Tomorrow’s ‘reconstituted’ Marine Corps

Tomorrow’s ‘reconstituted’ Marine Corps

All the services will probably look different after the end of the Afghan war, but the Marine Corps could well be the one that changes the most.

The brass has vowed to get back to its “expeditionary roots;” to rediscover the ways of “amphibiosity;” and, most of all, to get much lighter.

“As I say, the United States Marine Corps needs to go on weight control,” Assistant Commandant Gen. Joe Dunford said on Wednesday. That doesn’t just mean that it’s counting on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle to be as light as possible, the better to go aboard Navy gators, but also that the Corps can’t just “reset” — it must “reconstitute” itself.


“Looking toward the future, we have 10 years of experience at war and we’ve learned a lot of lessons — a lot of equipment we had in the past is probably inadequate to support the distributed, disaggregated operations we expect, so we are doing a review and we’ll determine how to reconstitue the Marine Corps to meet tomorrow’s challenges, not yesterday’s,” Dunford said. – “We’re not resetting the Marine Corps to 2001–  2001 has nothing to do with our future security challenges  … we’re going to reconstitute for the future.”

Dunford said one key next move will be the release of an analysis of alternatives around this June that he expects could show the way for the Marines’ new amphibious combat vehicle and the rest of its tactical fleet. The Corps already plans to replace 5,000 of its Humvees with JLTVs, but this AoA should set down broader directions for the future force, the brass says.

(Maybe — every AoA is held up as the Rosetta Stone until it comes out, but it doesn’t take long to become yesterday’s news.)

Dunford reaffirmed that the ACV remains the Marines’ biggest priority, given that today’s fleet of Amphibious Assault Vehicles cannot last much longer. It was supposed to have been replaced by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, but that dream is dead. The Marines are in a pickle because they want to replace the EFV with something like the EFV — an amphibious APC that can speed ashore — but it can’t be so much like the EFV that it too succumbs to problems, delays and cost growth.

This dilemma could be one reason for Dunford’s “reconstitution:” The need for the EFV was driven by a doctrine under which the Navy’s amphibious fleet would stand far out to sea, necessitating a transport that could get up on plane and speed over the waves to the beach. If you don’t get up on plane, you can still make the trip, but you have to plod through the chop and your poor Marines get bounced and tossed inside their vehicle — not to mention that slowness makes them an easy target.

So the Marine Corps must assess whether the EFV died because the basic concept was unachievable, or because the program itself just had some problems. If the brass determines an EFV-like vehicle is possible, and uses the lessons of the previous program to make the ACV work, there you are — the doctrine can survive. But if a wave-skimming amtrac is just too hard to get for the money available, Quantico might need to step back and rethink its overall game plan.

More than that could change in a “reconstituted” Marine Corps, down to service officials’ basic acquisition strategy. In the 90s and 2000s, the Marines’ message was simple: “Look, you Pentagon and Capitol Hill pogues,” the Corps said — “if you want us to be able to continue doing the missions we do today, you have no choice but to continue supporting the expensive, high-end, controversial platforms we want. We need a utility aircraft and our CH-46s are toast; that means the MV-22 Osprey. Our AAVs are rusting from the inside out. That means the EFV. Our AV-8B Harriers are at the end of their lives. That means the F-35B.”

The score sheet from this game is decidedly mixed: The Osprey was a victory, but came at such a cost that it may never have a good name outside the Corps. The F-35B is still on the books but has no date for initial operational capability, and the Corps is making plans to keep flying its Harriers until 2030. The EFV was cancelled, and even though the Marines sought to put a rosy spin on the episode by citing the basic “validation” that Secretary Gates gave to their amphibious mission, validations can’t swim out of the well deck with a squad of riflemen.

So the game of ‘If we don’t get X, we can’t function anymore,’ may itself not work anymore.

Still, it’s never been very smart to bet against the Marine Corps. Along with the Navy, it’s the fulcrum for the U.S. “pivot” to the Western Pacific, which could give it disproportionate throw weight in going after the ACV and whatever other programs might emerge from Dunford’s look ahead.

Join the Conversation

Should have never cancelled the program but reduced its requirements and continue to march on. I quote;
“but it can’t be so much like the EFV that it too succumbs to problems, delays and cost growth.“
The complaint of problems stems from the early days of development, the delays were caused by both requirment change and a vender change driven by the USMC, reliability issues are bogus as the vehicle sits now.
Cost growth is caused by the requirement creep and the scope creep and the economy short falls.

Where does the USMC forsee a need for an amphibean attack? When is that preferable to an air assault?

Yeah, I’m sure that program took 25 years to turn out absolutely nothing because of requirements creep. It certainly had nothing to do with the contract that guaranteed the contractor $1.10 on every $1.00 they spent dragging the program out and jacking up the cost. We should not pay another dime for the development of an amphibious vehicle. If a private company wants to build one for the Marines, then they’d better get out their damn checkbook and write some checks on their own damn account for a change. If they don’t have the stones for the risk, then the Marines should design their own damn vehicle. The days of paying a for-profit company a profit to screw the US taxpayer are over as far as this taxpayer is concerned.

“Tomorrow’s ‘reconstituted’ Marine Corps” might include women in the Infantry.

Announced today… http://​www​.military​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​m​a​r​i​n​e​-​c​o​rps

God help the Marine Corps. Let the rest of us know how it works for you.

They may not see an amphibious assault coming anytime in the near future but they have to keep themselves ready… As I said in one of the last articles about the USMC, they can’t be using older equipment and vehicles anymore because they just can’t compete with other things out there…

Who ever told you these things was full of bull. The MV-22 was the only real gain for the Marines. With sequestration and budget cuts I dont see all of the Corps wish list coming true in a few years neither the Army’s list. JLTV is not replacing all the HUMVEEs in service so this guy was wrong on that. EFV was just too expensive and in many ways the AAV-7 is being updated. With the attention of US foreign policy now in the Pacific Army and Marine programs will have to die in current budget get up, they have to make due with what they have till the 2020s. Overall US Naval and Air Power need upgraded and modernization much more now. Since they been neglected this last decade for Army and Marine programs for Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Army complain too bad they had a decade already of near unlimited money and didn’t fix GCV or JLTV that’s there fault.

I see. I wouldn;t think we’d need a huge number of assets for that capability when an air assault can occur much more quickly. Do they plan on doing both? That would make more sense to me. I’m just trying to understand what they think their future is.

I did a study on the fighter gap that will occur in our naval services and the type of options they have. I put it all into a finely organized paper and posted it online. Here’s why the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps shouldn’t buy the F-35: http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​8​8​9​4​6​6​6​0​/​W​h​y​-​t​h​e​-​U​S​N​-an

OK and what happens when the marine corps wants to cancel some item that is in a senator’s home district. you can’t get light where congress is concerned

I have no idea what they think their future will be, but i think if anything they will probably want to do stealth airstrikes instead of getting a bunch of helos shot down and ground vehicles destroyed… Just my opinion.

Marines need it for Harrier replacement… nuff said

“…the distributed, disaggregated operations we expect…”

There tends to be a lot of focus in discussions on the bang end, but the complexity of intra-theater logistics will rise exponentially with disaggregation of forces in distributed operations. Even the meanest dog’s teeth can’t get very far ahead of his tail.

never say never Zak, that’s one of the rules of war

After WWII “They” said there would never be another amphibious attack but remember what happened just a few years later in a little place called Inchon

Yeah, my father was at Inchon (in the USN) but then we don’t have horse cavalry anymore either or crossbowmen. There is a time when things become outdated. They want the V-22 because it’s so much faster but then they also want to lolly gag around in a boat?

It seems like they are having a hard time figuring out what they’re going to do.

You sure can buy a lot of ACV’s for the cost of just one F-35B ($50 million). Why can’t the Navy support the Marine ground forces with their F-35’s? Yes I know the Navy’s version is not a VTOL but they could add some of the B model’s to their mix.

FYI: that url isn’t working for me

That’s a good idea its just that the Amphibious Assault Ships aren’t always near the carriers.

Very harsh. GD not all to blame here, (green) blood on lots of hands with the AAAV /EFV. 17 guys in an armored runabout, with a 30mm gun on top is a real stretch. Everyone (informed) can see the operational logic to it, but it is a stretch. The procurement system is too biased to “getting through the next budget cycle” rather than facing up to “what do we need to do — NO S— , to get it done right.”. That is the real problem with most of these ” defense aquisition failures”

Gold-plated and failed EFV and F-35 probably will in fact change USMC force structure. That, and an ever-shrinking inventory of flat-top amphibs.

http://​www​.scribd​.com/​d​o​c​/​8​8​9​4​6​6​6​0​/​W​h​y​-​t​h​e​-​U​S​N​-an

Try this one.

The 20 year development cost the Corps $3 billion. If they actually built the EFV, it would have cost at least $20 million each for 570 of them, plus 40 years of maintenance. That’s $12 billion just for procurement. Do you really think General Dynamics wanted to drag out development forever? Did they make a profit on development? Yes. Did they lose out FREAKIN HUGE on not getting to build it? You bet.

One of the biggest development problems with the EFV was that they basically wanted a Bradlesque vehicle that could swim shallow and fast, fight once ashore, and keep on going as deep inland as the gas tank would allow. Those requirements are so opposed to each other that the EFV became a beast with too many things that could go wrong on it. It required an engine bigger than the one on the Abrams. It was supposed to go into LRIP right now, but the prototypes could only stay running for a couple hours before breakdowns when it was cancelled.

One problem is the rotation of personnel into and out of these program billets and every time new people come in they want to change the requirements and then the vendor says, “SURE! but it’ll cost you.” They just want to drag it on to keep the money flowing. There is a double edge sword with a highly flexible acquisition process you may be able to field things quicker, or you may just end up dragging it out because too many hands in the pot.

The MV-22 was the only real gain for the Marines.

That funny because when i was a AMO in IRAQ they had a 24% readiness rate and later when I was in AFgh they couldnt fly any of the major missions (MARJAH) due to the heat and lack of payload capability. They were relegated to VP taxis. Their readiness was so lacking to where the Deltas had to take up their slack thats sad. IMO the MV-22 needs to go. The entire supply chain of parts was under procured from the start. The parts were estimated to last YEARS longer than they are.

We might not have horse cavalry but the Marine do have war mules. Instead of the next great thing the Corp’s should build the next generation of AAV is as it’s said the hull’s are rusting out…

I’ve seen and heard from the damn pilots that fly them even that their readiness rates are much higher. This also ignores the fact that they are a entirly new peice of equipment.

I do agree the CH-46 was better. But as far as new BIG system go the MV-22 was the only ”new” success for them.

You should check those facts of yours. The production cost was $16.2 million per copy. Yet a $12 million per copy was offered to the USMC.

Again, one should check their facts before stating them. Yes at early stages of development, PDRR, there was reliability issues. Today, there are 5 EFV’s operating in Ca with very little issue. That is after the successful RGT testing in 2010 that put thier MTBF at over 25 operating hours and if you took out crew error, over 50.8 hours of operations, and they are still running. Reliability is not the issue.

Next for Marines… Women in the Infantry.

The CH-46 is in no way better. They are more dangerous to troops than the MV-22 is. They crash.alot and arent very stable. Plus the newest one is from 1971.…..

The things the osprey brings are range and speed. Plus they are actucally very manuverable.

Right, $46 billion in programs that failed to produce anything, but there’s no patter emerging here. No, defense contractors love to build weapons. They would never milk development and then let the program die before anything is built. Now all of you go watch stick and ball sports on TV. There’s nothing to see here. http://​defensetech​.org/​2​0​1​1​/​0​7​/​1​9​/​4​6​-​b​i​l​l​i​o​n​-​w​ort

Lots of talk, no walk. Step 1. Pull the Generals and their platoon of Colonels off their resort on Okinawa. There’s a great article at G2mil about this, in the overseas bases to close. Note the Marine equipment in Norway BS too.

