Army chief: We have a big role in the Pacific, too

Army chief: We have a big role in the Pacific, too

We saw this week where two of the Building’s top Air-Sea gurus made sure they included a shout-out to land power in their most recent explanation about DoD’s concept of tomorrow.

But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno did not mention “Air-Sea Battle” in a speech Thursday in London, where he addressed the Royal United Services Institute. Instead, he suggested the Army could contribute to the U.S. “rebalancing” toward the Western Pacific on its own terms.

You’ll see how Odierno used concepts and terms we’ve come to associate with Air-Sea, but without an explicit mention of the Navy or Air Force, suggesting they’re as important to the green services as they are to as the blue ones.


Said Odierno:

One of the things we talk about as we look to the future is the importance of the interconnected global commons. Every country in the world wants to have access to it. For many years, the global commons was defined as air, land, and sea. But over the last several years, and it has expanded dramatically, we have seen dramatic technological advancements that have expanded the global commons to space and cyberspace, and how we manage information in cyberspace.

Having access and the ability to protect ourselves in these domains will influence the nature of conflict in the future. We cannot ignore these new domains. We must incorporate them into our planning, thinking, and how we execute future military operations. Some argue that cyberspace and information operations might be a new form of maneuver. What we do know is that today and into the foreseeable future, uncertainty will characterize the global environment.

Quite. So how could the Army go marching along in a part of the world characterized by its unbroken stretches of air and water? Odierno said that the key countries in the region speak army, for lack of a better term, and that means the U.S. Army must be a part of the American forces ready to deal with them.

The Army has a critical role in the Asia-Pacific, as 7 out of the 10 largest land forces in the world are in this region. 22 out of 27 of the Chiefs of Defense are [in] the Army. We’ve ignored that region for years because of our other commitments. The dominant service in every country is Army. We will build on the strong foundation of strategic partnerships with our allies and partners, while also seeking opportunities to engage in new relationships. We will do this while maintaining our focus in the Middle East, and sustaining and reinforcing our partnerships in NATO, Africa and South America.

What does that mean?

We must build on the strong and successful integration of conventional and special operations forces that we have learned over the past ten years. We must maintain and improve our ability to deploy diverse force packages quickly, whether regionally or internationally. We must ensure the robustness and agility of our Brigade Combat Team. Finally, we must employ our forces to shape the regional environments in support of our geographic combatant commanders.

Still, did not spell out what that means specifically for the Army. The Western Pacific does not seem like its natural habitat. Where ground forces are concerned, it would appear much better suited to the Marines, who can suddenly appear off your coast one morning aboard Navy warships, stay as long as they want, and then disappear just as quickly. Even today’s modular Army brigades take a long time to get into place and need a long time to get home.

Moreover, even with Washington’s official reticence to talk in detail about its worries for the Western Pacific, does it seem a likely venue for a land war? Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey on Thursday praised the role of the special operations forces that work with Philippine troops to keep stability on the island of Mindanao, but that’s only a few hundred people. What scenario in the Western Pacific might call for a deployment of regular Army combat units?

We don’t know, Odierno might say — but the point is, the Army’s got to be ready.

Join the Conversation

“What does that mean?”

Pretty simple. The 7 of 10 largest armies in the world aren’t going to be defeated by the Air Force-Navy-USMC alone. ASB has totally ignored the land component and contrary to the author’s belief the Marines can’t sit off a coast indefinitely or arrive unexpectedly in the day of satellites. Nor is the USMC capable of massing more than 30.000 from the sea. Yep, the western Pacific might not seem like a prime theatre for the Army but in WWII, Korea and Vietnam it carried the majority of the load. Remember the old “those that forget history…” quote.

(As an aside. Not dissing the Marines, which I greatly respect. Just throwing the BS flag for those that forget their history or believe all Marine propaganda. No branch does it alone. Of course the “Marine Uber Alles” types will start moaning. Bring it… :)

The Army does have a big role in the Pacific. There’s just short of a division in Hawaii, there’s a Corps in Washington (state), a BDE+ in Alaska, a Div (-) in S. Korea and the ONLY CONUS focused/US based ABM system that are NEVER mentioned publicly but weigh heavily in the correlation of forces and every warplan in theatre. The news here isn’t that the Army has a role in the Pacific, it’s that it isn’t part of ASB.

