Who Needs Door Kicking Marines

dave August 5th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

The corrupt leftist weasel Obama will raid every program he can to payoff of his cronies and henchmen. F-22, FCS, DDG-1000, EFV. Obama and Team Evil will probably wait to gut the F-35 till his 2nd term.

Cole August 5th, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Good comments Byron. Obviously the largest amphibious assault in history was an Army/allied one at Normandy…but the Army has not persisted in any requirement for amphibious assault. They even had a floating tank at Normandy…most of which went to the bottom in rough waters.

Anybody aware of the content of the InsideDefense pay article that says something about the Army and Marines combining efforts on the ground combat vehicle replacement.

Maybe you mimic F-35 and create an amphibious version of the same essential vehicle that is non-amphibious and lighter (still 80,000 lbs) for the Army. Do the Marines really need to carry more than about 15 troops?

Daniel Russ August 5th, 2009 at 11:23 pm

I also don’t understand why they aren’t looking for a vehicle that protects everyone who storms a beachhead, not just Marines– for the very notion that perhaps a joint use machine would make more sense financially, and the notion that a Marine landing under fire would be little different than an Army landing under fire.

Dave, Bush sliced the DDG-1000 budget the most.

Obama is just pushing back against embedded military contractors and lobbyists. I think it’s time they got pushed back a bit. We need more options, and cheaper options. There’s nothing wrong or unpatriotic with killing a weapons system– if it is too expensive, or won’t perform, then killing it is the most patriotic thing you could do.

Finally, it’s time we all talked about spending a little less on guns and a little more on butter. My opinion

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Zach August 6th, 2009 at 4:25 am

Daniel,

“We need more options, and cheaper options. There’s nothing wrong or unpatriotic with killing a weapons system– if it is too expensive, or won’t perform, then killing it is the most patriotic thing you could do.”

The A-bomb was probably the most expensive weapons system ever, yet we still went thru with it. Cost didn’t matter back then, and they shouldn’t matter now. Should be based purely on need and capability. But that’s just me.

JN August 6th, 2009 at 7:44 am

The army doesn’t see amphibious landings as a priority and even though the army performed much of the European landing the Marines had far more beach fighting in the Pacific. So to say just because the Army can, the Marines shouldn’t need to, doesn’t really support an opposition to this capability.

I think this really boils down to what is the purpose of the Marines, if they aren’t for securing beachheads what are they for? The reason this role is fundamental to the Marins is that when you eliminate that role from the mandate they are only left with few other defining functions. Other than search and seizure of hostile ships there role becomes largely identical to the Army’s. An elimation of this effectively unique mandate must leave the Marine leadership feeling its longterm future is in jeopardy.

I think the need for this type of vehicle is there, I just don’t think the EFV is upto it. Cut your losses, start over. If this approach can work for the FCS maybe it’ll work here.

TB August 6th, 2009 at 9:05 am

“The A-bomb was probably the most expensive weapons system ever, yet we still went thru with it.

Yeah, but the A-bomb worked. The EFV can’t go through a demonstration without falling apart and being towed back to shore. The EFV is trying to do too many things at the same time — like most DoD weapons programs.

Kurt, the EFV is too heavy to be amphibious, and too lightly armored to charge across the shore to the objective. The last time they fired that “lethal” 30mm cannon it fell apart. The EFV requires a bigger engine than an M-1 Abrams to push its heavy butt across the water. I agree that the Marines need an amphibious assault capability, but this beast is not the answer. When its all said and done, they’re going to build so few of these at so high a price that they’ll be afraid to use them.

Inchon might have been a Marine/Army operation, but it required a full Marine staff to put it together because the Army didn’t know how to do it. The Army has enough on its plate without having to maintain that kind of institutional knowledge.

jpactis August 6th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

I firmly belive that r/d of exsisting equiptment and technology is absolutly essential to maintain our military edge and superiority.But it has to start by repairing an old and malfunctioning system at the top of the“hill”.

Cole August 6th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

JN said: “The army doesn’t see amphibious landings as a priority and even though the army performed much of the European landing the Marines had far more beach fighting in the Pacific. So to say just because the Army can, the Marines shouldn’t need to, doesn’t really support an opposition to this capability.“
==================================
Think about it Curt, JN, etc. Island-hopping and invasion of a continent completely controlled by our adversary were the two primary historical amphibious assaults and neither is a likely scenario today. Inchon was a surprise that could not be duplicated with today’s better sensors. Plus standoff from shore would need to be far greater thus exposing our attack.

