What are the US Marines being turned into?

8 765 23
What are the US Marines being turned into?
Armored vehicles on their way to the shore


The US Department of Defense (Pentagon) is implementing a major Marine Corps restructuring program called Force Design. It primarily affects several types of combat and support vehicles: some of these designs have already been deployed to combat units and are participating in exercises. A recent event demonstrated how the Corps's image is changing in practice.



Anniversary events


In 2025, the US Marine Corps celebrated its 250th anniversary. A number of celebratory events were held to mark the anniversary. One of these took place in late July 2025 at the Camp Pendleton training grounds in California: a demonstration exercise showcased the Corps's updated look and modern capabilities.

The exercise opened with an amphibious landing on the coast, which was defended by enemy forces. The Marines reached the shore by water and air, employing almost the entire range of available landing craft, amphibious and aviation techniques.


LCAC boats with non-floating equipment on board

The Marine Corps was assisted by the Navy. The amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD-4) played a significant role in the exercises; one of the San Antonio-class transport docks was also involved. These ships delivered amphibious vehicles to the naval training area and supported helicopter operations. The Navy also provided LCAC hovercraft, which landed some of the combat vehicles directly on the beach.

Amphibious armored vehicles (ACVs) made their way to shore under their own power, while wheeled armored vehicles (LAV-25s) were also on display at the training ground. Several vehicle modifications, each with a different armament and equipment, participated in the exercise. Those equipped with electronic warfare systems stood out from the crowd—presumably to protect other vehicles from modern threats such as strike aircraft. drones and high-precision munitions with radio command guidance.

The boats delivered JLTV armored vehicles, M142 HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems, NMESIS launchers, and other equipment. LCACs also brought M777 towed howitzers ashore and deployed them.


An ACV armored personnel carrier in front of a San Antonio-class landing ship.

An airborne assault also took place. CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters of various modifications and MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft landed troops on the shore; the scenario also included a paratrooper landing. F-35B fighter jets supported the landing from the air.

The units then moved on to operations against a simulated enemy: they practiced maneuvering on land and deploying to positions. The riflemen stormed a simulated building, and artillery и missile The systems were operating at distant targets. Live fire was conducted at the firing range.

Following the exercises, the Pentagon press service produced a promotional video. Footage from the naval and land training grounds accompanied speeches by officials and statements about the role of the Marine Corps and its importance to national security.


Unloading the HIMARS MLRS

New look


The Marine Corps regularly undergoes modernization programs of varying scale. The latest major modernization plan, Force Design, is currently underway.

Development took place in the second half of the 2010s, and the final plan was presented in 2020. Initially, it was called Force Design 2030—the date indicated the implementation deadline. Later, 2030 was removed from the title, but the basic principles remained the same.

Force Design is changing the organizational structure of Marine Corps units. Its core is the Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR). Such a regiment consists of a command element and a littoral combat group—an infantry battalion reinforced by an anti-ship missile battery. These are supplemented by battalions Defense and logistics, as well as headquarters and communications units. It is this missile battery, not the classic regimental artillery, that determines the regiment's combat specialization.


A column of LAV-25 armored vehicles

The program calls for a major rearmament of the units. The Marine Corps has been completely removed. Tanks M1A1 Abrams: Tank battalions were disbanded, and the equipment was transferred to the army and reserves. At the same time, the replacement of amphibious armored vehicles for infantry transport began. The role of tube artillery is being reduced in favor of rocket artillery, autonomous launchers with various types of missiles are being introduced, and special attention is being given to small and medium-sized unmanned aircraft.

The abandonment of tanks and the reliance on missile-focused "littoral regiments" became some of the program's most controversial decisions. A group of retired Marine generals publicly opposed them, arguing that these steps deprive the Corps of versatility and the ability to conduct full-fledged combined arms operations beyond its narrow anti-ship mission. Supporters of Force Design counter that the freed-up resources and personnel are being redirected to missions that are more important in the Pacific theater—anti-ship missiles, air defense, reconnaissance, and DronesThe dispute is not yet closed.

The program also affects the landing force. fleet Navy: construction of large landing ships and new types of boats will continue.

Prospective samples


The Marine Corps' new look is based on a number of advanced equipment models, some of which are already in active service or undergoing field trials.


Helicopter landing

One of the major developments of recent years is the ACV family of armored amphibious vehicles on a common wheeled chassis. It comprises four variants: the ACV-P armored personnel carrier, the ACV-30 infantry fighting vehicle, the ACV-C command post vehicle, and the ACV-R recovery vehicle. Currently, the ACV-P and ACV-C are the most widely used vehicles, while the ACV-30 and ACV-R remain in the early stages of development and testing.