Mr Ewing, great article to stir the pot.

largest armies in world:
China, India, DPRK, Russia, Pakistan, ROK, USA, Iraq, Myanmar, Iran

In East Asia: China, India, DPRK, Russia, ROK and
Myanmar

Odierno: “We will build on the strong foundation of strategic partnerships with our allies and partners, while also seeking opportunities to engage in new relationships.”

Makes no sense. New army relationship with …China? Myanmar? He’s trying to justify something that can’t be justified. It’s a budget thing. The Army’s getting knocked out of the budget and Odierno needs to say something, even if it makes no sense.

Odierno: “We must build on the strong and successful integration of conventional and special operations forces that we have learned over the past ten years.”

Oh sure, the last ten years have been a huge success. Everybody raves about it. Especially the COIN part.

Did you miss the “allies and partners,” part while you were focused on the polite nod to our competitors?

But when you ask the allies and partners for a deployment they all say no.

The army had it’s shot and blew it. The future was going to be an infinite series of COIN operations that would keep the money flowing to the army at the expense of the navy and airforce. But they screwed it up. And really they have nobody but themselves to blame.

So now it’s payback, the airforce and navy will get the money and the army will wither away.

That the Sea-Air battle concept is about as realistic as planning to deal with an alien invasion is irrelavant. Its all about budgets. But it is doing real harm to our image in the Pacific. We are behaving like the biggest loser and it’s not impressing anyone. In fact it just confirms for many countries in the pacific that we arn’t goign to come back in any meaningful sense.

It’s just sad to watch Panetta in India recently — such bright hopes for future cooperation and American influence — squashed so publicaly by the Indian prime minister.

Overall agree like in WW2 the army will have a role in pacific Ops but GCV and ICC and other Army waste have nothing to to do with equipment needed in is jungle fighting on jungle islands in the pacific.

Talking to oneself isn’t a positive sign. Seek help.

Cool picture!

What you’re missing Major is the fact that the Army is currently configured for mechanzied warfare in the middle east or europe and not for operations in the Pacific.

all these Stryker Brigades are the wrong thing for the Pacific…and the Army refuses to bring back Light Infantry Divisions.

Once you bring back Light Fighters and perhaps reorient one or two of the Independent Airborne Brigades you’ll be ready.

But the Army can’t or all the procurement activity currently going on will be questioned.

What is the role for the Army in the Pacific??? The Army already has far more forward deployed forces in the Pacific then the USMC. I cannot understand where these BS articles pitting the services against each other come from. The Army is already participating in large scale exercises in the Pacific in Australia, Thailand, Korea, India, Phillipines, etc.

Uh, you have a knowledge gap when it comes to the capabilities of the US Army.

ALL of those Stryker BDE’s can operate with or without their Strykers (almost at the drop of a hat). Then there’s the 101st, 82nd and 10th ID. The BDE in Alaska is an Airborne BDE and there’s the 173rd in Italy. Don’t understand the requirement to reorient airborne BDE (there’s six of them). They can jump in anywhere. Is the air different in the Pacific?

Finally even heavy mech units can be deployed and are useful (e.g. Korea). Then there’s the 3rd ID preparing for a rotation to Afghanistan this year without its armor.

I hope that helped.

Some numbers to back you up.
The US army currently has:
15 Armored (Heavy) Brigade Combat Teams
8 Stryker Brigade Combat Teams
20 Infantry (10 Light; 6 Airborne; 4 Air Assault) Brigade Combat Teams

Also, 2 AoE structure Mechanized Infantry Brigades in Germany (scheduled for deactivation within two years)
And, one more Armored (Heavy) Brigade Combat Team, the multi-component (Active/National Guard) 11th ACR as the NTC OPFOR

To add to that, the National Guard has:
20 Infantry BCTs
7 Armored BCTs
1 Stryker BCT

What’s sad is trolls that promote themselves and their fictitious fantasy lives on these web pages only to get themselves banned under other names (Oblat). Then they continue to come back with new names spilling the same trolling drivel and never contributing a forward positive thought ever. That’s what’s really sad.