Woman in the infantry? I did five years active duty Marines. Combat Engineer. We were right along with infantry, carring all of our engineer stuff. After the Marines I went to school and joined the Army reserve and became a drill sergenat. Then I earned a commision through ROTC and continued my reserve service. I went to many a summer, two week trainings at various Army basic training bases. Both enlisted and commisioned. The women cannot do it! For one the light bones in the feet of women cannot carry a load without breaking down. This along with the very poor diet American girls choose further degrades their bodies ability to carry a load. By week five of basic training almost all the females are on some kind of profile and are “husked” along. I am in the retired reserve now so I can now post this. It was against all things military to say anything about how poorly the women performed. I even saw women in basic training who earned “expert marksman”. I never saw some of those women ever drop one target. Not one. But you were mandated to keep the scores “acceptable” within the established averages.

Uh, so what’s the issue?

BTW, where did you find the $12 mil per nugget?

Pat — What other vehicles are you talking about competition wise?

Where does the USMC need to amphib attack? Where does the Army need to conduct an airborne op? There are dozens of scenarios from NEO, to reinforcing an ally, to siezing a dock or beach that might be necessary. Heck, even the threat of an amphib op kept a couple of Iraqi divisions pinned during desert storm.

Let’s not be so quick to poo poo the amphib assault. Given the right situation and assets it might be the perfect solution just like the good old airborne drop.

You really have a hard on for the Army. Seems you can’t help but talk bad about it every opportunity. That from someone who NEVER wore the uniform and whose military expertise is limited to raising targets on a range.

You may want to have some respect for the service that’s paid 75% of the bill in blood and spent the most time in theatre the last decade where the GCV etc. were far from a priority. All this BS while you’re in the rear with the gear wearing a six pointer making believe you were ever a Marine.

Unlike the other branches, we don’t put all of our assets in one or two baskets. We pride ourselves on being able to get the job done, no matter what it entails. That is why we strike from the land, or the sea, or the air.We like to support ourselves as much as possible, because we all think alike. We are Marines.

Read it. You champion Super Hornets instead of F35s. You hit the cost factors pretty hard (and successfuly I think). Not so convinced on the stealth, sensors and performance arguments. You singularly ignore how the Corps uses fighters, why it wants a VTOL aircraft or situations where a VTOL would be uniquely successful. You talk about what F18 pilots say yet ignored Harrier pilots. You mentioned historic examples where the Harrier didn’t excel but ignored ops where it did. The Falklands for one along with its stellar performance in Desert Storm and how the Corps was able to pull it back to serve its purposes when it felt the Air Force wasn’t (again, a unique USMC Air capability). Cost is very important but the three F18 Super Hornet Block IIIs one could buy for one F35 can’t land on an amphib assault ship. Not much good if you’re a ground Marine needing some help and the Navy or Air Force isn’t around. Redesigning the Harrier isn’t cheap or a sure solution while it leaves the USMC uniquely vulnerable should it need conduct local air superiority missions.

The F35 might not be the best solution for the USMC but you clearly don’t understand their doctrine and subsequent requirement.

In Jan 2011 around cancellation time, GD stated in an interview they thought the production run price would be $17 million.
https://​www​.utsandiego​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​1​/​j​a​n​/​2​5​/​n​e​w-m

In 2006 when the program was nearly cancelled and was already behind schedule by 10 years, the failure rate was 4.5 hours. In 2009 when I got to see it the failure rate was around 10 hours. In the testing done right around the cancellation date, at least one of the prototypes got up to 20 hours. The requirement to go into LRIP was 43.5 hours which was lowered from 70 hours in 2004. When did it reach 50.8 hours? Why is the Corps still spending money testing a program that’s been cancelled?
http://​www​.fas​.org/​s​g​p​/​c​r​s​/​w​e​a​p​o​n​s​/​R​S​2​2​9​4​7​.​pdf

Congressional Research Service predicted costs of $24 million a piece, and the Navy’s procurement documents (which DoDBuzz keeps deleting from my posts) from FY11 predicted LRIP costs of between $30 million and $23 million a piece in the first 3 years of production.
http://​www​.fas​.org/​s​g​p​/​c​r​s​/​w​e​a​p​o​n​s​/​R​S​2​2​9​4​7​.​pdf

The Army pools all its assets in one or two baskets? Uh,no. E.G. heavy, light, in between, airborne and air assault.

You may like to think the reason Marines try to have all their support organic is because you think alike but actually it’s because you’re supposed to be expeditionary in nature and like anyone whose gone camping knows once you’re in the woods there’s no wal mart.

Found this little blurb (but nothing more specific) saying the Jan 2011 round of testing got up to 30 hours. It says the goal of the test was 16.4 hours, but I can’t find any other sources to verify this.
http://​www​.theflyonthewall​.com/​p​e​r​m​a​l​i​n​k​s​/​e​n​t​r​y.p

from source — “realistic requirements and tight oversight to prevent such cancellations from ever happening”

planing over sea state 3 was a great idea. navy doesn’t even drop tail in that.

$46B is overstating it. counting crusader in the last decade are we? comanche was practically validated when it was cut. and btw, there are still efvs operational on-site, still clocking nms without the for-profit contractors babying them.

16.4 is a dot on the growth curve, reliability math.

who can say why usmc is continuing to spend dollars? presumably (hopefully?) it’s to research a workable set of requirements. if you optimize the solution for one pie in the sky req’t, you tend to run out of trade space for the rest.

or better yet, we can expect the greatness of mrap from an urgent need buy…

Hey, I know, let’s count C-130 AMP and make it an even $50 billion in programs that never produced a damn thing. Of course, we could add B-2 (20 airplanes) and F-22 (180 airplanes) after tens of billions had been spent on development, but that’s a little more of a grey area.

Correction “eight pointer”

The problem isnt the army its our governments commentment to making sure we never have enough troops to deploy to do the things needed. This has vastly raised personel cost across the services. And the US wants to conduct war the Nice way…basicly without mass murdering entire towns and area’s like the soviets do in chechneya..we must have ALOT of people easily twice the size it currently is. THAT isnt going to happen. So the best thing to do is to end these wars and stop trying to nation build in places that are quite frankly shit holes. The region lacks what makes governments work. Its simply not in the culture.

So if no more massive land wars and Counter insurgencies we dont need a army the size of the one today. So you invest that money into the navy. This allows you to control the access to the US except for the small area of mexico.……which our military could easily stop. Let alone that military backed by all the National guard, reserves, and other state forces raised.

That was true with the first 3 prototype’s. As of today there are still three of the second 10 that were kept by the corps after cancellation. Those three have been running at over 95% even with crews that treat them as garbage. They have FAR exceeded the original design requirements. If it was’t for the fact that Amos did not wan’t them and sold the program out for F35B development the EFV would be in production today.

If the EFV is still being tested on its own and is doing well, I’m happy for the Corps. Maybe whatever they’re doing can be incorporated into the new program. The point I was trying to make about 5 posts up there was that the program’s goal was to make a vehicle that ended up being redesigned multiple times because it tried to do too much with available technology. The Congressional Research Service report I linked said the program is 183% more expensive than what they originally planned and 16 years behind schedule and would have consumed 90% of the Corps’ vehicle budget for the next couple decades. If they kept the program going it could have been a success story, but a Pyrrhic one to be sure.

There’s countless options between how we’ve conducted war and the Chechnya extreme.

No massive land wars or counterinsurgencies? Hmmmm, it was said WWI would be the war to end all wars. How did that work out?

If you think a strong Navy alone would provide for secure shores you may need to read up on some inventions like the airplane, the missile and what runs the internal combustion engine (oil can be interupted before it gets to the port). There’s also the nasty fact that we have a border with Mexico and “Fortress America” isolationism didn’t work too well in the past, TWICE!

Hober — Where did you get your facts?

mark — you keep talking about checking facts but you haven’t supported yours. Where did you get the $12mil/copy? 51 hours of reliability? Again where did you get your stats and that’s two days of operation on a beach before one has a serious problem.

Back to the original point of cost though. $17 mil ea. by GD and $23 mil ea. by the CRS seems a bit pricey for a vehicle that works for two days before it has a major problem (assuming your stats are right (which your record and rating really don’t support).

It seems the current “doctrine” is to go for gold-plated solutions. Marketing in Congress is the mission of top-Marine brass. Amos is a dead weight to any proper USMC needs. Must be hard to believe for some, but there was an effective Marine Corps before STOVL.
Also, it is hard to believe the current USMC “doctrine” when they have been used as a second land army in Operations: USELESS DIRT 1 and 2. You now have lots of Marines that have enlisted since 911 that have never been near a boat. Use Marines for what they are needed for: actual littoral ops. Also, for big war ops there won’t be any Marines around if there are not big carriers around with plenty of air power or also… USAF. As for small war ops. The USMC has a stellar vertical take off and landing CAS capability in the Yankee and Zulu helicopters. Along with the C-130J multi-function “Harvest Hawk”, the Yankee and Zulue are some of the most intelligent air power USMC has fielded in recent years. And they aren’t gold-plated.

You know, you say these things, but the big name engineers I talk to cannot wait to get out of design and development, and into production…’cause that is where the money is. If anything, these guys skimp on design and development, which is one reason it takes so long and costs so much. Do it right the first time, and don’t cut corners. You will save time and money that way.

So here is a radical idea.

Put EFV in the field. Budget for low rate production off a line you will build at Lima. That way you keep a factory open, save jobs and help grow the economy.

I dare ya to do this, Obama Administration. I double dog dare ya.

Please reread the last paragraph of your reply.…you mean airplanes like the F-18E/F Superhornet? The tomahawk cruise missile, SM-3 interceptor, Harpoon anti ship missile.……

You need to read the entire reply i gave you before replying please.

This is a nice fantasy. But the US Navy is not likely to go above 300 ships anytime soon. The Chinese keep huffing and puffing when we even do a training exercise in the first island chain (e;g, the Phillipines) and the evidence shows that they are helping North Korea with that fail missile program, Anyone who has even bother to study Geopolitical theory knows that the so-called “Rimland” strategy beloved of people like Colin Gray eventually leads you ashore. Forward deployment is a huge geopolitical advantage, and we should not throw that advantage away for trifles. Even global precision strike has its limits if you have no friends on the ground. We need a mobile and lethal force that gits thar fustest with the mostest. Speed and Power.

“He who controls the oceans and sky controls the world.” We tried that after WWII. We got Korea and Vietnam. Air/Sea power enthusiasts tend to promote their unique solutions yet they never pay the majority of the bill in blood to promote their solutions. You feel the only threat the US has to defend against is one against the homeland. It isn’t. Airpower and Seapower are very important. They are never decisive and have never strangled an enemy.

There’s a happy median between the current Army’s size and where cuts will take us as well as a strong Navy and Air Force which is presently CLEARLY outclasses every other in the world in every category.

I reject “Americans want a smaller Army” and you can’t support it. Congress wants to cut spending. The republicans supported some responsible cuts. The democrats let the republicans hang themselves when they let the hammer fall on the doomsday mechanism that is causeing sequestration. That’s a far call from what the American people want.

Anyway, I see what you mean. I didn’t mention the Falklands in my paper so I’ll go back and fix that. To answer you though if the U.S. Navy was given a situation similar to the Falklands we still wouldn’t need the Harrier because we could have a CVN there in a matter of days. The British used the Harrier then because it was all they had. As for Desert Storm, what specific missions are you talking about?

As for redesigning the Harrier, the Marines have said our current Harriers could last into 2030. That’s surely enough time to build an acceptable upgraded Harrier and wouldn’t leave them vulnerable. I’m convinced a redesign of the Harrier actually would be cheap. It would definitely cost much less than the F-35B, which as of now is a design that doesn’t work and is only 20% done with its testing but can’t seem to get through the rest of it. I think the F-35B would leave them vulnerable if they were faced with a numerically superior opponent (on the ground or in the air) since the F-35B can only hold so few munitions in its weapons bays. The moment you mount weapons externally on it then it basically becomes a super expensive F-16 in terms of performance. It also has very short range for a fighter. The F-35B simply can’t do the job like the Super Hornet can and it won’t be able to be produced in enough numbers to counteract its weaknesses. Also, if the F-35B was shot down I certainly wouldn’t want to have to send Marines out to its location to secure the wreckage and use more resources, which is exactly what we would need to do because the F-35 has such classified and sensitive materials and technologies in its construction.

Stealth is not an absolute necessity for conducting air superiority missions. We’ve been doing it fine without stealth for quite some time now. What we need are better munitions and a balance of stealth in the mix.

“Use Marines for what they are needed for: actual littoral ops.”