A better solution today is unopposed amphibious landing at a friendly allied port or unopposed shoreline followed by land assault.
===========================================
JN said:“I think this really boils down to what is the purpose of the Marines, if they aren’t for securing beachheads what are they for?“
===========================================
The Marines are still the force with the carriers and amphibious ships that can carry LCACs and other more conventional landing craft. That alone is an advantage putting them closer to many fights. Why does the vehicle have to move to shore under its own power thus requiring temporary 2800 hp and all kinds of hydraulic theatrics. Doesn’t it make more sense to have a specialty landing craft to carry smaller armored vehicles with fewer exposed Marines?

Curt, the LAV carries far fewer Marines which reduce risk in the event of engagement by the threat or an IED. Research the Battle of Nasariyah from OIF I to see how poorly these vehicles and AAVs can fare on land…which is the primary fight…not the trip to shore.

The Marines have their light infantry V-22 capability and the coming CH-53K which will mean they can transport the LAV and M-ATV by air. They also have the LCAC and could develop other landing craft.

Let me ask what may be a dumb question. Could you create a wheeled armored vehicle with tires that inflate to a temporary far greater degree than normal to assist flotation and incorporate other water displacement aids…and then tow multiple vehicles to shore behind full LCACs?

Ed August 6th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

You do not need the ability to conduct opposed landings. Opposed landings with modern weapons is stupid. You would loose to many of everything including people. Clear the place out , then walk in, or land elsewhere. The WWII and Incheon we had no other way to do it. Frontal attack is a dumb move(read history). If they do not have the equipment to do an opposed landing they won’t do it. It will just be another piece of equipment they use for training or try to use in the wrong way.
The A-10 uses 30mm. It kills tanks. I could not reason why they went with 25mm when they had the 30mm. Your right, its about the money. The more people you put in one vehicle the more you can kill with one shot.

Curt August 7th, 2009 at 3:36 am

OEFOIFshepard, Cole, etc.
“Could the EFV survive OIF 2003–2007, or OEF 2001 to the fight happening today.
Absolutly not, every tool AQ pulls out of the tool box can turn the 20+ Marines carrier into a blast furnace, just like the AAAV.“
Yet the AAAV survived although it is clearly not the optimal platform for urban COIN operations. By your line of thinking, we should get rid of everything since even the M-1 was vulnerable to culvert bombs, of course strewing 100,000s of IEDs around and near every possible landing zones is so practical a defense against amphibious invasion.
“25mm verses 30mm, We have 2 million 25mm rounds and a proven gun used on multi platforms Army and Marine.“
And we have an equal number of 30mm rounds and a proven gun used on multiple platforms by the Navy (LPD-17, LCS, RAMICS OAMCM Gun with a lot of weight reduction) and Air Force (A-10 although only the same ammo). Flat out, the 30mm round can kill out beyond where the 25mm can even hit and has the potential to be expanded to 40mm without significant modifications. Virtually all new AFVs have 30mm or larger guns because 25mm isn’t as lethal as desired against a variety of targets, which include things besides RPG teams. By the above logic, we would still have 37mm/75mm/76mm/90mm/105mm tank guns because we would never by something new.
“Think about it Curt, JN, etc. Island-hopping and invasion of a continent completely controlled by our adversary were the two primary historical amphibious assaults and neither is a likely scenario today. Inchon was a surprise that could not be duplicated with today’s better sensors. Plus standoff from shore would need to be far greater thus exposing our attack. A better solution today is unopposed amphibious landing at a friendly allied port or unopposed shoreline followed by land assault.“
Cole, lets see, off the top of my head since Inchon we have had Vietnam (numerous cases of tactical amphibious assault up to regimental sized, several opposed and always in hostile or potentially hostile terrain) and Grenada (battalion sized amphibious invasion) just by the US. Plus OIF although the amphibious assault was significantly different than what is envisioned here and was launched primarily from land. Nope, no island hopping or multi-divisional assaults on defended beaches here but always a situation where building up combat power immediately ashore is critical to success. And to do that, you need something like a AAAV/EFV, we do not have enough LCACs or other landing craft or enough room on the ships if we had them. And your comment on Inchon is just wrong. Seeing what is happening and correctly surmising what will happen are two different things completely. Witness the Iraqi reaction to an Amphibious Demonstration in Desert Storm. And yes, towing anything behind a LCAC is a dumb idea and loses the 10ft beaching requirement, probably for both vehicles. By the way, how much damage due you think a LCAC can take?
You missed my point on the LAV (or AAAV for that matter). Did we loses massive numbers in OIF? No. Were they MBTs or AIFVs? No.
I am not advocating for the current EFV, it will either stand on its own merits or it won’t, but if you want to maintain a capacity for amphibious assault beyond administrative landings for peacekeeping, then you need something like it. A vehicle able to be stored on existing ships, be able to land a significant portion of your force unassisted so you can rapidly build up force ashore and dedicated your landing craft to all your artillery, tanks, and logistics, and have reasonable combat capability and mobility once it is ashore. If you can’t do that, you have a bunch of helo borne light infantry and a landing craft that is vulnerable to everything from a AK-47 up. Oh, and you have to be able to afford them in sufficient number. Can the current EFV do that? Let’s see,
1. Fits on the ships that have to carry it, check.
2. Can rapidly bring ashore a significant portion of the BLT without using other assets, check.
3. Provides reasonable combat power across the sprectrum of conflict (we won’t always be fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq). I think so but others may disagree. Excellent 30mm gun that can handle anything up to a tank, decent armor against small arms and fragmentation, good speed and mobility. Not what is needed for the extended urban COIN mission but then you don’t do COIN from the Sea, so get a different vehicle for that. Oops, thats what the Army and the Marines did, they must not be as dumb as we think.
4. Can be afforded in sufficient number? Questionable, but a couple of things here. R&D funds, SUNK COST, you don’t get them back so quit including them in your calculations. What is the marginal cost to buy a EFV and is it worth it? Could we get something better today? Of course, but it will cost you more and it will take another 5–10 years, and in 5–10 years, something better will be along. The question has to be is it good enough at a reasonable cost to support the mission.