We are obviously partnering with other countries in the region. I would expect the army to participate in a dramatic way in some exercise at some point in the not terribly distant future. Maybe a long hop for an airborne BDE and jump into the Philippines or Australia or something.

The US Army does have a number of ships typically used for logistical support — which according to one of the latest essays on AOL Defense (and should be obvious anyway) will be of paramount importance to establishing a visible presence in the Pacific (especially when short-legged LCS’s start getting deployed). The Military Sealift Command will have to be bolstered/enhanced considerably to provide support/supply/etc. to forward deployed ships, regardless of what the mission is.

But the Army needs to continue pointing out that while attention needs to be paid in the Pacific, there remains a large part of the planet where the US has interests. And problems have a way of cropping up where you aren’t paying attention (as history has demonstrated time and time again). And the army’s leadership should take a good hard look at itself, and not keep trying to fight the kind of traditional WW2 style battles it wants to fight as opposed to the battles it is far more likely to fight.

Bring back the 7th the way they were meant to be and not some BS paper command up at joint base McCord Lewis like they are doing right now. Our mission in the 7th Light was the Pacific and Central America, it took less than a day and a brigade was headed to Panama for Just Cause in Dec1989. Always had a unit on 2 hour recall and wheels up in less than 18 hours. We can also look at a REFORGER type system for that region, worked during the cold war with prepositioned heavy equipment, Pick an island or two for it like Diego Garcia is used for in the Indian Ocean. Not sure on this one but isn’t Iwo jima non inhabited? Has air fields and space to use. that is just an example for follow on Heavy forces.
Not to bash the Marines either but they seem to get all the credit for the Pacific island battles during WW2 but the Army was landing on the beaches of the same islands across the Pacific also but it never seems to get mentioned. Your right on with that one majrOd

Not disagreeing with what you say, but still…what exactly is the Army’s role? I think GEN O is talking about building partnerships to enable access to the region when we need it. For the last several years access to the PI has been enhanced by SOF operations…mostly Army SOF, but other services as well.

The Army was always shoehorned into Korea, because it was felt to be on “the front lines” and thus an appropriately army mission.

If the Army had more prepositioning kits in Europe and South Korea like they used to in Germany and Diego we might have something.

The Army has no need of another division headquarters. And, any thought that the Army has a need to add an additional light division is completely out of touch with reality.

The US Army’s “Army Propositioned Stocks (APS)-4″ is already in place in locations in South Korea and Japan.

APS-3, the Army’s “afloat” pre-po stocks are at Charleston, SC, and Diego Garcia. They can move, so they already support a “Pacific Shift”. And, I don’t foresee the Army purchasing more ships. I guess they could move the Charleston ships to the west coast, or at least to Southern Florida to be closer to the Panama Canal

Iwo Jima is sovereign territory of Japan, they are using it, and it doesn’t have any port facilities. Probably more likely for the Army the lease pre-po storage space in the Philippines. There really are no funds to start building sites all over tiny islands in the Pacific.

Good point. At one time the Army had a division’s worth of equipment on ships at Diego along with the Marines. During the later years of OIF that stock was dipped into. One can only hope that capability is being rebuilt. Haven’t read much on it and that would be part of the nation’s “reset” in the Pacific.

That’s for an HBCT. What I still stated stands. There is still tremendous Army capability that can be brought to bear. Even without that prepositioning we can deploy heavy divisions (during Desert Storm we had three heavy Div, a separate armor BDE an ACR and a second wave if necessary). Everyone seems to get amnesia when we see an ocean on the map between CONUS and an AO.

What ‘s the Army’s role? Well according to ASB it doesn’t have one.

If you are referiing to Gen “O”, I refer back to his observation that the top 7 of 10 armies are in the region. He wasn’t implying partnerships.