The Pentagon awarded the first contract for pre-production production of 116 ACV-P vehicles in 2018. In the following years, contracts for serial deliveries of the ACV-P and ACV-C followed, totaling more than two hundred vehicles. Public reports list the deliveries by individual batches, without a breakdown by year or variant, so the final figures can only be approximated. There is also an order for fighting compartments for the ACV-30, but production of this vehicle has not yet begun.

In total, Force Design plans to purchase approximately 632 ACVs—a reduction from the original plan of over a thousand units. These will replace the AAV7A1 amphibious vehicles, which were officially retired in 2025. However, the new vehicles will be fewer in number than those retired: it's not a one-for-one replacement.


Marines at the training ground

Another important example is the NMESIS coastal missile system. Developed at the beginning of the decade, it is currently undergoing military testing and operational trials, including deployment abroad. The system is assembled from existing components with the addition of new solutions.

Its core is the ROGUE-Fires autonomous self-propelled launcher on an unmanned (unmanned, remotely and autonomously controlled) JLTV chassis. It navigates its route, reaches a firing position, and prepares to launch missiles.

The NMESIS system carries two NSM anti-ship missiles. These are designed to engage surface targets at ranges exceeding 185 km (over 100 nautical miles). Consideration is also being given to equipping the ROGUE-Fires with other types of munitions, including the advanced Maritime Strike Tomahawk cruise missile.

Mobility and efficiency


The program has several key goals. The primary one is to optimize the Corps' composition to meet the Pentagon's current challenges and capabilities. This includes not only restructuring but also downsizing of individual structures.


M777 Howitzer Firing Practice

The new Marine Corps units must become more agile: a battalion or regiment must be able to quickly deploy to the battlefield without losing any of its striking power. This is why some of the equipment is being upgraded, introducing systems like NMESIS.

The concept behind this is expeditionary forward base operations (EABO): dispersed small units armed with anti-ship missiles operate from islands and coastal staging areas, threatening enemy fleets and controlling key maritime areas. Current doctrine assigns the Marine Corps' role primarily to the Pacific Ocean region, countering the perceived Chinese threat. Hence the requirement for rapid movement between the continental United States, island bases, and ocean staging areas.

Modernization objectives are generally being met, although some projects are stalling: serial production of the ACV-30 and ACV-R is lagging behind the baseline versions, and the overall ACV procurement plan has had to be scaled back. Significantly, the reduction in volumes and delays are not implementation failures, but rather a consequence of the program's very logic: the Marine Corps is deliberately sacrificing mass production and versatility for a highly specialized anti-ship capability for the Pacific theater. Therefore, the final assessment of Force Design hinges on one question: will the focus on a conflict off the coast of China be the right one? The Corps command and the Defense Department have no doubt this is the right choice and view the recent exercises as confirmation of their course.
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -7
    10 August 2026 06: 51
    I wonder what the US Army wants on the Chinese coast? Aren't there enough of their own deserts for cemeteries? Organizing exercises with an unconditional victory over a "mock enemy" is certainly a pleasant thing. But what if the unconditional enemy gives you a slap on the head and a kick in the butt? In reality, it might turn out to be: "A good man against sheep, and against a good man, you yourself are a sheep."
    1. -8
      10 August 2026 07: 15
      An outdated method of warfare... well, or even against a completely impoverished enemy, and so, the same Iran will meet the Marine Corps with hundreds of UAVs, and that will be the end of the landing.
      1. +6
        10 August 2026 11: 57
        You're thinking with outdated criteria because you're missing one fact..."nothing lasts forever under the moon," and the current state of affairs in the US Armed Forces is no exception.
        They won't stand still either; they're learning their lessons very well. They'll work, they'll scale up the production and deployment of unmanned systems to the military...like the Marine Corps! During landing operations, nothing's stopping them from turning their UAVs/Landed Tactical Ships/Landed Airborne Ships into command and control centers for kamikaze UAVs, FPV drones, and interceptor drones to support and cover their landing units!
        It's all about implementation
        1. 0
          11 August 2026 07: 27
          Quote: Sanguinius
          You're thinking with outdated criteria because you're missing one fact..."nothing lasts forever under the moon," and the current state of affairs in the US Armed Forces is no exception.

          I comment on what I see. And what I see is the 80s.
      2. +1
        10 August 2026 13: 57
        American special forces in Iran spent a day searching for their pilot. Where were the Iranians? If the Americans decide on a full-scale invasion, I think it will be a repeat of the Iraqi campaign, if not worse...
        1. +2
          11 August 2026 07: 28
          Quote: parma
          American special forces spent 24 hours searching for their pilot in Iran. Where were the Iranians?