Every weapon system or vehicle is a compromise. Could you have lower water speed and except greater vulnerability and time in transit? Could it be smaller and you have more (with associated logisitcs tail, more personnel, greater footprint, etc)? Give up OTH capability? Reduced beach landing capability? I don’t know, but at least argue the merits of the case, not use caveman logic. EFV bad, something else good!

Cole August 7th, 2009 at 8:17 am

Caveman logic, Curt?

Caveman logic is exclusive V-22 procurement at six times a UH-60’s price, twice a Chinook’s cost, and far greater O&S expense to gain a marginal night, low-altitude speed increase (must fly low to survive radar SAMs)…and no speed advantage transporting similar to far smaller external loads during high/hot days.

Caveman logic insists lighter, less survivable, inadequately massed Marine armor must hurry to attack heavily defended shorelines head-on, while sea deployed heavier Army forces can simply rail to a port and saunter across the Atlantic/Pacific into adjacent marginally defended and un-mined allied nation ports to mass for an eventual cross-border land attack without the bad guys doing anything about it (neither makes enormous sense).

Caveman logic believes added EFV cost, maintenance complexity, and fuel consumption enabling a risky few hours of shore attack outweigh advantages of extra armor, better mission capable rates, and better sustainability for fighting, surviving, and sustaining long wars over extended supply lines against hybrid threats.

Caveman logic accepts excessive Marine casualty risk aboard each combat vehicle and each large vulnerable ship off threat shores against super-cavitating torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, mines, and LTG Van Riper’s small speed boats. Once ashore, caveman logic has 17 large Marines trying to dismount through a small door in almost 20 seconds while potentially in beach defense or hybrid ambush crosshairs.

Caveman logic cites that threats that powerhouses like Grenada and Somalia present “getting-to-shore” outweigh risk of RPG/IED attack “staying-ashore.”

Caveman logic might conclude that preparing defensive positions and laying mines (to include FASCAM for broader beaches) along a few kilometers of shoreline is a less formidable task than preparing threat defenses along hundreds of miles of border with adjacent nations where U.S. Army and Marine forces could mass.

A recent RAND study indicates that the China might temporarily succeed in ballistic/cruise missile, and air attack against Taiwan. (duh)The longer term cross strait amphibious assault, occupation, and resupply effort is deemed to have far less probability of success. Perhaps there is a lesson there.

Curt quite reasonably offers: ”Every weapon system or vehicle is a compromise. Could you have lower water speed and accept greater vulnerability and time in transit?”

Response: No, not given the distance from shore, and threats hiding to engage in the last few kilometers.
=============================
Curt: “Could it be smaller and you have more (with associated logisitcs tail, more personnel, greater footprint, etc)?”

Response: Not following the logic that a large complex EFV making 2800 hp to propel miles through the water needs less fuel top-off and maintenance once ashore vs. a smaller, simpler vehicle arriving with full fuel aboard a LCAC or other landing craft.

Once on shore for the next few months/years, four Bradleys expend fuel quantities similar to one Abrams. Suspect there is a similar contrast between EFVs and other lighter, simpler, but better armored alternatives carried to shore or flown to airheads via C-17.
=============================
Curt: “Give up over-the-horizon capability?” Response: Can’t, given the anti-ship missile, air, and torpedo threats.
=============================
Curt: “Reduced beach landing capability?”

Response: Perhaps. Seems like nearly any solution is preferable to compromising a land combat vehicle’s warfighting prowess to tote around water propulsion and sea-faring capabilities that will likely never be used more than briefly…in training for scenarios that never arise.