I wonder if a shift to smaller armored units might not be in the cards. ACRs instead of HBCTs?

Then again, short of building artificial islands out of seamounts we’re constrained by available real estate to pre-position equipment stores or build facilities. A lot of the interesting Pacific islands are to the south, and far from the first island chain (which may be good, as we learned in WW2 the Philippines was closer than could be properly defended).

Maj…I certainly think this statement, “We will build on the strong foundation of strategic partnerships with our allies and partners, while also seeking opportunities to engage in new relationships…” implies partnerhships, if not saying it outright. In his recent Foreign Affairs article he says “And despite the region’s vast expanses of oceans, Asia’s militaries remain dominated by armies, making the U.S. Army’s robust relationships with its regional partners a vital resource in a broad range of situations.” To me.…that means building partnerships.

Continuing from above; As for the ASB angle…the mostly likely place for the Army to get involved in a land campagin in WESTPAC is in Vietnam, aiding the Viets against China. Being right on the doorstep of China, and well within, the range of hundreds of TBMs and red air, the Army is going to need significant assistance from the AF and Navy to get its BCTs into the fight…that’s the ASB part, which is the Navy and AF trying to figure out how to get into that A2AD environment and provide freedom of maneuver, whether it be for Navy ships, Air Force strike aircraft, Marine MEFs or Army BCTs. I know your opinion on ASB is well documented…but if the Navy/AF team can’t get the Army/USMC team onto the beach, it won’t matter. Again, GEN Odierno says in the FA article “U.S. naval and air forces maintain the ability to provide rapid strikes, and if a broader conflict arose, they would play a key role in enabling the entry of the U.S. Army or the Marines into the theater.’

Where’s the integration of the Army into ASB? They aren’t even represented in the office? That’s the crux of the issue. ASB doesn’t integrate it protects budgets.

The whole “you can’t get there without us is valid” but there is ZERO integration, planning or rethinking getting the Army there as well as ZERO effort spent on what to do once we’re there.

This all goes to show the fallacy that ASB is any kind of CONOP. The Army as an afterthought is a bone after the fact to try and get some traction for ASB.

FTR, not against comprehensive planning, we should ALL work together, just against partisan budget protecting disguised as a plan.

Allies and partners are our friends. New relationships applies to the guys we eventually might have to shoot.

They do not have the same mission set as HBCTs and are a bit disadvantaged in defensive ops that can’t give up terrain for time. ACRs are grunt poor.

Real estate? Yes, an issue but as I said, we had a div floating at Diego before DS.

I disagree that the Philippines couldn’t be properly defended because of distance. Few realize they held for six months without resupply. It was directly attributable to the loss of most of our Navy at Pearl Harbor. Note after the Navy rebuilt, the Armywas able to take the Phillipines back even though they were closer to Japan. (listening Goat Herder?)

DirtDart anything you can share on the Army floating pre pro stocks would be appreciated. Did some research on it a couple of months ago and didn’t come across anything about them being stood up again (talking equipment and vehicles, not food and ammo).

wow. people talk about Marine propaganda but the Army has it down too. you can talk about a Stryker brigade being able to deploy without its vehicles but you’re talking aobut a poor pure infantry structure. its HQ heavy and grunt light. additionally its vehicle depenedent. how much humping do you do when you have vehicles instead of vehicle maintenance. you train how you fight and those units are geared toward vehicle operations. you can talk about the independent airborne brigades in places other than asia but those units are not geared to jungle warfare. fighting in the jungle and fighting in the desert are entirely different. anyone who has been there knows what i’m talking about.

oh and major, i’ve read enough of your stuff to know that you know of what i speak. so what gives?

the army needs to stop whining. no one complained when it was air-land battle instead of air-sea battle!

“ACRs are grunt poor. ”

The ACR no longer exists. Both Cavalry Regiments now run with Strykers; however, they still maintain the troop strength of Cav units (Cav Squadron has half the troops of an infantry battalion)

Its sor tof ironic that as we run away to the Pacific ostensibly to counter the Chinese, China is busy mvoing in to the middle east and Afghanistan signing up deals last week at the Shanghai group meeting.