          And there, too, was the regiment landed in the open on the shore?
          1. 0
            11 August 2026 08: 22
            It may or may not be a regiment, but there was a marine landing, too. Look at the Battle of Fao. And what makes you think it'll be exclusively a marine landing? Iran is an island?
            1. +1
              11 August 2026 08: 38
              Quote: parma
              It may or may not be a regiment, but there was also a marine landing force; look at the battle for Fao.

              Did Iraq really have a drone force? That's not a fair comparison.
              What makes you think it'll be a purely naval landing? Iran is an island?

              The US has withdrawn its troops from Iraq, and has been withdrawing very rapidly recently. Deploying a strike force in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia is impossible for various reasons. The only options left are either an amphibious assault or a combined assault followed by a main landing. How do you imagine this? Under attack from missiles, thousands of drones, martyrs, and so on.
              The battlefield situation has changed, comparable to the advent of the machine gun. It's truly mind-blowing: seizing a bridgehead, diverging strikes of motorized columns, supported by attack aircraft, breaking through enemy defenses and gaining operational space. However, cheap FPV cameras will disperse the columns even under air strikes. Well, you can't see out the window of a jet, the obscured positions of the UAV operators.
              1. -1
                11 August 2026 09: 05
                What makes you think Iran will be able to launch its missiles and drones?... Regarding FPV, I've already written about it: don't look at the SVO; this conflict isn't an indicator. Rich countries will soon acquire defense systems, plus they have enough weapons without FPV, but for poor countries, the industry and logistics for mass production are too expensive.
                1. +1
                  12 August 2026 01: 08
                  Quote: parma
                  Rich countries will soon acquire defense systems + they have enough weapons without FPV

                  FPV actively uses 404. And this is its great achievement.
                  Since 2022, she has received 400+ billion for the war.
                  In the end, it turned out to be not the poorest country, believe me.
                  You can also add the cost of NATO and Starlink infrastructure, which operate on the 404 and provide it with real-time situational awareness. It's a huge amount of money.
                  A drone typically carries more explosives than a 155mm shell.
                  And it hits more accurately, all other things being equal. It's a question of quantity.
                  "Waiting" drones react to targets faster than any projectile. And so on and so forth.
                  The fact that someone isn't using drones on a large scale means they probably just don't have enough money.
                  Drones aren't a weapon for the poor. Mass deployment is impossible without advanced intelligence. And a single drone doesn't make a difference.

                  The minus is not mine.
                  1. 0
                    12 August 2026 08: 31
                    Let's start with the fact that Kyiv received only 300-3650 billion rubles, not only for the war but also in financial and economic aid, with military supplies estimated at 130-150 billion. Considering that the aid is being allocated over five years, that's around 30 billion rubles per year. Is that a lot? This is at least half our military budget, even for 2019 (before COVID and the Second World War).
                    Regarding Ukraine's "non-poverty" – even today, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are no match for key European countries in terms of air defense and air force; it was precisely the lack of adequate air support that prompted the use of drones.
                    As far as I know, the cost of intelligence is included in military support.
                    Very few drones can carry more than a 155mm artillery shell (which weighs up to 15 kg) of explosives; the typical limit is 3-4 kg. Accuracy, yes, is likely on par with guided munitions.
                    But the "Junes" are really justified by the small capacity of the batteries; let's say, one "Apache" (if the Americans finish the project of creating a guided munition based on NURS) will be able to replace a company of drone operators!
                    1. 0
                      12 August 2026 16: 58
                      Quote: parma
                      Let's start with the fact that Kyiv received only +-300-3650 billion

                      Trump talks about $300 billion. Europe is talking about at least $200 billion, and not $200 billion.
                      You're not counting free arms shipments. From shells to aircraft. Secret cash transfers from USAID (billions a month), 404 weapons sales on the side, and so on.
                      Plus, throughout the entire period of the Belovezh Accords (2015-2022), weapons were supplied in quantity.
                      So your objections are irrelevant.

                      Quote: parma
                      This is at least half of our military budget even for 2019 (before COVID and the Second World War).

                      Well, yes, well, yes, we just got stuck in this war for 5 years.
                      By the way, how did you calculate our budget? It's secret, isn't it?

                      Quote: parma
                      Even today, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are no match for key European countries in terms of air defense and air force

                      Not your equal. Head and shoulders above you. But the more I read your arguments, the less I want to argue. I'm an air defense officer myself, according to my military occupational specialty. So don't make me laugh.