Rhyno327 August 7th, 2009 at 9:26 am

I may be wrong, but besides Normandy, which was just an unbelievable operation, wasn’t Okinawa the largest? In terms of troops landed, Marines Army etc? I love history, but I could be wrong. As for the EFV, well, flat bottomed and aluminim? It looks great on TV, but Iam far from an expert. We still need a capable EFV platform. Marines seem to do the most with less.

Jim August 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Byron Skinner, you had better check your history, The 1st Marine Division made that amphibious Landing and no Army was involved.
They couldn’t get the US Army out of the Pusan Perimeter until after the Marines made that Landing.
And it was The First Marine Division that spearheaded the move into the Chosen Resorvoir and the Army followed the Marines in.
It was the Marines that wiped out 6 chinese divisions when McArthur gave tha word to retreat out of the Frozen Chosen. McArthur had more confidence in the Marines than the Army in Korea. He was the only one that believed the Marines could make the Inchon Landing, when all the Admirals and Generals said they couldn’t .

Byron Skinner August 7th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Good Morning Folks,

To Jim I offer my fully apology, the actual amphibious land at the low tide was the 1st. Marine Division, but as the secured their objectives Army units came through them and the task force commander was an Army General if I recall.

I think I you in a contradiction Cole on future needs. As you have said in several post the likely area of military operations will be in land lock areas (countries?), and I agree with you. I don’t see the Marines joining the Army because there is always as long as the US Navy exists a need for Naval Infantry, they may be a much smaller force then the current 220K though, but I do see joint service operations being the norm. It is noted that there are quite a few Army soldiers who have served in Iraq sporting 1st. Marine Division patches on their right sleeves.

Likewise I can see the 82nd. Airborne Division being deactivates and the airborne capabilities move into the Brigade Combat Teams, Spec. Op’s, or Divisional HQ’s, as a battalion. Like the over the horizon amphibious capabilities of the Marines the Airborne Mission is decreasing in it usefulness. The AF capping the C-17 at 220 planes limits the ability of the 82nd. to deploy from CONUS.

I think Cole the DoD is correct in breaking up military action into the four stages of Combat, COIN, Stabilization and sustainment. This way of looking at war will move bother the Navy and the Air Force into no traditional operations in order to stay in the war. This will cost money.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Tippy August 7th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

The reason for the EFV is so the USMC doen’t have to assault a defended beach. The EFV comes in from 25 miles out against a landing that the enemy cannot predict. Every new piece of equip. has had problems.
How much is a dead Marine worth?

Jim August 7th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

When the Marines make a Amphibious Landing they will also make a Helo landing behind the enemy lines to disrupt communication and they do it much faster and more organized than a Para. drop.
When they make that Helo landing it will be right in on top of the enemy and disorganize him.
This is one more reason the Marines want to move to Ospreys because it gives them greater distant penetration.
The big difference between the Marines and Army is the Marines are lighter and faster moving than is the Army. The Marines in Most cases don’t drag tanks into battle with them, their Tanks are those Marine Fighter planes that come in when we need them.

In Vietnam The Marine Fighter planes flew close air support for Army troops also, that is what a Marine Fighter’s primary Mission is “Close Air Support” The Navy are the fighter jocks like the Air Force.

I have a Army Buddy that was in the 101st AB and he told one day in Nam when they called in for close air support ‚this fighter came in so low that he could read the “Marines” on the side of the aircraft.

Again the Marines and Army fight two different types of Wars and we are both good at what we do.

The United States Armed Forces is the most versatile military of any Country in the world.
That is why we always win.

Gy Conrecode (Ret) August 7th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

Read the Marine Corps Mission!

Jim August 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

Chris,
McAuthur himself made the decision on the Inchon Landing and to him it was the most important thing to do at that point an time in the war.

In fact, at that time General McAuthur was only Military/Politician, all wrap up in one that knew what was going on. Truman screwed up the hole deal.

I’m not going to make any further statement on how much you know or understand about Warfare.

Jim August 7th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

A little US Army triva.

What is the highest awarded US Army unit in hstory.

I hope I worded that correctly.

Jim August 7th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

Yes I know what you mean Mike.
But in Nam When we went out with a chopper assault
group and when we went out with gunships loaded to the gills with rockets and “O” those fighters flying around with with those Napalm canisters, the enemy didn’t do a lot shooting at anyone.

They didn’t want their butt fried like bacon.
Have you ever seen a Napalm attack ??