Meanwhile a leaked US document in Vietnam is causing a scandle as it gleefully claims that greater partnership with the US will lead to the collapse of the Vietnamese governement.
Dont they know that the US army is defining itself as thier defender LOL

Thanks TMB, your right the cav units are in name only but what I said applies to the “traditional” ACR employment.

Guest – Army propaganda? Hardly. I’ve been both mech and light. During my mech time the vehicles didn’t go to the field every time the dismounted element went. In fact there was a pretty strenuous train up at the squad – plt level to get the basics right. Many Marines aficianados don’t realize this since they usually don’t read anything but stuff written by Marines.

Example:“Stryker units aren’t grunt poor.” Besides three full strength line squads and an anti armor section they have an additional six men that can fall in on the weapons squad giving it the same numbers as a light infantry platoon/company. Same story for the Stryker HQ section. The only way a Marine can argue Stryker units are grunt poor is if they fail to educate themselves to realize the Army has run nine man squads since Nam while the Marines have always had 12 man squads. (A fact never mentioned when Marines compare unit performance.)

Another example of your ignorance of Stryker capabilities is when you fail to realize all those air assaults Stryker units do in Afghanistan don’t include Strykers from beginning to end.

The Marines are geared to jungle warfare? Hmmmm, there’s a lot of that as they prep for OEF rotations. C’mon. Oh, having done the jungle thing, it’s not rocket science.

BTW, why are you hiding behind an anonymous handle?

No whining, I can defend my position. You made me laugh. All I could hear was “Mommy mommy make the bad man stop talking”.

Joking aside (then again maybe not) you aren’t comparing the ASB “concept” (or CONOPS in deference to Goat Herder) to Air Land Battle DOCTRINE. Do you know the difference? Hint: the last word “Battle” doesn’t mean they are the same (though it’s clever marketing copying a hugely successful doctrine to confuse the neophytes)

Goat Herder — since you made such a point with me equating the two I’m going to see if you correct one of those on your side or will you let partisanship trump accuracy…

Excellent point. I keep trying to bring that up in the GCV discussion with little traction.

STAND in the DOOR! :)

Actually 2nd an 3rd Cavalry Regiments are both Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, and have the same structure and manning as every other SBCT

Yep, you’re right. I was looking at the SCR’s recon squadron’s MTOE last night by mistake. The rest of the Cav Squadrons are actually infantry battalions. Total headcount in an SCR is 3800.

Maj, you are correct…I don’t think it ASB and AirLand Battle are anywhere near the same. ASB is a CONOPS with a heavy lean towards developing the right interoperable RD & acquisitions programs. I was late to the merge on this one not because I was letting partisanship trump accuracy, but because last night I was letting a bourbon and coke trump a long week at work.

The Army & AF should jointly lease some pre-po space in the southern PI and then practice distributing that crap in a hurry, using either high-speed sealift or tac airlift.

Don’t think you are late at all. (your priorities are straight) Just wanted to see if you’d weigh in considering the specific point.

I got a question. How the heck is the Army going to get reinforcements to the Pacific? Between China, North Korea, and the proliferation of SAM’s leasing civil aircraft can get dicey.

Russia is on the outs with the US. Shame that they operate the wide-bodies Big Army needs to lift the Brads, M-1’s and the future GCV.

The Army desperately needs to buddy up with the Navy AND Air Force. We need more C-5 type aircraft. More Ro/Ro ships. And more STB and MEB units to fix the fight.

It’s shameful that Strykers fly on Russian aircraft.

I think people don’t understand what ASB is. It’s, essentially, a doctrine on how the USAF and USN are going to allow the Army to deploy (be in to Taiwan, reinforce ROK or invade Iran).

ASB is a forced entry doctrine that has very little role for the Army (except, maybe, SF-types). You can’t drop the 75th Rangers onto a Chinese airfield when there are SA-20s around. Likewise, you can’t deploy APS equipment where it is needed if B-6 bombers and DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles are looking for targets. Until ASB opens the door, Army conventional forces are and will be irrelevant. Once they are ashore, ASB becomes far less relevant, save for maintaining SLOCs and ALOCs.