Then use the National Guard for what they are needed for: Local National Crisis.
Then use the reservists for what they are needed for: Activation only when truly needed
Then use the “Blue” services Individual Augmentees for what they are needed for: Apparently anything but ground combat.
Then use those that have already separated (Stop/Gap/Recall), especially those missing limbs, for what they are needed for: Civilian Workforce.

Already people have forgotten how many people “ideally” should have been in these wars, but for some reason big Army activated everybody else.

I have been around the EFV’s that are currently running at Camp Pend. And by the way Hober, there are actually 5 of the 2nd 7 prototypes built that are still running around Camp Pend as of today.

majrod,
I was a participant of the testing of these vehicles during the “RGT” in 2010 in which they performed beyond expectations. The decision to cancel was all political and not fact base. The offer was made to the USMC of a “toned down” EFV that would cost approximately $12 million dollars, it was turned down because the program had already been cancelled and it would put mud in the faces of some very distinguished people. To this day, I believe that they used “old” (PDR or SDD1) numbers to cancel the program.

Cool, these facts aren’t documented anywhere?

Orly — again with the mistatement of facts?

The Guard is not limited to local national crisis. Tanks, attack helos and arty are hardly necessary for a domestic crisis. Check the history books for how many NG divisions were deployed in WWI & WWII, BN’s or greater have been mobilized for every major US conflict since. Secondly the reservists were needed. The Army specifically designed itself to require reservists be called up to support any major conflict after letting the politicians avoid mobilizing guard units and risking public support in Nam.

Big Army didn’t activate everyone else. Rumsfeld (SECRETARY OF DEFENSE) over rode the Army COS (Shinseki) when he said we needed 400k to go into Iraq. The biggest weakness of you Marine enthusiasts is you don’t read anything but Marine history. If you don’t like the role you might want to whine to the Marine Generals that are trying to get back to their expeditionary roots which are primarily (prep yourself) littoral ops.

You’re limiting your thinking. Think the FUTURE… Consider the Navy’s carriers might be occupied doing something else/not be there in time and Harriers being potentially outclassed by enemy air should they be called upon to conduct local air superiority missions. If that’s not an issue just go to props huh?

As for the Harrier’s performance there’s tons of stuff out there. Some tidbits was the use during DS of Harriers as counter battery weapons and they flew from assault ships. The forward based land harriers established an impressive 23 minute turn around time (FAS article). In OEF they operated from assault ships same as in OIF as well as operating out of makeshift airfields. Google is a wonderful tool!

I understand the Guard “usage,” but was that the original “concept?” That IS what @E_L_P is suggesting we do correct? Stay with the “concept” in a goddamned war, as if adaptability is a sin.

Having a ton of USMC with no combat experience on a ship, and only have Army reinforce Army also makes no sense. Having USMC/AF/Navy on the ground in both wars is NOT all that bad, but @E_L_P seems to have ignored that.

The generals I don’t blame, its a budget crisis and everyone’s going small.

So who has authorization to activate Individual Ready Reserves for individual services? These are people that have been discharged correct?

Were they or were they not activated in the last 10 years?

No. Stop putting words into my mouth.

“You feel the only threat the US has to defend against is one against the homeland. It isn’t. Airpower and Seapower are very important. They are never decisive and have never strangled an enemy”

Never said any of that. Not a single word of it.

What i said is that we can choose to focus on the sea and to a lesser extent the air. The Navy holds open the door and strangles their lines of supply. It also can reach 75% of the worlds cities. This means that the Army can bring those big fat transports over the ocean and land them at ports taken and held by marines at ease.

Cont.

I never said we want a smaller military. We are going to get one. Why? We are in reality more in debt than all of europe. FACT. China’s GDP is set to over take ours some time around 2020.

I haven’t said decisive once. They arent. However they make other nations realise Especially nations like china who recive alot of their oil and coal from over seas almost as well as many exports, that if they do push we can ruin them. And while we ruin them we can bring forces to Their shores and destroy them utterly.

NO ONE has said isolationism but instead a rebalancing. We need ALOT more than 300 ships. We need many ships like the absolon class. Cheaper than the LCS and better in everyway with the same crew sizes.

Cont.

What hurt us in Korea was that the Navy and DoD in general assumed after ww2 all wars would be nuclear. Oops.

So we had neglected both amphibious warfare in the form of ships and marines as well as carrier warfare in the form of Carrier aviation.

In Vietnam we tried lightning war.….guess what dont work when you lack the troops to secure the places you conquer. So we came in won the ground left on choppers and the VC came in and took it back. Then idiot politicans basicly lost us the war.

Global Precision strike is worthless. Its like buying a 2,000 nail gun when you only need a 5 dollar hammer. For the same cost as a ship or a fighter your shooting a 100 mil dollar missile at one guy.…

I would like to hear how a Soldier manages to graduate Basic Training without ever have hitting a single target during weapons qualification with our professional NCO corps standing right there.

What do you have to support those Gators if all CSGs are occupied? I think you’re a little short of surface combatants and support vessels to even make a legitimate ESG in that scenario.

The USMC is going to have to put forth better arguments than “ya never know” in this budget reality. Frankly if the USMC wants to secure its budget and toys it needs to get itself the hell out of Stan and get itself into counter piracy ops off Somalia. You’ve got the German parliament green lighting inland pursuit of pirates in Somalia, so while the USMC staff whine and argue how come they need stuff the Germans for Christ sake are actually going to be conducting real amphib ops, and I bet they don’t have Ospreys, EFVs, or any other gold plated non sense.

Hey Zak air power or air strikes have never won a war all by it’s self! It’s the boots on the ground that have won the wars! When you limit yourself to just one opition in war to fight and win a battle you’ve lost already! You have to give yourself opionions and to keep the bad thinking about where we will strike! Thats what we did with Saddam in 1991! Oh by the way we MARINES were and never will horse cavarly! We don’t eat straw!!!!! Semper Fi!

Oh, they probably are in the paperwork somewhere, but just not advertised.

When the Navy said they couldn’t live without 313 ships, that number included the Corps’ amphib fleet. That number would support the ability to put 2 Marine Expeditionary Brigades to sea at the same time.

The Guard was always a force in waiting to reinforce the professional active Army. It came about as an effort to standardize state militias in 1903.

The Marines can reinforce the Army (and vice versa) as the situation demands. Doesn’t mean each organization doesn’t have its primary mission/focus. ELP didn’t say anything to the contrary. Its just like the Army returning to issues other than COIN doesn’t detratct from what its done.

The IRR is still under obligation under their original contract and other services being used on the ground isn’t wrong. They are still executing their MOS or assisting the Army and if there is something “wrong” with that it’s because the Army even with tours that are twice as long isn’t big enough. (what a thought!)

But what’s your point w/mistating fact? Why are you jumping all over the map whining about the Marines wanting to return to their primary role? Don’t see how ANY of the issues you raised have anything to do with the issue that the Marines have in effect been a second land Army and they themselves have identified the need to get back to their roots?

So they aren’t available then…

Seems if they were written somehwere (and you aren’t the only person that knows about it) the EFV would have been picked up at $12mil ea. Makes no sense to create an entirely new program if the old one can deliver at an acceptable cost. This hasn’t happened.

Not if every single CSG was deployed it wouldn’t

Ref Korea — you missed the Army again. You mention the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines. Ever heard of TF Smith?

Nam was lightening war? Where did you study history? Politicians did lose Nam but it wasn’t a lack of troops. It is incredibly difficult to defeat an insurgency if they have sanctuaries. N Vietnam was the biggest one.

Belesari – did you not say, “So if no more massive land wars and Counter insurgencies we dont need a army the size of the one today.” WHO thinks those two options are no longer a threat?

Did you not say, “So you invest that money into the navy. This allows you to control the access to the US” Which besides being classic isolationist doesn’t save money. Uh, it spends it somewhere else.

Did you not say, “He who controls the oceans and sky controls the world.” That sounds pretty decisive.

Did you not say, “The Navy holds open the door and strangles their lines of supply. It also can reach 75% of the worlds cities.” Can’t we do that now? If so why is it you are promoting those services above the Army that is taking the most cuts while being in need most of a rebuilding.

Did you not say, “NO ONE has said isolationism but instead a rebalancing.” Considering my last point we are far from rebalancing things.

There you go, and all in your own words. :)

Templar — I’d wait and see what the Germans actually do and who they use to do it before dinging the Marines. IF the Germans do something it will be “interesting”. If they use their special ops troops it’ll be pretty comparable to what we’ve already done with SEALs and Delta in Somalia. BTW, those spec ops guys have all kinds of gold plated toys.

Mark — Are you the ONLY guy to have seen this stuff?

Makes no sense for the Marines to start a completely new program with a $12 mil prediction by the vendor. Even if the Marines were silly enough to start a whole new program we’d see a lot more discussion of a $12mil EFV II (if you will).

Heck, if this thing did all the things you’re saying the Army would be looking at it as the answer to the GCV. Something’s not right. Doesn’t make sense.

There was about 30 or so contractors and about 30 Marines, if you ask the people that have hands on these vehicles, they all say the same thing, a mistake was made. Understand, that the RGT did not end until approximately 2 weeks past the notification of cancellation and then a month or so down the line the numbers got crunched, by then it was too late for the upper management to back peddle without getting some mud. The vehicle was looked at for the GCV but the weight was too much.

The facts are written somewhere, they were submitted up through the chain, every Marine that I have talked with associated with the program could not believe the cancellation. But, thats the guys on the ground, they may not see the big picture. The facts are out there, somebody wanted 3 vehicles for this one.

Marines don’t use the ships that make up a CSG except as escorts and offshore strike. In order to float two MEBs the Marine Corps requires a minimum of 33 amphibs and they prefer 38. I haven’t found how many they have now, but it probably isn’t 33. The Corps usually floats a single MEU at a time, and if there was an operation requiring a full up MEB (14,000 Marines), the Navy isn’t going to leave it without significant fire support even if that meant cancelling shore time for one of the CSGs taking a break (no such thing as “every single CSG deployed.”)

How are a half dozen F35B the game changer that allows an amphib to operate where a half dozen Harriers wont work?

Zak, are you that dense? As long as the Earth is 85% water, there will always be an opportunity to storm the beaches. Yea, I know you army boys want to dominate the headlines, but its obvious you are ignorant to what a MAGTF does or the amount of punch a MEU can deliver. Self-sustaining with its own AIR SUPPORT, the Marines can bring a world of hurt from the ocean.

what a retard

BS, if the USMC is going to engage in the kind of sustained ops that majorrod puts for they are not going to just do that with amphibs. They are going to require massive support to maintain that tempo. Plus there simply isn’t all the support on the back end to maintain that sort of effort, sattelites, analysts, planning staff. Didn’t we all just read how we are moving away from the ‘two war’ strategy. The strategy everyone admits we wouldn’t have been able to accomplish anyway and somehow the notion that every single CSG is ‘busy’ is something I should take in any sort of serious fashion. Folks we are in a budget mess and putting forth fantasy like the USMC is going to have to operate independent of USN air support is a fairy tale.

They are talking about it and authorizing it, which is a great deal more than Congress and USMC are doing.

Templar — They are ghoing to authorize the KSK to conduct raids. Big whoop. We’ve been doing that for years. When I see the Bundeswehr (they don’t have marines) rocking and rolling then I think you’ll have a point.

List the Germans amphib ships (hint, you can count them on one hand with five fingers left over).

You can make your point without dragging the Army into it. When it comes to chasing headlines you have the Army beat in every category.

A decade from now. A no time NEO in an unstable country that has a neighbor nearby that has an iterest in keeping that neighbor unstable and who happens to have a couple of mig 29s. There’s a half dozen countries in Africa and Aisia that might fit that scenario.

Which is exactly what I just said. Did you read my comment? I said they don’t use CSG ships to put their troops to sea. Simple fact. Carriers and destroyers don’t hold large Marine units. MEUs operate largely independent of Navy strike support all the time unless the operation specifically requires it. I also said they’d never put an entire MEB to sea as an actual force without a large Navy contingent backing it up. A MEB requires a minimum of 16 amphibs. Do you really think the Navy is going to let that many ships conduct an assault without a couple carriers?

The GCV candidates are running 40 — 60T.