Boy did you have feelings for those bad guys

Cole August 7th, 2009 at 11:04 pm

First, an apologee, as the intent was not to imply the brainpower or GEICO-like qualities of the Marines…just Curt who used the phrase on me first. ;)

That said, I will observe that as mentioned, Inchon was Army General MacArthur’s brainchild, objective, and plan throughout, and was led by Navy Admiral Struble whose previous experience included two Army amphibious assaults at both Normandy and the Leyte in the Phillipines. He also had access to hundreds of supporting ships which would hardly be the case today.

The assault did not involve self-propelled vehicles. Rather, it employed huge Landing Ship, Tanks (LST) that were 382′ long and capable of carrying up to eighteen 30-ton tanks. In this case, some carried 9 Marine M26 Pershing tanks that made a big difference, but in no way got to shore under their own power.

That shows that the Marines COULD find alternate ways to go ashore using less than a direct assault. After all, these large Inchon LSTs landed under fire, so any landing elsewhere with today’s LCAC and Joint High Speed Vessel away from any direct/indirect fire is fully feasible. Just ensure it is within driving range of the adversary’s border.

One example, the Marines apparently have access to lots of LCACs. With 10 LPDs that only accounts for about 20 of them. Some of the other 50+ could be prepositioned at Kuwait or Diego Garcia and make their way to the appropriate LPD location as required.

Just an idea. If an LPD can carry 2 LCAC and 14 EFV, perhaps you build a 25′ ICV, 6′ shorter than the 31′ EFV so that you can carry 14 ICVs and use the saved 42′ (assuming two rows of seven?)for 2 smaller LCACs specifically-sized for those 25′ ICVs and common Army ones. Then piggyback another two such small 40′ LCACs on the deck of the 2 larger 88′ LCACs. You now have 4 small LCAC whose sole function is repeat sorties carrying initial ICVs to shore and other vehicles/supplies afterward.

Those are just my corny ideas. Surely, expeditionary Marines with ample combat and amphibious experience and better awareness of LPD deck sizes can come up with some alternatives to this lemon EFV.

For instance, shoot for a 75,000 lb ICV common with the Army GCV but with slightly less armor so one will fit on the new 40′ LCAC and two can go on a larger current LCAC. The FCS MGV was already going to have the M44 30mm shared with the EFV so any new common GCV would also have that gun most likely.

There’s no reason to sacrifice land combat effectiveness just to get to shore. Those M26 Pershings wouldn’t have been nearly as effective if someone had tried getting them to float, or substituted WWII LVT(A)Alligators instead.

BTW Jim, the Army did a couple of air assaults in Vietnam and elsewhere.… ;) Also agree that WWII Soldiers/Marines were the greatest generation as Tom Brokaw noted…but current Army Soldiers and Marines are incredibly good as well. But anyway you look at it guys, the Marine oorah smack isn’t fully justified given your 7 month Marine combat tours compared to the experience Army guys are getting with three and four 12–15 month tours in both theaters since day one. But you are all true heroes…and that goes for the Vietnam guys, too.

M167A1, as mentioned, amphibious assault is not an essential capability other than to get to shore nearby. The C-17 assault into northern Iraq illustrated other ways to skin the cat, not requiring true forcible entry. An eventual massed ground assault from multiple start points along hundreds of miles of border should always be more successful than any attempt to go heh diddle didle up the middle of a few kms of well defended and mined beach.

The Marines shouldn’t be part of the Army. Their amphibious ships and jet/prop airpower make them unique. But there are areas where they should act more like the Army and that includes better armored vehicles and more helicopters instead of all V-22 to replace the CH-46.

The Marines used to get shortshrift on Naval monies, but it’s almost as though when the spigot opened, they went hogwild and overdid it on the EFV and V-22. Now if Marines only had some UH-60s, CH-47s, and AH-64D to go along with their F-35Bs. Maybe Jim’s purple example of Marine fighter support for the Army could be recipricoted by Army helicopter support for Marines…as occurs daily in Helmand.

Zach August 8th, 2009 at 4:56 am

Kayaker, I believe they both serve their purpose. No one branch is better then the rest. They get the best training for their particular job.

But I do also believe the Marines are currently treated as “meat shields”, being thrown into any hellhole we can find. (Fallujah, now Helmand). Surely they come out victorious, but not before alot of lives are lost.

Mark August 8th, 2009 at 9:39 am

If Sec Gates & crew have peered into the future via the QDR process and don’t see the need for a standing, dedicated amphib capability, why would we spend $$ on special purpose amphib gear?

Based on this view of the world.…It seems “highly likely” that in the coming years, the Obama administration is going to dramatically drawdown the US military (right or wrong), if the US is to completely re-think military force structure and posture a la 1947…does this re-open questions…like:

Does the US need two Armies?

If the US no longer needs amphib ops and a large body of naval infantry, then what is the raison d’tre of the USMC?