ASB is maybe best thought of like our campaign plans to retake Iceland from the Soviets. The Army can’t swim to Iceland, so their role prior to the USAF and USN getting them there is to prepare.

ASB does the same thing — gives the Army time to pack all of its stuff into ships, stage them forward (Hawaii or Guam or Australia for the Pacific; Diego, Kuwait or Oman for the Gulf) and while that is happening, the Navy and Air Force are eating away the ability of our enemy to control the seas and skies.

Problem is the Air Force and Navy don’t agree with you. They say ASB is about integrating forces and finding new ways for separate branches to work together. Yes there’s quite a bit of LOC talk but leaving the Army completely out of integrations is suspicious. Even if it’s about LOCs, it strange not to integrate the Army’s significant anti-air and ABM capability. That is if you want to really “share” vs. enhance the reasons why your funding is more important.

The Army has always pressed for strategic and tactical lift. Problem is the Air Force has all the decision power. I agree it’s a shame for Army vehicles to fly on Russian aircraft but that’s not the Army’s fault. The Air Force decides what to buy or mothball. Haven’t you been following the C27 fiasco or the mothballing of 30% of the A10 fleet?

The Army “buddying” up to the Air Force isn’t going to change things.

Unlike the Army — Air Force relationship the Army actually owns some ships to support its needs. It owns ZERO fixed wing transport that can lift a HMMWV or larger.

BTW, the Army is not represented in the ASB office?

I was talking to a navy guy yesterday and he claimed that in any dispute between China and Vietnam we would step up and defend the Vietnamese.

When I explained to him that Uncle Ho must be laughing, that the Vietnamese government is still a one party communist state he went white, choked up and I swear a tear formed in the corner of his eye, before blurting out “but we need the money”

DirtDart, TMB — Don’t know why someone would give you a negative for being factual. They don’t like the truth?

wrong… sad you never learned the basics or need to relearn decision making 101.. you: “Air Force has all the decision power”, the “Air Force decides what to buy or mothball” Consitution: President is CINC, Congress appropriates. Reality: what the USAF (other Services as well) mothball or not can only be authorized & paid for by legislation. The strategic airlift, or more generally strategic deployment, requirements & the planning & design of the force structure to perform the mission, is infinitely more complicated than your simplified view, with the blatant motive to character assassinate the USAF.

You’d be surprised to learn how many requirements are less than optimally resourced from your point of view. There are lots of practices that could be described as “shameful” from one perspective or another. In the end does it really matter how a Stryker gets airlifted to the battlefield? Would resourcing more organic strategic airlift given us strategic success in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan? Did inadequately resourcing strategic airlift result in a defeat in Desert Storm? No, no, and no. There’s bigger fish to fry with what’s wrong with DoD than you identify in your USAF bashing.

The Vietnamese actually hate the Chinese, in Uncle Ho’s words “The difference between the Soviets and the Chinese is the Soviet’s tell you to eat S***, the Chinese tell you to eat S*** and like it”. The only reason the Vietnamese accepted Chinese and soviet help was because we were there. (Read the pentagon papers)

After saying, “While it is true that the Army is full of shameless liars,” in a previous thread (http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​5​/​2​3​/​n​i​e​-​s​a​v​e​s​-​a​r​m​y​-​6​-​b​i​l​l​i​o​n​/​#​i​d​c​-​c​o​n​t​a​i​ner) You are the last person to talk about character assassination and hate. Justifies why you are making excuses here though.

A tear forms in my eye almost every time I read an Itfunk post…

I beleive If you substituted “in some select disputes” for “in any dispute” and “it is possible we would” for “we would”, the the navy guy would be correct.

Well, the truth hurts but the the truth shall set you free. check out the Army’s boasting about FCSs performance in the Black Sunday operational vignette. must admit i was a little bit punchy when I wrote the ‘shameless’ comment. Came after reading the latest Army ICD trash from TRADOC that a certain system must be “100%” this and that. Have yet to meet a uniformed Army solider get the mathematical impossibilities of that & foolishness in that COA due to diminishing returns. Won’t stop them from spending billions and taking decades chasing vanity, though, while present day reqts go unsatisfied (including your CAS & airlift, which I am very sensitive to).