Like I said before, “Even if the Marines were silly enough to start a whole new program we’d see a lot more discussion of a $12mil EFV II (if you will).” Supressing this info makes no sense when it could be wrapped into EFV II (or EFV revisited).

The Marines are far from headline chasers.…dont be angry that smaller USMC is way more efficient and resourceful than the Army. Did freedom of speech go out the window? Oh, thought not. And Marines dont chase headlines..thats a joke. Either way, anytime something surfaces regarding the Marines re-structuring, there’s always some Army dude asking about hitting beaches and the need for amphibious operations. And the little sideways thing about the women and infantry, I bet the Army will have women in the infantry before the Marines…and even if the Marines do it first, it will be successful and of course, Army will copy.

Don’t go there dude…

Like who, Burt Rutan? These defense contractors skrimp on everything. There’s never time to do anything right, but there’s always time to do it over and over and over again. That was the story of F-22, 25 years of doing it over and over and over again. And even after that it was a piece of crap that couldn’t cross the dateline without the software blowing to hell. Why do you think that is? I mean, it’s not like they make $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. Oh wait, it is just like that. So what do you think they do, try to come up with the best processes that give them the fastest convergence on a good, workable design, or try to needlessly hurry the process along so nothing ever gets done right and thus drags out while they redo everything multiple times? If you guessed the latter, then maybe these defense contractors don’t deserve your money. As for the rest of you idiots, they should take yours.

I’m sure they didn’t cancel the program so the defense contractors could continue to pull in those lucrative development dollars for another two and a half decades. Noooo, that would never happen. Just ask the military industrial complex schills who post here.

I see your lack of communications skills triggers you to be insulting. It’s OK, I can live with your limitations.

When was the last time an amphibious assault was more effective than an air assault? What advantages does it have? It is much slower, it takes much longer to deploy, it is just as risky as an air assault.

Not having amphibious assault vehicles is not equivalent to limiting oneself to one option. That’s a terrible misreprsentation to what I stated.

Meanwhile, nobody wants to talk about the last time an amphibious assault was used. Was it in the 1950s?

Thanks for the post, but I’m not trying to poo poo the idea, I’m trying to understand why an amphibious assault would be preferable to an air assault. Presumably there is some scenario where it has a higher chance of mission success. The scenarios your mentioned seem to fit.

It’s great to get a reasonable response that isn’t emotionally based and without derogatory statements. I like the articles on this website but some of the posters seem to be broken records, for example the “contractors are evil” slogan that is posted on nearly every article.

Well, I tend to think it is the latter. In fact, I think that applying EWM to SDD programs actually makes the problem worse, by incentivizing the contractor to declare victory before the job is done. So that will be my heresy for today.

Well, in that case, do ya think we should bring back the coast artillery ? Certainly NMD would fit the bill.…

But He did go there, there is a 5000lb Elephant in the room that no Marine or Marine supporter wants to address. General Amos DID address it in last November in front of the Senate Select defense committee. While the Army has lots of fat and lots of room for improvement, General Amos plainly stated that the Army has reintroduced the RCT concept, had gotten smaller, more flexible and extremely deadly. On the other hand he stated the USMC had “wasted 27years”. It had become “bloated, inflexible and ineffective”. The unspoken truth is that Marine performance in this past decade of war has been poor. In their “Great Southern Offensive” in A-stan last year the USMC identified nearly 200 Hard targets which had to be dealt with before they could move out. So Royal Marines, US Rangers, Polish Paras and Estonian Mech took them out. When they finally did move it was behind US Army Engineers. Until the memory of CentCom sending the ESTONIANs before the USMC fades from history, there is non need for any Marine or Marine Fanboy chest thumping, flagwaving, or PR. Stick to what the USMC does best, recruiting ads.

So our brave group of six F35B will need to maintain a 24 hour CAP indefinitely to defend against the couple of Mig 29’s that may never come? Seems unrealistic, costly, and redundant considering they could be struck on the ground and be done with, considering what a fearsome threat they represent.

I’m not a Marine, I’m Navy, but I would think you want to keep the capacity on the books because it forces a defender to consider an additional method of attack. It also permits the deployment of heavier forces or more logistical support per sortie. it simply bring the benefits of combined arms ashore. Also, an amphibious assault is by nature mechanized, and moves faster once on land than an air assault.

Hey Kevin Wood. Marines with horses doing their job. http://​commons​.wikimedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​F​i​l​e​:​U​S​_​N​a​v​y​_08

Great Zak. I come here to learn also.

I like that. You’re living on the edge. Of course, the way things are now the defense contractors have the system so well in hand that the few of us here and there who figure out what’s going on is not much of a threat.

Good points, especially the last sentence. Plus I assume that because an amphibious assault is by nature mechanized they have heavier support so a mess like Operation Market Garden can be avoided?

Rob — Where could I find that story you just posted?

Mburt — Not angry at the Marines. They’re a great bunch with a distiguished history. Almost as distinguished as the older Army which has exceeded the Corps exploits in every category except for ego. The Marines do an EXCELLENT job of publishing their exploits (Check out Truman’s quote). You accused the Army of chasing headlines, maybe, but the Corps is much guiltier. Check out COL Dowdy’s relief because he didn’t beat the Army to Bagdad. The above story is not well known nor is the Army’s significant and leading contribution to the taking of Falujah. How many photos of male soldiers in a liplock upon homecoming are out there?

I got no beef with the Corps but the Army is not its whipping boy and when Marines start crap don’t expect a smile and “thank you”. Dragging the Army into your point just illuminates your insecurity. BTW, let us know how those female grunts do. The Army very well may copy you. Its done dumb things before.

Joe — It can IF you land enough vehicles/supplies to do that. There isn’t a historic example that didn’t have significant assets in country already or involved the Army. That said an amphibious assault can land heavy forces that an air assault can’t. The irony is the Marines are a relatively light force and they have to be to get there.

You did nail the key points though. Its another thing for the enemy to worry about and it can get heavier forces on the ground.

Never said a 24 hour cap.

As for unrealistic events who would have thought 911 would have happened a decade earlier. Who would have thought that EVERY HMMWV (a utility vehicle) needed to be uparmored. Why would EVERY soldier need body armor? Seemed like a waste at the time also. Planning for contingencies is what it’s all about. You asked for a specific situation. I gave you one.

Actually I think it was Somalia and the threat of it tied down a couple of Iraqi divisions in Desert Storm.

Templar — What sustained ops was I talking about? You’re putting words in my mouth. The discussion in response to this post is about the utility of the F35B and why Marines might need it. Those ops range from NEO’s to major conflicts. BTW, a NEO never counted aginst the “two war” strategy. NEOs are a “bit” smaller.

I can only hope that becomes a reality here after the conclusion of the AoA that is currently in session.

I thought it was all about making them feel good about themselves and given an fairness? So even if your putting everyone’s lives at risk just think of the equal opportunity we are given them! At the end of the day, the losers still get the trophy, isn’t the liberal agenda we must follow???

Thanks for the reply. With respect to the situation (a completely legit scenario), if a very small (numerically) Mig29 threat is present, it is present 24/7. Thats something that a small group of fighters, regardless of their type, is going to have a hard time dealing with. The amphibs only carry a few fighters… more if needed, but I get the feeling that numbers of other aviation platforms are negatively impacted, impacting the overall mission. So my original comment remains: F35B is not a game changer that justifies the cost. It either “does what a Harrier does”, or it isnt present in sufficient quantity to protect the force. Which brings us back to what we would do anyway..support the force with other assets.

I completely agree with your argument regarding the importance of contingency planning. And I also think that we already have the ability to carry out the strike missions, and protect the force, that the F35B is argued to bring to the table.

“Thats something that a small group of fighters, regardless of their type, is going to have a hard time dealing with.”

What does the number of aircraft have to do with the equation? Most recent air to air engagements have been less than five aircraft cumulative. Your equating Harrier performance to F35s based on the number of aircraft deployed?

That’s a novel valuation of the aircraft’s capability. You’re good! You got me laughing.

It was in November of 2011. He testified in front of the comittee about future direction of the USMC, it became a budget plea after about 30 minutes. I actually saw the excerpts on Sen. John McCain’s web page. I like you am a Soldier who is HIGHLY in favor of a strong and relevant USMC. But sometimes want to pull my hair out(whats left of it), when any discussion about anything Marine Corps oriented devolves into a “us vrs them” mud fight. The only position many Marines, former Marines and fans of the USMC can take is that we are good/right and everything else is wrong/bad. I was with 3rd LAR(head Arabic IT) during the invasion of Iraq and turned 50 while attached to 3/5 Marines during Phantom Fury, so I’ve seen the good, the bad and the ugly of which I talk. Dont just cite Truman’s quote, there is about 1600 pages of the Congressional Record which makes very good reading from that era leading up to the USMC’s mandated size.

What seems to be getting lost by some here is the Marines are talking about being able to deal with future threats with less gear and outside support during the intial phase of an assault or interdiction.
What a lot of folks dont realize is that MEU’s dont run around with a carrier battle group on thier flank at all times or as part of one 365. This is why the new AMREICA class amphib assault ships are larger — carry more men and gear — more aircraft and have more fuel capacity for aircraft — and more ship weapons than the earlier models.
Another thing folks seem to forget is that an amphib assault from the sea is harder to detect than an air assault that these days can be detected by a mail ordered hand held police radar gun pointed in the right direction, The waves — low light and fog help shield the amphibs until about 300 yds offshore so it depends on who your enemy is on how you may attack and thus must be able to conduct either type of assault or in unison.

Sport fisherman can use relatively inexpensive radar to find feeding tyuna by finding flocks of birds feeding on the same fish that the tuna are eating. Furuno’s 6kw model 1942 (now in MKII) has been a popular unit for that use on sport fishing boats. List price is ~$7K.

Modern military radars would be more powerful and more advanced. My point is that it doesn’t take much to look over the horizon through fog to find small objects near the surface. But in opposition to radars ashore, I would expect Growlers and shipboard EW systems to be in use.

The continuation on my earlier post and previous attempts to reply keep getting automaticly deleted for some reason. Anyhow I agree with your reply JRT. With moder tech (even over the counter tech) you can detect/deter threats. The Marines mission is to be able to put troops ashore and they need the gear to do it as safely for our guys as possible. It will be up to the officers to decide how they get the troops to shore depending on the intel they get of known threats observed _ they then need to be able to go by boat or helo or provide air cover at that moment rather than wait for assets to arrive.

The issue of the few number of aircraft is explained in the post. Have a nice day.

Tell congress to pound sand the marine corps is more important than pork barrel projects, We went through that in the 70,s and the early 80,s, Screw the liberals if they cannot take a Joke , But the lives of fellow marines and Sailors are more Important

I was a peace time marine it sucked, thanks to jimmy carter our marine corps was striped of ever thing, hell we could’nt fly helicoptors into Iran to save our hostages.

The V-22 is twice the size as the H-46, but lifts the same amount. I’m not kidding, I’ve seen the tests, ignore the official specs. I was part of the OP Rhino study, that found the old H-46 was better because it moved the same amount of cargo as a V-22, yet required only one sixth the fuel.

A vehicle like the EFV is needed if the Corps are to conduct amphib ops. It seems the program failed, and wat they have now is dated, been through hell, and in some environments is a steel coffin. I hope they come up with something. If not, Marines will be riding Ospreys and helo’s into battle.

What amphib vehicle is gonna get them there? Thats a problem.

Need to modernize/upgrade most USMC (and Army) infantry weapons. Best option is to take a serious look at the international marketplace and see whats really worthwhile and GET IT, regardless if it is from Europe, Russia, Israel or South Africa. We need/want/deserve the very best weapons, some thing LONG overdue. Reduced weight is also important, imporved camouflage, improrved armor & gear and comm equipment and last but not least, improved training, ideally conducted all over the US and the world by a variety of the world‘s TOP instructors (with decades of successful combat experience). Then, and ONLY then, will we (USMC/US Army) truly be the world‘s finest force in every sense of the word.. Lord help us, now!

http://​www​.usmcpresentarms​.com/​a​d​s​u​s​m​c​_​h​o​r​s​e​m​a​rin

The Marine Air Wings should be disbanded immediately.
We have a Navy Air and Air Force capability.