If the JTF/JFACC/JFLCC/JFMCC construct is the way the US is organized for war, and the JFACC (whether a Naval or Air officer) controls the joint air employment…why do the Marines need F35s? Why not get their air support the same way as the US Army?

Asked another way: Why does Marine infantry need their own dedicated air if the US deploys/employs as a joint force?

If the US needs only one ground force…which will it be? the US Army or the US Marine Corps?

This argument has little to do with which Service (Army vs Marine Corps) is the bravest or the most long suffering.….
Both organizations have heroic records in combat, both forces have an admirable warfighting ethos; however, if state on state war is a thing of the past (or so unlikely as to give us time to raise a required force) and the US will only have “small” fights and irregular warfare to deal with in the foreseeable future.…and we are already reducing the size of our Navy and Air Force, why would we keep two ground forces?

And Cole…for the umpteenth time…Army tour lengths in SWA are not determined by the US Marine Corps, US Navy, US Air Force, Coast Guard or State Department.…Army tour lengths are governed by the US Army…if the Army tour lengths are unreasonable, then that sounds a lot like an Army problem???

Mark August 8th, 2009 at 11:18 am

OK…if the US only needs one ground force, Paul votes for retaining the USMC. Works for me.

Of course, Paul didn’t address the central question of procurement of the AAV-7…if the US doesn’t need a standing, dedicated amphib capability…why do we need an AAV-7??

Just one note: I doubt that Sec Gates will rely heavily on public opinion polls as a MOM for force structure decisions and the “polls” that Paul refers to just may be a result of expert USMC PR (which is by far the best in the DOD) vice any real measure of combat effectiveness.

Paul August 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Mark, I ignore nothing. First off, I never said that the nation shouldn’t have an Army. Somebody has to be able to do the heavy lifting over the long haul. Nobody understands this better than Marines. Second…and most important.….the nation needs an expeditionary force with the capability of forced entry under many different scenarios, including amphibious assaults. The EFV is just a part of it. The Army is incapable of putting together the equivalent of the MAGTF. They fly no tactical attack aircraft. Nor does the Army have the ability to land sufficient force with the staying power, in the same time frame as the Navy/Marine Corps team. This nation will always be in conflict with other nation states. At least in the scope that you and I can talk of. It’s human nature. Oceans cover 3/4 of the earth and will remain to be the cheapest means of transportation. As long as there is a Navy and Marine Corps, the nation will have the most practical, quickest, and cheapest means of this nation being able to react to other nations with a very wide range of options that just aren’t available to the Army, be it force projection from the sea or humanitarian missions. Those are just plan facts. Semper Fi.

Cole August 8th, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Good discussion.

Mark, the reason other service tour lengths are an Army and DoD issue is because:

a) The Army must deal with constantly rotating Airmen in charge of major airbases where Soldiers are based and serving as ALOs, other staff, and JTACs. Reinventing the wheel every 4–6 months is not good. My brother-in-law is a Sherpa pilot and specifically mentioned this issue.

b) I’ve heard Sec of Defense Gates say that because COIN requires relation-building, there is less disruption of relationships when you stay 12 months. Why aren’t Marines and Air Force held to the same standard since they also deal with Afghans/Iraqis.

c) There’s little comparison to stresses that current Soldiers are experiencing but I recall that my awareness of German and Israeli/Sinai terrain and cultures was far greater after 3 year and 12 month tours than it was after the first 4 months. Airmen supporting Soldiers from above do not have sufficient time to learn the terrain tribes, and units being supported in 4–6 months.

d) If a service has sufficient force structure for 4 or 7 month tours while the Army must stay 12 months due to insufficient manpower and COIN constraints…adding force structure to the Army (as is occurring) and/or reducing their tour lengths to 8–9 months should be considered and the number of AEFs and MAGTF may be excessive.

e) The Army is losing incredibly experienced Soldiers who cannot fathom a 20 year career of this kind of rotation burden. It is also a leading cause of suicide. I would wager without knowing the stats that the Army suicide rate per 1000 servicemembers is far higher.

Ed August 8th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Does the US need a amphib forced entry capability?
Can we afford it? NO, not in these times. Tax intake is lower , due to unemployment. DOD is looking to save, not spend. If they do not cut back your taxes are going up. Buying something you may need once every 100 yrs. is expensive to maintain. We need to cut back on wars we should not be in.
The Marines are not an Army, they are shock troops. The Army can do anything the Marines do , just not dressed as well.
Who did what in WWII does not mater now. Its over with. What maters is what we do now.With the wars we are in now we are trying to change the way people think (changing the hearts and minds), by killing them.