Your uniformed senior leaders do not learn from their mistakes Maj — making FCS perpetually relevant to present day debate on decision making. Interesting to see you’d rather pick out a cherry from the past to change the subject rather than acknowledge that you were wrong to allege the USAF is omniscient. what kind of personality will never admit their wrong? I’ll let you look it up for yourself in the DSM-IV. it would do you some good. hope you ease up on the USAF bashing. you can be fair & critical without browbeating.

pardon me, you alleged USAF is omnipotent.

There is plenty of strat airlift in the inventory to move the Army to the Pacific. That has been debated, studied, baited, and debaited over and over. The problem is the throughput…we need to build some airfield capacity to include ramp space, fuel storage, etc. etc. The type of airfields we need just simply don’t exist (except in Japan). And yes…if the Army has to be lifted into a true A2AD environment, they will most likely have to go in on grey tails, not leased civilian airliners. That presents what is in the main a passenger problem, not a cargo problem.

And…the reason Strykers fly on Russion aircraft today is the same reason GIs fly back and forth on leased airliners…it’s cheaper. They are used for short-term surges (like a RIP) cause it is more cost-effective than maintaining US military strat airlift that would be nothing but expensive excess capacity most of the time. That, plus the fact the Russians don’t give a crap if somebody launches a couple of SAMS at’em.

That works as long as the Russians support what we are doing. Not a good way to maintain our ability to project power. Is this an example of some of the new capabilities and ways we do business in ASB? (Of course not, but your understand my point.) We’ve relied on our airlines to move troops (Cold War Europe). We’ve never needed foreign heavy lifters. This is not a good development.

Here’s the GAO’s review of MCRS-16. I’m sure you’ll provbe ablet of find lots of cherries to support your Evil Air Force hypothesis: http://​www​.gao​.gov/​n​e​w​.​i​t​e​m​s​/​d​1​1​8​2​r​.​pdf
Note the report was sponsored by (joint) US TRANSCOM as well as OSD. Note the DoD (emphasis) non-concurs with GAO criticisms and reassertion that the findings were clear, we have excess strategic airlfit, which was used to support the USAF PB11 budget proposal retiring 22 C-5s.

You need to look up the term psychological projection. It’s a defensive mechanism of
Borderline personality disorder
Narcissistic personality disorder
Antisocial personality disorder
Psychopathy

Those are also listed in the DSM-IV.

i see you have no interest in a factual based convereation. must be luxurious in your little USAF hating fishbowl where you are king.

You’re whining about factual based conversations but you’re the same fella introducing the DSM-IV to the conversation. Hypocrisy is your strong suit.

well if you had simply acknowledged your assertions of USAF omnipotence were falsehoods then this whole thread would have taken a more constructive tone. If you want to be critical of the USAF that is fine, but when you resort to BS you will be called out, and then it is fair to question your motives for doing so. I tried to elevate the discussion with references to strategic decision making at the top, MCRS-16, and the GAO audit of it. A constructive discussion on strategic airlift/deployment requirements would begin with those documents.

Oh, that’s mature. “If you had prostrated yourself and agreed with me I wouldn’t have personally attacked you.” Sorry dude you need to grow up. Mommy never taught you to play well with others.

I’ve never disparged the individual soldier as you repeatedly have and won’t participate in a discussion with you. itfunk is looking for someone to talk to though.

I didn’t ask you to prostrate yourself, now your resorting to straw man attacks. I am trying to see if we could clarify Step #1 in this whole process, which was your initial inaccurate inflammatory remarks, which I see is something you can’t get over . You are the one that needs to grow up, you have not addressed a single constructive statement in the whole dialogue. Yeah and you are WRONG AGAIN, I don’t disparage the individual soldier. I disparage the d*ps*t Army leadership that gives us fubar after fubar, leaving the Soldier with obsolete antiquated equipment, and sticking the taxpayer with the billion dollar bills to pay.