YOU HAD BETTER HOPE FOR A NEW ADMISTRATION AND PLAN FOR THE CURRENT ONE.
A NEW PRESIDENT WILL MEAN MORE MONEY FOR THE CORP AND IF THE PRESENT ONE YOU WILL NEED TO DO THE MISSION WITH LESS

This is all just O’Dumbo speak bullshit .. what is really being said is “screw the US Defense forces … and lets spend the money on welfare, illegals and any other dumb ass corrupt liberal cause that can be dreamed up”. The other point is how many Americans will go support this O’Dumbo garbage — watch this space … there will be some.

MV-22B may not be so good with heavy load in thin air. But as a transport MV-22B offers some advantages, even more so in MedEvac where speed and range with moderate load can make a bigger difference.

In comparing, my understanding is…

MV-22B can carry 24 marines to 325 nautical mile combat radius with 260 knot top speed.

CH-46E can carry 12 marines to 75 nautical mile combat radius with 145 knot top speed.

Correct me if I am wrong in this. But I don’t want to drink anybody’s KoolAid.

Correction… because those marines are heavier now.
MV-22B Osprey, block B, has an unrefueled combat radius exceeding 325 nautical miles with 8000 pound payload, now approximated at 20 marines at 400 pounds each

With the entry of women in its combat ranks the Marine Corps “reconstitution” will look like Army day care. I say take away their weapons and give them all a cookie and a diversity handbook. For you young men now serving in what is called a Marine Corps, if you want to save it, leave it. When it collapses, maybe you can rebuild it into something we recognize.

Reconstitute the Humvees to the JUNK YARD! they never were anything but a death trap waiting to happen!! I would hope this drastic revision does NOT affect (minimize) the Basic and Advanced Infantry Training? So far it has outstripped all other Services in their quality end product. Oh I know there will be those who disagree, but the results speak for themselves. The only thing that comes close are the Special Forces & Seals, and that is of their intense applications to be specialized, with a great emphasizes placed on Physical Fitness, which most of the other services just give a blink and wink???

I just hope if they are looking at reconfiguring the Marine Corps that they ask the guys in the trenches actually doing the job and not the people sitting back at HQ who THINK they know what is going on. Seen too much of that.

How about this. Take away every fixed wing aircraft in the Corps except the Harrier. If the Marines want to keep the Osprey, so be it. Why anyone would want an aircraft that has never met its degin goals is beyond me, but why the Marines need fixed wing aircraft in the first place has never been adequately explained either. The savings could easily pay for new amphibious assault vehicles and much else the USMC needs.

Why do the Marines need their own air? CAS for one and they do it the best. (former soldier)

Since when do Marines shoot at dropping targets for qualification? It was always the KD or B-Mod when I was in. And sorry, it IS true, women do not have the strength or endurance to carry a 100lb. pack for 20 miles or carry a 180lb wounded man to safety. Maybe the ones that are gym rats on steroids, but not the standard model.

Would airstrikes alone have secured the beaches of Normandy, Sicily, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, or Inchon? The simple truth is Air Assaults are light enough to get there, but they are too light to stay without heavier support. Why has the Army copied the Maritime Pre-positioning Force? They have because it makes sense to have the gear required to “stay & play” strategically staged around the world to logistically. The MAGTF concept with integrated Air and Ground Assault has been proven an effective attack doctrine many times over. I’m not trying to be snarky, it is simply kidding yourself to think that you can drop in the 82nd, or 101st and associated equipment and sustain a protracted assault. In war, removing options from your force structure will inevitably bite you.

jeff — Much of what you say is correct but you missed some things. The Army’s been prepositioning equipment since the ’60’s Ever heard of “Reforger”. The United States copied the Army concept and placed them on ships. The first ones in 1980 included equipment for ALL the branches.
http://​www​.dtic​.mil/​c​g​i​-​b​i​n​/​G​e​t​T​R​D​o​c​?​A​D​=​A​D​A​4​1​3​658 p.3

BTW, the Army had heavy forces in place before the Marines during Desert Storm. http://​www​.history​.army​.mil/​C​H​R​O​N​O​S​/​i​n​t​r​o​.​htm

I’d disagree that a joint Army/Air Force organization could not be deployed to fight a protacted conflict. There are tons of war plans that do just that but the MAGTF is set up to do it. Just another tool in the toolbox.

An Amphib assault is preferable when your trying to keep civillian casualties to a minimum. Remember Grenada? There were Americans on that Island and there were imbeded Cubans in the jungles, where there were no LZ’s. Helo’s are easy to shoot down with todays weapons and there are only a few models that can hold the #‘s needed to provide a sizable landing force. A force the battle planners and war college bubba’s could calculate the numbers and they know the reasons why; our’s is just to do and die.

Good Gouge on the MAGTF & MEU’s-DOn’t offend the Army, my son is in the Army– he is doing a good job and his blood is just as red as any Jarhead’s! The thing about the Corps is that we are a COMPLETE military in and of ourselves, Air, Land and Sea. And according to most of our Scifi movies, outer space! Those of us that earned th4e priviledge of being Marines KNOW what we can do, and our cainine mugged counterparts are no sloutches at what they do—Can’t we all get along?
Msgt JW Bumgarner USMC Retired

You should start with the 1478 JCS Papers #10 and 11 document from late 1945 where Eisenhower and Spaatz wanted to limit the size, role and responsibilities of the Marine Corps to regiment and below sized units and severly restrict, and “legislate” their activities. The controversy of unification began with the Army looking to dominate the legislative efforts that would favor the Army. You have to read the whole story, not just the parts you like.

(Excellent source is “The Politics of Military Unification” by Demetrios Caraley.

Comparatively light — it’s a truly significant combined arms team with the substantial logistical support close at hand and the capability to respond quickly. An armored division it ain’t, but this is no handful of grunts that are just dropped off at the beach. As Joe put it there are a lot of mechanical moving parts which is why the focus has been the ability to range far and get to over the horizon solutions to increase strike options and minimize the gator fleet’s exposure. Say what you will about the EFV, V-22, LAV, F-35, etc…it’s all about the next evolution.

Curious though, I’m not sure what you mean by the statement “It can IF you land enough vehicles/supplies to do that. There isn’t a historic example that didn’t have significant asset in country already or involved the Army.” On the historic examples (the Army was involved but only as reserves or follow on and not the main assault force) — Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Inchon (everybody not North or South Korean was down at the Pusan Perimeter).

Majrod’s got it right on this. This was General Marshall’s main concern at the end of WWII that we would demobilize just like WWI and would be caught flat footed again mobilizing AFTER we got sucker-punched i.e. Korea. Read anything about the first days of the Korean War and the Army was snagging every brething body in the vicinty of Japan and the Korean Peninsula and throwing them in regardless of training, weapons or readiness. They scraped the Marine Brigade together because they couldn’t afford to take any other divisions away from European commitments. That bought them enough time to get the mobilization pipeline up to speed. And this was just North Korea. We can’t afford an a standing Army that will be so understrength that all it can do is sit in garrison as cadre filing papers, not training and waiting for the call to get ready to go AFTER the fight has started somewhere.

An Amphib assault is no less likely to inflict civilian casialties than an Air Assault or Airborne Op.

The Amercian hostages were rescued by Airborne Rangers neart Salinas Airfield where they jumped in. The following day the Rangers using Marine helicopters rescued the remaining Americans at Grand Anse campus. No civilian casualties at either location. The overwhelming majority of the fighting on Grenada happened at Point Salines & Airport, the city of St George, Pearls Airport, and the city of Greenville. There were no significant jungle fighting.

I was refering to his comment about the mechanized nature of amphib assaults.

None of the assaults you mentioned were mechanized affairs or moved deep inland except for Inchon where you had a whole Army division that secured the LOC and eventually joined on the assault on Seoul.

BTW, It’s not an Armored OR Mech Infantry division.

I’m good with that! I just contest the myths and veiled put downs that can be pretty numerous.

I’m going to try and scrounge up a copy but I don’t know if Ike and Spaatz were wrong without looking at the details (though I wouldn’t agree with Spaatz stripping Marine air, look what happened to the Army). Look what happened. The Marines have become in effect a second army.

RCTs aren’t a bad thing. Most Marine ops are regiment and below affairs. Three divisions of Marines & three air wings which is what’s mandated (the only branch that saw fit to get its size madated by law) seems to be quite a bit of overkill especially when we can only deploy about 30,000 at any one time. A standing force of 200,000 is overkill.

The Marine Corps will survive and still be the force of choice no matter who runs this country! It has always been that way and always will be. Semper Fi! and God Bless the Marines (men and women and gay and lesbian, legals and illegals, blacks, whites, hispanics — you name it and will find it in the Corps!

Where is all the money going to come from ?

In all mentioned there was plenty of rolling stock. Tanks, amtracks, trucks, etc…how much more mechaniztion do you need? Even more so today with LCACs and LAVs.

Yes, eventually the 7th joined the assault, but the first tank encounters with the North Koreans were Marine armor.

From the MEU on up there is plenty of equipment (vehicles) involved to include the organic airwing assets, so any amphib assault in going to mechanized and is capable of coming across the beach and not needing a pier to tie up to.

I don’t know, those Russian women during WW 2 did a heck of a job in combat. I may be mistaken, but one of the best snipers during WW 2 was a Russian woman.

For my ruthers and generally speaking, I’d ruther not have women in combat units. And are we really doing this simpy because there just aren’t enough male type people to man the walls?

This is what I’am talking about, getting back to your roots. Now the Army has to get back to it’s roots. The Army is not a light fighting force, thats what the Marines are for. The Army is an invasion force, the Army go in, in a hit and hold posture. Trying to make the Army a light force was the dumbest thing ever tried, Militarily speaking of course.

The guys sitting in the trenches take orders from the guys at HQ, thats our system, thats the way it works. If you don’t like it, you can always join a vigilante group, I hear they don’t care much for discipline.

That has nothing to do with liberals my friend, I hate to burst your bubble.…. no I don’t. That is more in lins with your right wing so called conservative repubs, they are the ones that want the Military cut, but not from their districts.

Neither of which have the basick understanding nor the capability to provide ADEQUATE close air support to Marines on the ground. As a Viet Nam infantry officer, I know first hand what I am refering to. Do you?

I served in Vietnam with the old Corps. We did just fine with the left overs from the Army and some of those were from WWII and Korea. I do not see alot of island hopping and very few beach landings as in WWII. What I do see is a whole lot of “red tape” and chit chat about getting Marines to the beach safely and to many fingers in the pie. If you do not want to screw the pooch, make a decision and get with the program. Marines get older by the day, but they will die if you can not get Congress out of the way!!!!!!!!!!

My point is you can’t ding the Marine Corps about legislating size of the forces. THe Army began this fight in secrecy without bothering to include the Navy or the Marine Corps in the discussions. THey went in the other direction looking to limit the size and role of the Marine Corps. Read the complete history of service unification, the Marine Corps was forced to pursue legislation to protect itself from the Army’s efforts to have it eventually eliminated.

You can argue manning levels all you want, but that will be dictated by the commitments the government is willing to make. Given our two war strategy and the cold war 3 divisions has been about right. What does that look like in the world of today and the new focus towards the Pacific it will be interesting.

I submit that we’ve allowed the Army to become too small as evidenced by the overuse of Reserve and National Guard assets. THe Marine Corps has been utilized as a source of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. That’s all well and good for all parties if you’re in there and out of there in a short time. Multiple years of combat deployment and we’ve got serious problems.

What divisions are assigned to Eigth Army. It’s a command structure. The overall size of the Army is decreasing.

The Army by and large has moved to brigades as the fighting element and contrary to the Corps mission and history has conducted the larger campaigns requiring Armies and Corps.

As for Desert Storm, we deployed two divisions of Marines.

I respectfully disagree. Without a limited size and role there is nothing to stop the Corps from becoming a second land Army which in effect it has. “Eliminated”? What ARMY officers in power wanted to completely do away with the Marine Corps?

I’d also need to see the whole “secret” effort by the Army to “do away” w/the Corps (which I don’t agree with. I’d also like to see the constitutional justification for the Corps to undermine the CIC (as foolish as Truman was) with its own secret campaign.