“The Marines where the first to go into Vietnam??“
I think not. The Army was there (OSS) in WWII.
Why does Marine infantry need their own dedicated air if the US deploys/employs as a joint force? Because they are better at close air support. Their pilots work with the ground troops and act as FAC’s.
“As for the comments on Pres Obama….. Well we survided Carter, this cretin is worse but maybe we will survice(survive) him too”. You forgot Bush I,who started the military cuts (everyone blames Clinton), and Bush II (4,000 of are military did not) due to his lies and working for the oil company’s.Its SecDef Gates doing the changes.He’s a Rep.
“The United States Armed Forces is the most versatile military of any Country in the world.
That is why we always win.” We don’t always win, or did you forget Vietnam and Korea.
“We had the best Army in WWII” due to the fact they were drafted. They knew the would not go home until the war was over.
“Read the Marine Corps Mission”! Change the mission, its only on paper not stone.

Mark August 9th, 2009 at 8:46 am

Good discussion
Cole»>reasonable arguments until you double tapped the Army rotation policy with your last bullet…so to speak

Paul…Vandegrift quote was good…but you finally get the picture. Some folks, that happen to be in power, view these times as unique and campaigned on CHANGE. We have recently seen some things happen (e.g., Government take over of GM) that would have been unthinkable a year ago…so major changes in the DOD could be in the agenda. I expect/hope that the Marine Corps will be part of the fabric of our Republic for a long time but you Semper Fi guys might dust off the 1946 gameplan and be skulls up.…and the UN comment, LOL, shack.

jason August 12th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

obama was america’s larges mistake ever just wait he’s not done you all will be calling him a true nazi in 3yrs

Big Daddy August 13th, 2009 at 5:02 am

As far as amphib. assualts go.…..There’s no way that the general public would ever have the stomach for the number of casualties that occur with a major amphib. assualts.

Do we need some capacity for it ? Yes.….but only in a very limited capacity in the future.

madashell August 13th, 2009 at 7:45 am

Mr. OBAMA has done nothing but HARM to this great contry of oure and MR. OBAMA has descrased the UNITED STATES in just about every contry on earth the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is the laphing stock of all or most of the countrins in the world

Mike Cast August 13th, 2009 at 8:56 am

“Mr. OBAMA has done nothing but HARM to this great contry of oure and MR. OBAMA has descrased the UNITED STATES in just about every contry on earth the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is the laphing stock of all or most of the countrins in the world.”

I am getting sick and tired of people using these forums for rants against President Obama. If you are so upset about his election, too bad. He won. I will vote for him again if he runs for re-election, if for no other reason than to gloat about it if he is re-elected. He is a good president, in my humble opinion. And I say that as a veteran of military service.

SGT Wynn August 13th, 2009 at 9:17 am

I am former SGT Randy Wynn USMC, I served in the taking of Irag in 2003 and i was one of the “Door Kicking Marines” of Falluja Nov 2004.…. Now after stating this info.. I feel I can tell you gents that I have personally used the AAVP7A1 ‚AAV or also called the AMTRACK, in COMBAT more times than all of you have ever seen one !!!!!

YES WE NEED THE EFV!!!!!!!!!!!

The AAV was to slow 2 keepup with the Abrams M1
in 2003. That alone is enough reason. But I can give you countless reasons. The bottomline is WE AS AMPFIB CREWMEN WANT AND NEED THIS EFV!!!
It is the right piece of gear for us warfighers. It has 100 times the capabilaties then our AAV model.
The Army gets anything they want and most of the time they dont really need it , then they sell it to us (USMC) and we have to put it to good use. We the USMC Warfigher NEEDS this and DONT YOU BE THE ONE TO DEPRIVE US OF WHAT WE NEED!!!

You all can state all the history facts you want! But the real facts of history are made by Marines like me and my brothers in arms which does include ‚USAF,USN,USCG and the USArmy.

Thank you for your patriotism,
I got to go my Marines have a war to fight with outdated equipment.….

Tim August 13th, 2009 at 9:39 am

SGT Wynn — God’s speed and Semper Fi! I have a good idea where you are coming from. I served in Lebanon and Grenada, we had Vietnam War surplus equipment and we had to make it work. Just about everything we had was Army hand-me-downs, yet we still did the job. I believe that we should be listening to you guys about what you need and if the equipment is any good or not. If you guys want it and you guys say it is good, we should get it for you now!

Chief Houston August 13th, 2009 at 10:35 am

SGT Wynn,

As you undoubtedly can see, we need your input
and your perspective of joint warfare and teamwork. There are alot of folks who have not seen the future perspective or operated at the tempo that current and future warfare demands.

I know because years ago I was being laughed at and called a war monger for wanting to work with the joint DOD concept. I studied Army flash cards, read Army combat manuals from my friends in Army INTEL,etc.. When an Ast. SECDEF appeared at a major NAVY League conference in Chicago, I posed written questions to him as to why we could not work together.