“While it is true that the Army is full of shameless liars,” http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​5​/​2​3​/​n​i​e​-​s​a​v​e​s​-​a​rmy–

“Have yet to meet a uniformed Army solider get the mathematical impossibilities of that & foolishness in that COA due to diminishing returns.” (This thread)

Not even bothering listing the personal attacks that you opened with.

Nope, not talking Army leadership… If you want to have a professional discussion, you have to be a professional first. I refuse to lower myself. Find someone else to argue with. Itfunk IS available! We’re done here.

both statements taken out of context. I covered the first one with examples above. The second statement refers to specific instances of Army system ICD’s expecting 100% performance requirement. and i didn’t open this thread with personal attacks, you opened it up with a falsehood statement about the USAF, and dragged something out of the past, something we could easily do with past statements you’ve made. Where you are factual, you’ll be treated fairly. When you spout BS, it will be exposed, and your credibility will suffer. Answer to your problem is to be fair, professional, and factual in the first place.

Here’s hoping the combined forces of all branches never have to be brought to bear. Semper Fi.

Whether it’s performed by the Army or the Marines, we need to redevelop the military capability to conduct a Lodgement and ultimate Break-out under combat conditions much as we did on D-Day and the months following. I was the Chief or War Plans for my command in Korea. I was stunned to find that we only had the capability to deploy large numbers of troops by administrative movements only. We have got to realize that we can’t always depend on a friendly host country to give us a place to ship and unpack the boxes before we move out!

Valid point

“The problem is the throughput…we need to build some airfield capacity to include ramp space, fuel storage, etc. etc. The type of airfields we need just simply don’t exist (except in Japan).”

Yes, JAPAN.

What happens if you neutralize JAPAN?

Why would they jump into the Philippines or Austrailia?

You truly think China would go straight for big game or start small and hit islands along the way?

And how do they get there?

“The Marines are geared to jungle warfare?”

Yes, especially those that train in Japan (Okinawa, obviously) and the 31st MEU, though they are prepared for any/all terrain in Asia, they have to be.

1. You make it sound like the Navy cannot bring in another fleet to open up other beachheads, or reload one LHA/LHD after offloading.

2. There is a reason there are more USMC personnel now than WW2, the military had proper TIME to foresee such an event.

Some say bring it on. Prove theories.

Diplomacy right?

Yep, lot of jungles in Japan and Okinawa.

The Army deploys units throughout SE Asia and S. America as well. You aren’t aware because you don’t read stuff outside of USMC pubs and the Army just doesn’t make a big deal about it because it’s not.

Any given day the Army has Bde’s ready for immediate deployment to any spot in the world. Having trained and served in jungles it’s not rocket science.

BTW, the 25th in Hawaii is focused on the Pacific also.

1. I know about Army deploying to those countries, don’t act like they CANNOT get isolated.

2. You know that USMC do train alot in exercises in that area as well correct (if not intimately with our allies in Asia)?

There were almost 600k Marines in WWII. There’s less than 250k now.

(facepalm)

1. Personnel isn’t everything, we have a more sophisticated inventory/method of getting resources ashore. You still want a huge wave of higgin’s boats?

2. In other posts, you keep asking why there are even 30k Marines. I also gave the same reason why: they are needed for this type of warfare and it’s best to have them rather than have new forces train from scratch. Unless such training is “insignificant.”

Sure soldiers can get isolated. Marines aren’t immune to it either.

Yes, I’m aware of Marine training. I’m not the one making the case that the Marines are geared to jungle warfare while the Army isn’t.

What are you arguing about? Do you even know?

Nope, never questioned why we have 30K Marines (we actually have a lot more). That’s the most we can land with current amphib resources though. Never said such training was “insignificant”.

You’re lying because you can’t prove your point (let alone find one to make).

BTW, you said… “There is a reason there are more USMC personnel now than WW2…” Now you want to say personne; aren’t everything? Why did you bring it up?

(facepalm AND shaking my head)

*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.