I don’t necessarily agree. I think the Army’s size is fine. The way we use it could use a lot of work. We didn’t deploy enough to Iraq in the first place and as Pakistan became a haven we doomed ourself to an unending fight or a decision to withdraw.

Vet — I agree with your overall point but the “Army left overs” bit is a myth. The Marines VERY RARELY were issued “used” Army equipment and when it did it was identical to the used Army equipment being issued to soldiers. Most Army equipment was procured by the Navy/USMC brand new.

The myth came about because the Navy/USMC would not replace equipment as readily as the Army. There is no little old lady in tennis shoes with an EGA stencil labeling old Army equipment. Some of those acquisitions of new Army equipment that became old due to use gave birth to “army hand me downs”.

So the 101st and 82nd of WWII were dumb?

There is no lack of men. It’s the feminist agenda

We are wearing down the best Marine infantry and Army infantry. There need to be more in numbers without loss of quality and more citizens need serve. I know draft is a dirty word to most professionals but something has got to g ive.
We need a stong close airsupport aircraft that can stay on for extended periods of support. Something like an A-10 that can operste from CV’s with lots of load capabilty and guns ‚a modern AD-1.

“how much more mechaniztion do you need? ”

Name a Marine amphib invasion that moved more than 10 miles inland by itself?

“As for Desert Storm, we deployed two divisions of Marines”

My point exactly — you forget during WWII we had two amphibious corps comprised of multiple Marine divisions.

If we are truly focusing on the Pacific Region — 3 divisions, 3 Airwings is not something we want to be without. I don’t envision the Army picking up the slack in this area or willing to replicate the expertise.

Mr. Wood, I would refer you to the story of “Reckless”, a Mongolian horse purchased by a US Marine for $250 during the Korean War. She performed so admirably that she has been designated one of LIFE magazine’s
100 Greatest American Heroes. During one 51 hour firefight she carried 9000 pounds of ammunition up heavy terrain, where units engaged in combat called to her to deliver her load, she went to each position ON HER OWN, no one led her, and then carried the dead & wounded down the mountains. She went TOWARD the sound of gunfire! And when the “truce” was negotiated the Marines were adamant that she return stateside with them. She was flown to Yokohama, then shipped to San Francisco to a warm welcome. and holding the rank of Staff Sergeant (the highest rank ever accorded an animal in the American military), her retirement pay was allocated to her care until she died in 1968. And her name was a play on the Recoilless Rifle, or REC-less, which she has been pictured carrying. It was nearly twice as long as she was. OOO-RAH!

I don’t agree with how the Marine Corps was deployed in either Iraq or Afghanistan and they did end up as a second land army. Hopefully this review of the Corps will allow for better direction and structure going forward.

My former riding instructor was married to the head of Delta Force & she was apoplectic when Carter ordered the rescue of the Iranian hostages [from the Teheran Embassy] because he stipulated that the troops carry NO AMMUNITION! Carter did not want to “upset” the Iranians!

No, the 7th LID was dumb

Mr. Drew, “light bones in the feet”? A woman’s lower body is the one area in which she can equal the strength of a man. And if you go on to the US ARMY’s website you can view the latest class of graduating Drill Sergeants, including a number of women. As to the “poor diet” young women in this country select, I put it to you that young men are equally guilty in that regard. Go sit in shopping center’s food court or other communal area & look @ the high number of obese young people, from toddlers to young adults. I even challenge you to do a rough poll of how many shoppers/visitors are “normal” as opposed to those who courting early onset diabetes & heart failure with their weight. As to marksmanship, I was a certified Firearms Instructor for prison guards. Expand your social circle, Sir!

“Combat only in a Navy-exclusive operation”?

How does that differ from, “fleet marine forces of combined armes, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases, and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign.”

What we have since IS a second Land Army? Diagree? What is the Marine Corps restricted from doing?

Constitutionality. Still waiting for the Constitutional justification for a service to counter its COMMANDER in chief. Congress? Yeah, all the brtanches try and influence but specifically undercut the Commander in Chief? That’s unique.

You forget. Those amphibious corps were mostly ARMY divisions. You are trying to duplicate a capability we developed after four years in a World War which included multiple services and place ity in one seervice. Again, in effect a second land army.

Amphibious warfare is not a unique Marine capability though I believe the Corps should specialize in it. Need I remind you the Army has conducted more amphibious assaults than the Marines?

There’s a big difference between securing the pier and an Inchon level operation. Eisenhower and Spaatz were looking at “pier-level” operations.

There’s also huge difference between mission, doctrine and execution. The Marines have always advocated to be in the fight, I haven’t read any complaints from WWII on where the Marines have been deployed as ground forces and someone has complained about it except maybe the opposing forces. :)

On the last point, I’m still waiting for the detail on where exactly did they counter or undercut the President? We are speaking of legislation that is the primary purview of Congress. Like the other branches of service they took their case to Congress along with the Army and the Navy.

Now that I am pushing 50 and have left it all behind, I seriously think that we all need to realize that we are on the same team. The inter-service rivalry is good for pride, and unit cohesion even if it sparks the occasional bar fight. When I hear people start talking about absorbing the Marine Corps into the Army, I just think that IS over the line. Both branches have their unique abilities and strengths. Any talk of you don’t need them because of blah, blah, blah, is boilerplate. Esoteric analysis of any situation can easily yield whatever conclusion the prejudice of the observer desires. Don’t we see it in politics all the time?

I forget nothing — the two Amphibious Corps (III and the V) operated in the Pacific Operations Area — Nimitz (not to be confused with MacArthur’s SWPA theater) — there were 5 Army divisions and 6 Marine Divisions when the Central Pacific campaign began. SWPA had 15 Army Divisions.

Let’s not forget who taught the Army how to conduct amphibious operations — General Holland Smith the father modern amphibious warfare. I also believe my Marines were the first to conduct offensive ground operations in the war as well.

As who has done it more, never confuse quantity with quality my friend. :)

Silly question, name one that hasn’t.

I still think my idea has merit. Please feel free to shoot holes in it! As a cheap stop gap measure; why not simply work toward a waterproof Bradley variant, and put it on top of a fast hydroplane platform, for quick delivery to the shore. They could even put explosive floats on the Bradleys, like the auto bags used in cars, to give the sinking vehicle a chance to make it to shore, albeit slowly. Hell they could even add to that with clamp on external Mercury props for such emergencies, that could be removed and reused for the next wave.

I know — I’m crazy right?

It still seems like “all the above’ would be preferable. This would mean a leaner EFV ‘fleet’, but would still be a hedge to flexibility in operations.

My uncle road a higgins boat into Tarawa, but jumped out early to save his life! Maybe this should be considered? Perhaps having armor immediately should be second place to placing the body on shore quickly to avoid enemy fire. All he cared about was getting his butt on that shore fast! Hell a rubber boat with a damn good motor in it would have sufficed; especially if it were made with Kevlar or more modern equivalent.

I could not agree with your comments more. I built the M1 tank engine, T-55 for the Chonooks, and one of the best gas tubine engines ever designed in my opinion, the TF40 B for the LCAC Navy landing craft for over 18 years. All this stuff is aging rapidly, hell I worked on the last AGT 1500 Tank engine in October of 1995! There was talk about a new lighter next generation tank back in the early 90’s NO GO. Our job is to go in kill the bad guys and leave. What’s this nation building crap? Who’s paying for all this? What is the cost alone just to refurbish all the equipment coming back?

crap, the site went nuts on me. Don’t answer here. I’ll repost where we were having a convo.

“pier level”? C’mon, where did they SAY that? You’re exaggerating.

“There’s a big difference between securing the pier and an Inchon level operation.” Hardly! How can one secure a naval base with a city threatening it? There’s plenty of room in securing a naval base to allow for an inchon (specific area) type op. Now driving up to the Yula. That’s the Army’s job. There is nothing present now to separet the roles which will constantly drive the Marines into being a second land army.

IMO Desert Storm-classic Marine role. OIF/OEF — more wrong than right. Nam — OK because of the threat of being cut off and the Marines having a capbility to supply from the sea.

Amphib ops? Yes, the Marines taught some of the Army amphib warfare. The Army found the Marine and especially Naval lack of support so poor it went out on its own to train for the ETO. ((Classic example of interservice rivalry almost screwing another branch)

Just like the Army taught the Marines how to supply an invasion force (google ATC) so it could continue the assault which the Marines included in their doctrine so one could support ops beyond the beach.

No doubt I’m OK with Marine storming the beach. Expanding and moving out is the Army’s domain. Remember, don’t confuse quality with quantity. :)

I also don’t out of hand want to ban the Army from conducting ops in the Pacific.

Scot — Every Marine only beach landing has never resulted in moving more than 10 miles from the beach.

“There’s a big difference between securing the pier and an Inchon level operation. Eisenhower and Spaatz were looking at “pier-level” operations.” Hardly! How can one secure a naval base with a city threatening it? There’s plenty of room in securing a naval base to allow for an inchon (specific area) type op. Now driving up to the Yula. That’s the Army’s job. There is nothing present now to separet the roles which will constantly drive the Marines into being a second land army. IMO Desert Storm-classic Marine role. OIF/OEF — more wrong. Nam — OK because of the threat of being cut off and the Marines having a capbility to supply from the sea.

Amphib ops? Yes, the Marines taught the Army amphib warfare. Just like the Army taught the Marines how to supply an invasion force so it could continue the assault which the Marines included in their doctrine. No doubt I’m OK with Marine storming the beach. Expanding and moving out is the Army’s domain. Remember, don’t confuse quality with quantity. :)

On the Marines growth into a second land Army, just because a service wants in to a fight doesn’t means it should.

BTW, this new format sucks

Great read on the Army’s amphib history…

“Over the beach: US Army amphibious operations in the Korean War.“
http://​www​.dtic​.mil/​c​g​i​-​b​i​n​/​G​e​t​T​R​D​o​c​?​A​D​=​A​D​A​5​0​7​443

Scot — Every Marine only beach landing has never resulted in moving more than 10 miles from a beach.

How so? The threat was Nicaragua and we were recovering from a decade of neglect. Light Infantry units are relatively easy to stand up. The 7th, 9th and 10th were all part of the Reagan build up. The 7th did a fine job in Panama.

They tried to make the Bradley swim back during testing in the early 1980s and they all sank. Getting the EFV to swim isn’t the problem — getting it to swim with a shallow draft at a high rate of speed for a fairly long distance is. The Bradley was designed to fight on land with qualities that make it suck at swimming. The EFV’s problems are similar.

Uh, actually there are several dogs at the rank of SFC. It’s SOP for working dogs to be one rank higher than their handlers.

HOOAH

‘What ARMY officers in power wanted to completely do away with the Marine Corps?”

SECEF Johnson and GEN Bradley when they were running the DoD just before Korea. Johnson said the Army and Air Force could do everything the DoN could do, and Brad was more interested in spending money on nuclear weapons. Bradley showed disgust when he learned that one of his staffers was going TDY to Japan to teach an amphibious ops class.

I agree Jeff. Absorbing the Corps is a silly idea and no serious person or decision maker is considering it. That said many Marines throw it out there as a red herring to get folks fired up. I also think that event that happened 50 years ago is causing a lot of bad blood between the services. I have a friend in the 10th ID who relieved a Marine unit in Iraq. The Marines urinated on some of the matresses and crapped in others. They thought it was a big joke of boys will be boys.

So Bradley showing disgust when he learned that one of his staffers was going TDY to Japan to teach an amphibious ops class is equivalent to the his wanting to completely do away with the Corps?

C’mon TMB…

Yes, I was familiar with that test; hence my suggestion. Use a fast platform or ‘ferry’ if you will.
Thanks for your response! :)

Okinawa and Inchon used Army divisions to conduct the initial pentetrations after the Marines landed. The 1stMARDIV attacked inland after landing at Guadalcanal with an Army division at its side. The island was eventually taken by a 3-division Corps with two of those divisions being Army. Many if not most Marine invasions were against islands not really large enough to have an “inland” to fight in. The Marines went to Guadalcanal with a battalion of Stuart light tanks The Corps has never had more than one tank battalion per division. Today there are only two.
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72–8/72–8.h

Another article I stumbled across by a Marine CPT who I think does an excellent job of describing the utility of an amphibious attack

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/%E2%80

I have to disagree with your premise that the Army is unwilling to replicate the expertise. The question really is need and equipment.

