units of this force, the amphibious ready group (ARG) and its embarked Marine expeditionary unit (MEU.)
This extension leads to some definitions and mission shaping. Amphibious forces have plenty to do while transiting the oceans and conducting ashore operations; adding a major ASW role to their “job jar” would be a mission-threatening stretch. So, the foundation of any attempt to include the “gators” should be the extension of the existing ASW and theater undersea warfare (USW) picture to include the amphibious force. In practical terms this would have two goals. First, employing ARG forces in extending the ASW/USW sensor grid will provide ARG leaders with the situational awareness to plan and conduct their primary mission ashore. Second, extending ASW awareness can inform and help guide the ASW forces that will ultimately neutralize the threat.
From these precepts a basic operational scheme emerges: the air combat element (ACE) of the ARG can place ASW sonobuoys in the ARG’s operating area, providing an expanded undersea umbrella. With some specialized training for their crews, aircraft that could deploy sonobuoys are the tiltrotor MV-22s and the rotary-wing UH-1s and CH-53s. This deployment could be primary tasking for several of the ACE’s assets, or a collateral mission carried out in conjunction with usual ACE missions.
So much for the big picture; several off-the-shelf capabilities exist but need some creative tweaking to make the idea work.
Command-and-Control Structure
The ARG flagship needs a basic ASW command-and-control structure to receive and analyze ASW data gathered and to manage the deployment of ASW assets. At the heart of this capability would be a deployable roll-on/roll-off capability that would include:
- • A tailored AN/SQQ-34 Aircraft Carrier Tactical Support Center (CV-TSC) package to receive and analyze sonobuoy data;
- • An undersea warfare decision support system (USW-DSS) terminal for mission planning and access to the Navy’s tactical data links for managing the ASW picture;
- • A detachment of ASW specialists who would act as the ARG’s ASW planning cell, led by a chief or senior chief petty officer naval helicopter aircrewman (AWR) and including several AWRs for analysis, plus a technician or two.
The senior AWR would essentially be the ARG’s ASW commander, managing sensor deployment and advising the ARG about the threat in real time. He or she also would work with the theater USW commander and supporting carrier strike group and other ASW forces to prosecute threats.
Integrating the ACE
The ACE contributes to the primary mission of landing and supporting forces ashore. However, Marine aircraft are naval aircraft, and, throughout history, Marine Corps aviation has fought alongside Navy aircraft in missions over blue water as well as sand. Getting the Corps into the ASW fight calls for expanding this traditional role to deploying ASW sonobuoys and acting as relays for the data collected by these buoys back to the ARG. Putting this concept into practice will require training and equipment.
In the cockpit, the aviators need to understand the envelope for buoy deployment, but a more difficult task will be integrating the ASW mission with the usual ACE mission of troop lift, logistics, and command and control. It would be best to resolve which aircraft, if any, will perform ASW as a primary mission or if ASW will remain a collateral duty for most. Both options need to be rehearsed and trained for, and helicopter and deck crews need training in prepping, handling, storing, loading, and dropping sonobuoys.
Once dropped, the sonobuoys need to transmit data back to flagship. MH-60R ASW helicopters use the Hawklink system; Marine Corps aircraft will need a tailored version of the AN/ARQ-59 airborne datalink that will automatically receive buoy data and pass it to the tactical support center on board the flagship. It may be challenging to develop and install this capability, but the shipboard analysts need the acoustic sonobuoy data, which must be received by shipboard AN/SRQ-4(Ku) Hawklink terminals. The Hawklink installation for the amphibious force should, like the command-and-control package, be temporary and easily accomplished. This is a manageable technical task.
Beyond the ARG, an Expanded ASW Grid
The solution discussed should be considered a minimum approach to expanding ASW protection for expeditionary forces. Taking it further, a natural extension would be the ARG ASW “force” being trained to use the latest in expendable ASW sensors such as the magnetic anomaly detection drone being developed for P-8 Poseidon and unmanned MQ-4 Triton maritime surveillance aircraft. Including Navy ARG ASW detachments and Marine Corps aircraft in ASW exercises would enhance their proficiency and—just as important—improve their integration with theater and strike group ASW forces.
This modular approach has some obvious implications for expanded ASW protection of a fleet that is boresighted on operating forward in harm’s way. The package developed for the ARG could easily be expanded for deployment on other non-ASW vessels, particularly the relatively new expeditionary sea bases (ESBs), where the capability could even be expanded to include armed SH-60Rs. The deployable TSC could also be carried on the vulnerable combat logistics force ships for protection traveling to and from forward forces. The modular ASW capability, backed by Marine Corps aircraft, also could be deployed ashore with Marines establishing expeditionary advanced bases.
As the Navy and Marine Corps fought their way across the islands of the central Pacific in World War II, Marine aviators found themselves patrolling against the Japanese submarine forces threatening Navy and Marine invasion forces. Modern naval warfare technology, applied creatively and integrated into current expeditionary tactics, can allow General Berger’s 21st-century Marines a similar role as both services once again take up the challenge of pushing forward into enemy territory.