                      Quote: parma
                      More than 155mm artillery shell (which is up to 15 kg)

                      Yeah, right. I've never encountered shells with more than 11 kg of explosives.
                      The main ones in the US are:
                      M107 – weight 43.2 kg, incl. 6.86 kg explosives;
                      M795 – weight 47 kg, incl. 10.8 kg explosives;
                      M982 Excalibur – weight 48 kg, including 5.4 kg of explosives.

                      The smarter the projectile, the lesser the mass of the explosive.
                      Compare the flight range of a drone and a projectile.
                      The same "Baba Yaga" can carry up to 20 kg. Not to mention Geraniums.
                      And the shells can't chase targets online. Not at all.
                      You won't have enough ammo for single fighters.
                      Simple FPV drones are cheaper than the projectile itself (~$2000). And the cost per shot must also include the cost of refurbishing the gun after 1000-2000 shots, replacing barrels, etc. Plus, a kamikaze drone also conducts reconnaissance before reaching its target.

                      Quote: parma
                      If the Americans finish the project to create a guided munition based on the NURS

                      Drones fly on fiber optics, and no electronic warfare system can detect them. And Hymars are expensive and have become ineffective. Yes
    2. +2
      10 August 2026 08: 43
      Not on the Chinese coast, but on the Pacific islands where China has a military presence and which are important for controlling the western Pacific Ocean coastal region facing Asia.
  2. -4
    10 August 2026 09: 25
    The Abrams missiles have been removed from the Marine Corps, so who will be providing fire support on the shore?
    ACV-P will not withstand artillery fire and FPV drone strikes.
    The M777 does not yet need to be pulled ashore and deployed; it is extremely difficult to do this under enemy fire, even on loose sand.
  3. +3
    10 August 2026 09: 43
    The gist is clear. The Marine Corps is preparing to control numerous islands in the Pacific Ocean. They don't need the Chinese coast.
  4. -2
    10 August 2026 10: 12
    Whatever you say, the Marines are an instrument of aggression. And how can you wrap it up like that?
    1. +1
      11 August 2026 08: 23
      Right.
      But we shouldn't forget the meme that says, "The best air defense is tanks on the runway." Aggression... happens, but Bruce Lee's "...the counterattack precedes the attack..." rules! And Bruce Lee's "...isn't a philosophy, but a practical one, like Bruce Lee's." It doesn't "happen"; it exists in practice.
      1. +1
        11 August 2026 09: 43
        I don't argue with that at all. We need both defensive and offensive weapons.
  5. -2
    10 August 2026 10: 48
    I thought they were training robotic marines. Or at least knocking someone down. A hellish mix of Terminators and Zerg. And here it's the same old story, just in a different outfit. All in all, against a more or less sophisticated enemy, the landing party is in for a terrifying encounter.
    On the other hand (and history has shown this many times), when the Yankees are really in a tight spot, they are capable of surprising.
    1. 0
      10 August 2026 21: 00
      "Americans always find the one right way. After they've tried all the wrong ones." Attributed to Winston Churchill.
  6. -1
    10 August 2026 10: 49
    Force Design is changing the organization and staffing structure of Marine Corps units. Its core is the Marine Littoral Regiment (MLR). Each MLR consists of a command element and a littoral combat group—an infantry battalion reinforced by an anti-ship missile battery.

    It's somewhat reminiscent of the Marine Defense Battalion—the Marine Corps' coastal defense units formed before WWII to defend forward bases (on friendly and captured enemy territory) from the sea and air. However, these battalions had no infantry—it was intended that infantry defense battalions would be formed to complement the Marine Defense Battalions, but the Marine Corps never had time to do so. As a result, gun and machine gun crews were used as infantry cover in the Marine Defense Battalions, and this was done in a planned manner: in addition to their regular duties, crew members were trained according to the standard Marine Corps curriculum and also learned to fire guns and machine guns in reduced numbers. This proved useful at Wake Island. smile
  7. +4
    10 August 2026 14: 20
    I don't even know whether to be happy for the Americans or worried... So much new equipment... And what about us? If we're talking about the Marine Corps in its purest form, not the liberation of a zoo in the absence of combat-ready units and formations of our reformed Russian Army. Yes, this is a wealth of combat experience, but still, the Navy's infantrymen have somewhat different tasks. With what and on what are they going to be deployed on the coast of a neighboring state?
  8. 0
    10 August 2026 23: 31
    "The ROGUE-Fires autonomous self-propelled missile launcher on an unmanned (unmanned, remotely and autonomously controlled) JLTV chassis. It moves autonomously along a route, reaches a firing position, and prepares to launch missiles." That's an interesting solution. As for the "port wine," the Chinese AH4 equivalent is no worse...