The Army has conducted BDE sized air assaults. The only thing keeping the Corps from doing the same thing is having enough helos. Amphib ops ARE complicated. They aren’t rocket science. Don’t make the same mistake the Air Force enthusiasts do when they say the Army isn’t capable of planning, executing or supporting fixed wing ops. Like them it has the same condescending tone and smacks of protecting one’s turf than a valid point.

SECDEF Johnson in 1949:

Admiral, the Navy is on its way out. There’s no reason for having a Navy and a Marine Corps. General Bradley tells me amphibious operations are a thing of the past. We’ll never have any more amphibious operations. That does away with the Marine Corps. And the Air Force can do anything the Navy can do, so that does away with the Navy.

I’m still looking, but there’s no indication anywhere that Bradley thought or said anything contradictory to the SECDEF’s intention to scrap the DoN. He testified in 1948 that he thought the readiness of the Army sucked, but agreed with all of Johnson’s budget cuts when he was promoted to CJCS the next year.

If Bradley’s attitude towards that officer was because of his belief in the obsolesence of amphibious ops (and his position to make it so) then yes I think it’s a valid statement.

It’s also a perishable skill set. To do Inchon, a lot of Army, Marine, and Navy Reservists had to be called up or out of retirement to plan and carry out the operation. It’s still taught at the Marine’s command and staff schools, and I hope they still practice on beaches, but that skill set can’t be allowed to disappear by any service that might want to do it.

Air assault is not sustainable without a port for off loading major equipment. You can only do so much with air assault.

I disagree completely. The Marines capability in CAS has been overblown for years. I have seen Navy, Air Froce and Marine CAS and they all can be good or lousy. The best CAS pilots in the US armed forces have been the A10 drivers. The aircraft was built for it, and they train for it. A combination the Corp simply does not have.

The Army was sucking off the Marines pre-positioning assets while they and the Air Force were trying to airlift their equipment from Germany to theater. I was there and saw it first hand.

FTR from Omar Bradley “A General’s Life p 3 http://thebrownshoes.org/AcrobatPDF/24-Bradley,%2
“The charges that a plan was afoot to “abolish” the Marine Corps were likewise dishonest, designed to incur the sympathy of the millions who regarded the Marine Corps as sacrosanct as motherhood. As the Navy well knew, the Marine Corps was “protected” under the 1947 National Security Act and could not be abolished without congressional repeal of that portion of the act. As I have written, Ike, Van and I, believing the Marine Corps was far too large (the equivalent of two reinforced divisions) and a wasteful duplication of the Army’s mission, had proposed deep cuts in its size. But these cuts were more or less proportional to the cuts proposed for the Army and did not represent an attempt to abolish the Marine Corps. Moreover Marine Corps aviation was still wildly out of balance, consisting as it did of twenty-one squadrons, which was the equivalent of seven Air Force tactical support groups. At the peak of Twelfth Army Group operations in the ETO, we never had more than fourteen groups supporting twenty-eight to thirty divisions in the line.”

Much has been made of Bradley’s comments about amphibious warfare. Let’s see what he actually said. “Large-scale amphibious operations such as those in Sicily and Normandy will never occur again.” Inchon was the largest amphib assault since WWII. The joint task force assembled at sea included 230 ships and some 71,000 troops.

On 10 July 1943, some 2,500 ships landed 2 field armies landed at Sicily. The truth is he was right. Amphib ops aren’t obsolete but like airborne ops have shrunk in size and frequency.

BTW, Gen Vandergrift put together a tean to look at the impact of nukes on Amphip warfare. It was led by a Maj Gen Shepard. They said, “Under atomic attack the WWII amphibious assault was finished. Normandy and Okinawa would never be repeated.” (illustrated Directory of the USMC By Heam p 234)

Nukes were one of the factors influencing Bradley’s comments. His mistake was he wasn’t a Marine.

I was referring to responsiveness.

Joe — are you talking about Desert Shield? I heard that some Marine rations were eaten but little else. Payback for “borrowed” equipment over the years?

Let’s also bear in mind the characterizations in that article are his words from his autobiography. He may have been right about the Admirals’ behavior, but it also looks like he tried to misconstrue the situation a bit. He refuted the idea that the DoN was unfairly being hacked apart and that SECDEF’s intention was Air Force nukes-only situation, but that wasn’t the budget reality. He also poo-pooed the Admirals for not knowing anything about amphibious ops or land warfare, yet he thought Inchon was a bad idea.

At the time, Truman wanted the Corps reduced to a Navy constabulary and Johnson made it clear he didn’t think much of the DoN’s relevance. By the time of Inchon, the Corps was two skeleton divisions and had to pull troops from everywhere to rebuild 1stMARDIV for Inchon. The same was true for Marine Aviation. Bradley complained that in 1947 they had 21 squadrons, but on the eve of Inchon, they were down to six squadrons. Eliminate the Corps, maybe not — reduce them to irrelevance, definite possibility. And just because in WWII the Air Force had an air group for every 2 divisions and the Corps had one each doesn’t mean the Air Force was right. How often do we harp on the Air Force’s ground support of the Army?

My upper post was getting long (or skinny with the formatting here), but I also wanted to point out that to pull off Inchon MacArthur had to grab landing craft from the former Japanese Navy to pull off the operation our capabilities had been reduced so much.

http://​www​.marines​.mil/​n​e​w​s​/​p​u​b​l​i​c​a​t​i​o​n​s​/​D​o​c​u​m​ent

Here’s a pretty good article on the state of Corps and the problems they had with the DoD at the beginning of the war.

Inchon on the surface WAS a bad idea. We pulled it off and it was remarkable but it was an incredible risk. Bradley wasn’t the only general that thought Inchon was a bad idea. It took Mac himself’s explaining the plan and oratory skills to change their minds. There’s no shame in that. Calais in many ways would have been better than Normandy.

What Johnson thought wrong as it was, was one SecDef. Yes the Marines had to pull from everywhere. So did the Army. TWICE. BTW, the Rangers at Pont Du Hoc used British landing craft.

Finally your Air Force jibe was unfair. The Army consistent problem with the Air Force and CAS is where it’s controlled and subsequently its responsiveness. It’s never been the amount of aircraft though we do have our favorite types.

My Son just joined the Marine Corps. He wanted to be an 0311(Infantry) He was told he would have to wait almost a year to get a slot in Infantry. There is no shortage of Men who want to go Marine Infantry. Like everything else involved in this it is Political.

I agree on the quality of units stood up. I trained with 7th LID out at 29 Palms and worked with 10th Mountain in Somalia. Great outfits. The LID strategy and philosophy as whole was more sound and fury than substance however. I never saw anything in the doctrine (LID and LIC) that changed how we approached those environments. We relearned lessons that we forgot fromVietnam and the experiences that we had in Somalia (pre-Blackhawk Down and the hand off of UN control to the Turks) in a very painful manner in Iraq and Afghanistan. LIDs in my opinion were more packaging and branding than substance — Infantry is Infantry and the grunts are the most versatile combat element. I remember all the thrashing around to chase the potential threats in Central America — our time would have been better spent allowing the Special Ops folks focus on that — which by the way they did.

So we can have lousy Close Air Support just like the Air Force and Army! Fortunately, public law stipulates that the Marine Corps will consist of four divisions and four air wings. Good luck getting a change to that through Congress!

I beg to disagree here.…A-10s have sucked, like at Nasiriyah, where an A-10 killed several Marines and destroyed the AAV/P7 they were riding in. This was daylight, low threat CAS, and there was no excuse for it. Marine CAS is definitely better and more responsive, and I know, because I’ve done it and been in aviation operations for over 20 years.

Please, read the history and not just Wikipedia. Their words, not mine — Official documents, not just cloak room whispering.

To your point of “nothing present now to separate roles which will constantly drive the Marines into being a second land army” is a matter of method of employment and tasks assigned not the Marine Corp’s desire to be a second land army​.In fact, no one in Marine Corp leadership has advocated for that which is why they’re going down this path of review. I think we’re in a world where the luxury of the perfect scenario with the perfect role, unit and service is not something we can afford. Whoever is on deck and has the needed capability is going to get the call. We can attempt align ourselves (all services) as best we can until then. I get the sense in both the Army and the Marine Corps there is a strong need of how to learn from Irag and Afghanistan and prepare for the future without losing the knowledge and experience gained from both conflicts.

You remember from the 80’s that a key Soviet frustration was that we (US Armed Forces) didn’t always follow our own published doctrine and strategies. Maybe that’s the secret to our success!:)

Point taken my friend (the relative merits of quality and quantity.) Given the size of the Pacific region, there is no way that the Army is not involved particularly given the mainland threats and areas of concern starting with Korea.

As a side note, the more I read on the interservice relations during WWII at the most senior levels, I am constantly amazed that we managed to win. Brilliant leaders, but what a collection of divas and eccentrics (Marshall, Nimitz and Vandegrift were the only ones that have left me with a good impression.)

In all fairness it seems the Marines bear as much fault at Nasiriyah as the A10s. The Marine officer who called it in was using type III air control. He couldn’t see the A10s or the target and wasn’t aware that the supported Marines had started south again when he believed they were heading north. (Reports that enemy vehicles were moving south added to the misidentification.)
http://​www​.marines​.mil/​n​e​w​s​/​p​u​b​l​i​c​a​t​i​o​n​s​/​D​o​c​u​m​ent
p14-18

Marine air has made mistakes in the past also (e,g. TF Faith).

I believe it’s Three Divisions and Three Air wings…

Spec Ops had a role. It wasn’t going to defeat Nicaragua by itself and would not have been enough if we had a shooting war erupt between us and the Sandinistas.

Packaging and branding might have been a bit much. Then again the Army was reinventing itself after the Carter years and after an intense focus on the Russians some attention to light Infantry was appropriate especially given the threat. I was a rifle platoon leader in the 101st at the time and we didn’t understand what the big deal was about. Not any worse than the Marine Corp though (ref packaging and branding)? We worked together on a joint exercise at Vieques. Both were/are great organizations and far from being mistakes.

Excellent article — I remember a Colonel I served under reminding in operations planning that “It’s not how you get there, but what you accomplish when you show up.” Smaller, Faster, Deadlier is the mantra across all the services now — Get inside the enemy’s OODA loop.

Where I would disagree with the Captain is we haven’t done the scope of operations on the WWII level because of several factors:

1. We haven’t fought another global “hot” war with comparable opponent such as the Germans or the Japanese. ergo we haven’t done large ops because we haven’t had to. (Desert Storm is the only thing that comes close.)
2. As such we haven’t mobilize an armed force that would require the amount of shipping or manpower that was at WWII levels (89 Army Divisions and 6 Marine Divisions — the Lord knows how many assorted troop carrying and Amphibious Assault ships that we had on hand.)
3. The dramatic evolution of technology and precision strike weapons as well as their increased destructive capability is light years ahead of what was available in the 40s and 50s. We can put the hurt on the enemy with fewer forces and weapons without having to mass.

Ref “pier force”. I don’t use wiki for a source, (that was kind of offensive). Have you been looking at the links I post? Feel free to cite references. Please, looking for quotes, not interpretation. Just like Bradley’s quote, many with agendas have twisted his words and context.

As to second land Army, remember what you said about wanting to get into the fight? My point remains. There is nothing in legislation that limits the Marines from assuming an Army role. It’s size certailnly drives it to act like one.

Agree w/the preoccupation to not forget lessons learned. That’s good except when it becomes fighting the next war like the last one.

The expeditionary element and the wide variety of other missions in addition to direct combat are something that has always been touted as an advantage to seaborne MEU deployments.

I’m not surprised. The ONE thing Truman was right about the Marines was their propaganda machine.

Well the key element is focus isn’t it? Core competencies and the more complex operations become the more specialized the talent, knowledge and expertise need to be in place. I submit that we will continue to disaggregate the specialities. Case in point: Special Operations. We are not that far from the Special Operations community becoming a separate branch. They are almost that now.

Guadalcanal — 1st Marine Division goes in August 7th. They’re relieved by General Patch and the 14th US Corp Infantry Division on 9 December. It didn’t have an Army Division at it’s side when it went in. The primary objective was to seize and hold the airfield to prevent the Japanese from interdicting shipping lanes to Australia. They traveled more than 10 miles from the initial landing beach.