A strange thing started to permeate the air, all of a sudden we got SEABEE Combat manuals and I was tasked with being in charge of a detachment of U.S. Coastguardsmen that was sent to work with the SEABEES. The Navy asked me to write a short evaluation of our experience, simply put there was no reason, Always Prepared and Can DO cannot work together.

Next Army infantry manuals arrived and we were required to be competent up to E-7 Infantry level, next orders for Combat Training with the reinitiation of USMC Force Recon in Quantico, then training at Army bases, etc..

Now only Marines and Naval SPECOPS know how the USCG work in combined training at special missions arenas. You know why speed and effectiveness are critical since high levels are trust are demanded to operate at tempos that would make some old timers dizzy.

We will fight and live together and we will fight and die together, but the most important fight is that we are together!

Semper Paratus
Semper Fidelis
Molon Labe

ReconTeam August 13th, 2009 at 10:59 am

Navy needs to be willing to get up closer and personal, that involves new ships, new missiles, new CIWS systems, and so on but this will all benefit the Navy in the long run. Meanwhile the USMC can develop a smaller EFV-ish vehicle with a capacity of one Marine squad (13 men) as opposed to 18, with built in active defense systems, and the ability to fit armor kits once on shore.

If the Chinese can do a small EFV clone we can do it better.

Mike August 13th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Ill keep it short;

I have been a Marine infantryman for a long time. The Capabilities of the EFV gives me a hard on. Having those capabilities would open up an era of previously impossible tactics that would save lives even if it was made of paper. Bobbing in the ocean like a cork in the old AAV sucks on a level that if you haven’t been in one you just can’t imagine. One could almost watch them launch from a ship, go get lunch and come back in time for the landing. Now if I launched from OTH, who knows even where I would be landing. then to be able to shoot and move faster then their little technical’s could move.… I’m excited just thinking about it! ON the flip side, being at a senior level now I have gotten a taste of the greed, corruption and straight up BS that drives some of these contracts and it is not “the Marine’s best interest”. 10 million a pop, wow! that’s allot of damn money for the USMC; what about the other half we never seem to plan for? The time, money and Marines that will be needed to KEEP it operating like ten million bucks! not much good sitting in the back of the Motor Pool waiting for funds to replace the $10,000 start button (hypothetical scenario)
so much for keeping it short, I should have said:

EFV capabilities GOOD! Procurement procedures BAD, let get all the liars in the same room rm and have “come to jesus” meeting

Tim August 13th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

I think Mr. Clarks article is mis-named. Do the country need “door kicker”? You bet…look at what’s going on in DAHANEH, Hemland Provence, Afghanistan today! Does the county need top notch amphibious capability you bet! All means of assault must be available for DOD’s use. Without amphibious capability how are we going to defend Taiwan and South Korea?

Terrance McGowan August 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

The opponents of amphibious warfare might want to take a look at the possibility of a 2nd Korean War.

Ross May August 13th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

The end of the Marines would be the end of the United States of America. The Marines are older than the United States of America, have served as Continental Marines. Harry Truman tried to end the Marines, making derisive statements about them after they had won the War in the Pacific. MacArthur certainly knew the value of the Marines. I think what endangers the Marines is that they are TOO good at what they do. I am an old Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine. There are no ex-marines, only Marines.

Rhyno327 August 14th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

some of you guys just hate Obama. Who got us into this mess? Now, the truth is coming out about the Bush-no, actually it was the CHENEY Admin. Stick to the topic and respect the CINC. Damn…

Dave August 19th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Dan Russ, If you think the Obama administration is doing anything more than cutting DOD to pay for socialism you are greatly mistaken. OMB is already asking for $60B out of DOD with no purpose other than realigning money out of DOD. On another note, I agree that we are not prepared to conduct an opposed landing now or ever again. We have been moving away from an opposed landing capability for over 30 years, mostly because our technology allows us to go where the enemy isn’t. The LCAC is a prime example in that it opens up 70% of the worlds beaches compared to 17% for displacement hull craft. We are going away from forced entry to Ship to Objective Maneuver (STOM). This concept was executed in the build up and sustainment of Forward Operating Base (FOB) Rhino, also known as Camp Rhino. It was supplied from L-ships mostly at night across Pakistani/Afgan. territoy at night, 70 tons at a time. This allowed the Army time to roll their stuff in from CONUS to take over the mission. The same was done in OIF where the 1st and 3rd Infantry Divsions were offloaded in Kuwait and Iraq using the LCAC and other Navy landing craft. The ability to put troops and material across any shore where needed in rapid manner is an essential national capability that cannot be abandoned for the purpose of funding new socialism (butter).