The Fourth Division and Wing are Reserve formations

Okinawa — 1st and 6th Marine Divisions, and 7th and 96th Infantry Divisions go ahsore on the west coast of Okinawa around Yontan and Kadena on April 1. The Army Division break right toward Naha and penetrate down to the Shuri Line by Naha. The Marine Divisions break left taking all of the northern end of Okinawa and the Katchin Peninsula. As the predominance of Japanese forces or at the southern end of the island all forces converge on the Shuri Line and Okinawa is secure by June 22. The Marines manage to go farther than 10 miles without the assistance of the Army.

Inchon — 1st Marine Division lands and drives straight for Seoul as the lead element — just a few more than 10 miles from Inchon — They had tanks as well.

Actually there are 3 Tank Battalions (2 Regular, 1 Reserve) — The Marine Corps does have a bit of rolling stock believe it or not beside tanks. (We believe that armored divisions and tank warfare are the Army’s purview.) I know, when I was with 1st Battalion, 1st Marines at Camp Horno in Pendelton, we would hump right past all kinds of perfectly good trucks that could have easily driven us there.

majr0d,

Say it ain’t so! The Army has gone to the dogs?! :) (Sorry couldn’t resist.)

Kevin Wood,

Surely you have heard of the Horse Marines of China — That’s Old Corp from back in the day!

Now who’s being offensive?

Let’s try this again —

The Politics of Military Unification“
Demetrios Caraley

This is a definitive account of the unification efforts and results following WWII. He provides the official record and behind the scenes efforts of all parties in creating the system that went forward into the 50s and 60s. He speaks specifically to the 1478 JCS Papers #10 and 11 that speak to the restrictions that Eisenhower and Spaatz wanted to impose on the Marine Corps and their efforts to get this past without the Navy and the Marine Corps’ input. Caraley is no shill for any of the services so he had no dog in the fight when he wrote it.

At issue is not one man’s professional position, but the institutional push (Army and Army Air Force) to reduce Naval Air and the Marine Corps through same political manuevers that yo charge the Marine Corps and Navy with without acknowledging the Army’s cupability as well. Caraley’s documentation of the official record lays that out. The myth as you put it before is that the Army and the Army Air Force leaders at the time are innocent in all this. Thank goodness they weren’t successful.

We weren’t going to invade Nicarauga and it was never that close that we would push the confrontation.

So far this has been a professional conversation — enough with the swipes about Marine Corps “propaganda” and branding and packaging. You don’t strike me as someone who has an inferiority complex so if you don’t like the recruiting pitches don’t listen to them. I’ve managed to overlook the “Be all you can be”, black beret, qualification patches and tabs approaches that the Army takes and still have respect for my fellow service members.

Scot — relax dude. I thought we were friendly bantering back and forth. I should have put a smiley face after I used the word “offensive” as that was how I meant it but wiki man? C’mon, re-read my posts. Have I EVER cited wiki?

I saw you post that book as a suggested reading earlier and commented about it. Looking for a cheap copy.

Still would loike to see what official document says the Army wanted to limit the Corps to the pier.

It’s all good.

You’re half right on Gaudalcanal. The 164th Infantry Regiment went ashore on 13 October. Henderson airfield was only a couple miles from the landing site. By the time the Army arrived, the beachhead was only 6 miles wide and 3 miles deep.

Maybe splitting hairs here, but the 1stMARDIV needed 7th ID to relieve some of their initial positions to free them up for the drive to Seoul and half of 7th ID attacked the south side of the city. 7ID hit the outskirts on 19 Sep and the Marines attacked into the center on the 22nd. The rest of 7ID cut the LAnd you’re right it was more than 10 miles. It was 12.

Yes to reinforce. The perimeter was 6 miles wide and 3 miles deep, but operations went out beyond this.

Agree, the same probably applies to airborne operations and you raise an interesting comparison.

In WWII we had 89 Army Divisions and 6 Marine Divisions. Today we have less than a dozen Army Divisions and three Marine Divisions. That’s a an 87% cut versus a 50% cut. Just a comparative point when we talk about size of forces and my point about the second land army.

Inchon was secured right away at the landing and the North Koreans had pulled back into Seoul. So it was more offload everyone rather than wait to be relieved before proceeding. The Marines weren’t waiting. 1st Marines attacked through the center and 5th and 7th Marines around the north — it’s more like 16 as the crow flies.

Scot — 1st Okinawa was not a separate Marine beach landing. Army and Marine boundaries abutted each other providing mutual security.

Secondly at no time were the Marines farther than five miles from a beach. Important because of the impact of supporting arms/branches.

An all out war? Hmmm who knows? we started conducting joint exercises with the Honduran Army in ’83. In Mar of ’87 we sent 50,000 troops to Honduras coinciding with the contras spring offensive.

The following year Nicaragua crossed the border into Honduras and we executed Op Golden Pheasant. A no notice EDRE launched approx two BDEs of the 7th ID and 82nd into Honduras and troops moved to within three miles of the Nicaraguan border before the Sandinistas started to withdraw. Two Marine BN’s were also deployed.

Seemed pretty serious…

Funny, I was going to joke about the Marine Jack—. ;)

Scot — You’re misconstruing my position. I’m not giving the Army a pass. I’m asking for unemotional evidence for what a post war Corp would have looked like. I don’t support a “police force” Corps nor do I support one able to conduct wars independent of the Army. That IS a second Army. Since WWII we went from 84 Division to less than a dozen while the corps has only gone from six to three.

BTW, you might want to check your six. The Navy for awhile there was willing to negotiate the Corps to keep carrier aircraft and went as far as to forbid the commandant to weigh in causing his retirement. Does it mean you are giving the Navy a pass when you don’t mention that?

I also wonder how productive it is to harp on something that happened over 60 years ago.

Oh, where did I ever call it a myth?

We’re having a pretty good debate. There’s no need to make up or minimize the other’s position. The Corps has taken on the role of a second Army. Three divisions plus is more than necessary to sieze advanced naval bases or an expeditionary campaign (different from a war).

For all you armchair quarterbacks out there, the Marines do “air assault” as good or better than the army. In fact, they invented verticle envelopment in Korea. Marines no longer have large scale parachute units because they were disbanded after WWII because they were considered obsolete. The army kept theirs because its all they’ve got for quick action. However, to drop hundreds of infantrymen into a hostile area seems rather antiquated when you can send Marines in who are well-armed and well-supplied from a nearby ship. Heck even the initial assault into Afghanistan following 9/11 validated the fact that Marine helos and air power was the favored option even thousands of miles from the sea.

I think the Marine Corps should embrace women in a direct combat role. We have learned through the use of Female Engagement Teams that women can do things that men can’t do. The Marines have long embraced having Marines in their ranks. Take the cream of the crop, train them to be the best combat women in history and make all the other branches scramble to catch up. However, do not lower the standards. The Corps already has the fewest females and I will bet that those who join the Corps are physically a cut above those joining the other services already. Keep attracting the most athletic and train them in the deadly arts and the Marines will have a unit of female operators that are the envy of the world. Either that or keep in denial and let special forces finally wake up and then the Marines will be the ones playing catch-up. Its a no-brainer. Get the best now and don’t look back.

Problem is being in a FET and serving as an 0311 are two entirely different things. Being a grunt is far more than just pulling a trigger.

Don’t get confused with who invented something and who’s equipped/suited for it. The Army executed the first amphibious assault in the Mexican American War (Veracruz) and executed several in the Civil War to include the largest at Fort Fischer which was the largest in the world until WWII (yep, bigger than the Gallipoli landing at Anzac Cove).

The Marines can conduct Air Assaults. They also did pioneer work in the concept and just like Marines perfected Amphibious warfare the Army perfected the Air Assault. The largest ones have been conducted by the Army (though not the longest). The greatest challenge for the Marines is having enough helos available in a given op to mass a unit on the ground before the enemy can react which is why you’ve never seen the Marines commonly conduct BN or multiple BN air assaults. I think you’re confusing small company air assaults involving four helos in three lifts as major air assault ops. Don’t make the mistake of believing because the Marines have a couple of thousand airborne qualified Marines that it can conduct an Airborne landing as well or better than the Army.

Moving slowly across the sea surface with little defense is too easy a target in a contested war with enemy armed recon UAVs. Any EFV is history, unless we only fight third world nations. Seems like underwater would be far safer and stealthier.

Amphib flatops might have a future as the MV-22 range allows further standoff and they’ve got space to add air & surface defense capabilities, but need to go nuclear to end oil limiting range (without costly & vulnerable supply lines) and work with CVNs. New LHAs with catapults might even replace CVNs someday as planes shrink to UAV sizes.

The biggest future doubt is defense against swarms of cheap missiles, UAVs, small boats, etc. with thousands of troops & crew onboard. Perhaps we should just end the mainframe and go networked PC by decentralizing from big flatops to small swarms…but in far bigger quantity and more complex quality.

During the Vietnam War one of the Gunnery sergeants(I was a PVT) always had a bad attitude about the Corps wasting money on jets when we needed good infantry equipt. and rifles. He also commented on the duplication of effort in the services. The Army,Navy, Air Force,Marine Corps, and Coast Guard all have their private Air Forces. The services all have their special forces/commando units( Green Berets,Seals, Air Force Air Commandos,Rangers etc. Of course he did not mind Marine Recon. He always made a point of let the Marines be the Amphib.force. The Navy seals can reconitor the beach. The Rangers can parachute in. He stated everyone needs to do their specialty. Let the Air Force fly the planes. Let the Navy sail the ships. I realize this is an oversimplification but he made a lot of sense at times. Of course he outranked me so I naturally agreed.

The Marine Corps could be another special forces group if integrated into the US Army. The Naval Infantry job is the Marine Corps specialty. Do not get rid of the Marine Corps because Amphib operations are always going to be an option that the Marine Corps is designed to do. If I remember correctly, the Marine Corps regiments were assigned as part of the US Army Second Division in France during World War One. Duplication of effort seems to always have been a problem because of inter-service rivalry. Every since the beginning the Marine Corps has had to justify their existence. The Marine Corps does not need to justify their existence. They are the Naval Infantry and Amphib operations are their specialty.

My Gunnery Sergeant always had an attitude about the Marine Corps buying jets instead of rifles and infantry equipt. He always commented let the Air Force fly the planes and let the Navy sail the ships. Let the Marines hit the beach and take the high ground. The Army can come in behind the Marines to reinforce and move inland outside the reach of Naval Artillery. It made sense to me but of course I was just a private.

No thanks. Witnessed first hand the effectiveness of the Air force in Vietnam in 1965–66. The Marines and the Navy did a better job getting down to tree top level for bombing/strafing runs. I think we should always have our own air support.

Sgt. Pugh
Former Marine — Semper Fi!

Now here’s someone who knows what he’s talking about. Your logic for Hornet and Harrier “super upgrades“
certainly make sense. Well done!

I can vouch for mark. Performed as advertised and a reduced cost/capabilities version was floated.

Actually, that wasn’t the problem. Riverine ops, OTH, reconfiguration –all verified. Optimizing the system for water ops means that you’ll sacrifice on land ops. The efv’s problems are the obverse of Bradley’s. Then again, that may be overstating Bradley’s land capabilities as the tallest, loudest scout vehicle ever.

There are TWO issues you all seem to miss. With air assault, the Marine is still ‘a foot’ after the aircraft leaves. The second is that the ability to provide assualt or forced entry from the sea becomes more important in a world where small wars and non-conventional wars which don’t have fixed front lines require much greater mobility.

The EFV may have been a technology too far, but the need to go from ship to objective is till there. When EFV started to grow in cost, the response was to cut the numbers and this is a trap. If you buy half of what you planned to buy the up front costs must be spread across half the vehicles. EFV was to replace 1322 AAVs then it was cut to 1000 at a time when the Marine Corps post Desert Storm study indicated that there was a need for 1800. Remember that EFV was to carry 17 Marines and AAV 21. Then EFV was cut to 500 and somthing. This is after 10 years of development costs.

hi i am Ignacio Mancebo an inventor and a got an a militar proyet and i don’t know what to do i need you’r help plese so tell me waht to do,you can call me to:(1917)7735382 any time please thank you sir.

Who is Amos?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.