Corps to Industry: Prepare for the Worst

Corps to Industry: Prepare for the Worst

QUANTICO, Va. — One of the Marine Corps’ top acquisition officials had a stark message for defense contractors on the prospect of ongoing federal budget cuts.

“Industry is going to get punched in the face with reality over the next couple of years,” Bill Taylor, who oversees land weapons systems, said during a briefing to company officials during the third and final day of the Modern Day Marine conference.

“As much as we are concerned about the industrial base, industry has to consider the alternative of contraction,” he said. “I’m sorry to say that you have to be confronted with those same realities.”

The U.S. military is downsizing after more than a decade of war, fueled by automatic budget cuts known as sequestration. The Marine Corps, which peaked in size at 202,000 Marines in 2008, may shrink to as few as 150,000 Marines by 2017, depending on the pace of the reductions. The cuts will reshape the structure of the service and force it to upgrade rather than buy new equipment, officials said.

“We need to be lighter, faster, more agile and cheaper,” Lt. Gen. Kenneth Glueck, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, said during the panel discussion. “We’re going to need to focus on what’s good enough.”

Programs with the highest levels of proposed funding over the next five years include the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar, known as G/ATOR, with about $1.37 billion through fiscal 2018; and the Humvee-replacement Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, or JLTV, with about $925 million over the same period, according to a slide presented at the briefing.

The Defense Department faces $500 billion in automatic cuts over the next decade. That’s in addition to almost $500 billion in defense reductions already included in 2011 deficit-reduction legislation. The first installment of the automatic cuts began March 1 after lawmakers were unable to reach an alternative agreement on taxes and spending. The next round takes effect in fiscal year 2014, which begins Oct. 1, and is estimated at $52 billion.

The potential for a government shutdown next week because of political gridlock on Capitol Hill over a stop-gap funding resolution further complications planning, according to Brig. Gen. John Jansen, assistant deputy commandant for programs and resources.

“We’re laboring under many yokes,” he said.

Excluding the possible spending cuts, the Corps’ base budget is estimated at $24 billion to $26 billion, Jansen said. That’s down about half from a high of $50 billion in 2008 amid the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, though up significantly from about $17 billion in 2001, he said.

Without an alternative deficit-reduction deal, the across-the-board cuts will slice more than $12 billion from the Corps’ budget over the next five years, or slightly more than $2 billion a year, Jansen said. The Corps will continue to station Marines overseas to be ready to respond to global contingencies — but those priorities will come at a cost to installation maintenance and weapons development, he said.

“There’s a great deal of uncertainty in the Marine Corps right now,” Jansen said. At the same time, there is opportunity for the service to shed excess equipment and gear as the headcount falls, he said.

The typical infantry rifleman now carries as much as $14,000 worth of gear, excluding night-vision goggles, up from about $2,500 a decade ago, Jansen said. Similarly, a typical Humvee now costs about $250,000, up from about $50,000 in 2001, he said.

“The ability to adapt and then perform is really the formula for success in this environment,” he told company officials.

Lt. Gen. William Faulkner, deputy commandant for installations and logistics, agreed, saying budget pressures will help force leaders “make some of those real changes that we need to make.”

Over the past decade, the Corps not only expanded its ranks, it also boosted its equipment inventory, Faulkner said. For example, the typical infantry battalion now has 8,500 pieces of gear, such as radios and trucks, up from 3,400 in 2001, he said. Many of the items are no longer necessary, he said.

“That’s the stuff we have to trim,” he said.

The Corps plans to keep just 1,200 to 1,300 bomb-resistant trucks known as mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs, of the 3,700 to 3,800 currently in the inventory, Faulkner said.

The budget reductions will also prompt changes in the structure of Marine Expeditionary Forces, though Marines will probably continue to serve two months stateside for every month deployed — a ratio known as dwell time, Glueck said.

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

Maybe the Corp should consider reallocation of funding between the Air side and Ground side? They could buy a tremendous amount of infantry equipment and vehicles for the price of one F-35 squadron.

“We’re going to need to focus on what’s good enough.”

Based on that statement a $200M stealth STOVL CAS aircraft (F-35B) seems excessive.

Marines keep dreaming of a CAS truck, they’re getting a fighter jet.

I wonder how much a JSF-B with less doodaddery would cost?

Don’t think a “stripped down” F-35B is feasible. Besides, it’s not clear that it’ll ever work at all… Huge software problems… not to mention structural issues stemming from a weight reduction program implemented a few years back. It’s really just a mess.

Question… I don’t see F-35B or CH-35K mentioned, and would have guessed those to be the most expensive. Are those Dollars being pulled from a different wallet? Maybe NAVAIR? I am just guessing in this, and am hoping someone will provide some elucidation. Thanks.

Yes. I believe it’s called ‘Blue’ (aviation) dollars vice ‘Green’ (ground) dollars.

The –53K directly affects the Green side, it is needed, yesterday. But the gluttonous twin aviation programs, the F-35B and V-22 suck up a tremendous percentage of annual funding, and whose mission could be accomplished by far cheaper airframes.

Ground Side without Air Side SXXcks! Ask anyone from the ‘stan.

The Bee flys just fine with the current weight, no structural issues. Software is now testing Block 2B to be completed this summer for IOC with the Corp, next year. VMFA-121 , Yuma is to fill out it’s Bee squadron this year, 2013.

Not according to “Bloomberg” yesterday, seems there are a few Problems with the Junk Strike Fighter, like “Lockheed F-35 Quality Failings Cited by Inspector General“

The first $500 billion in “cuts” were cuts to Generals plans for another $500 billion increase. The second cuts just roll us back to FY2007 levels. The manpower cuts are needed because of the big pay raises, and greedy Generals would rather cut 30,000 Marines than freeze pay for four years.

So, even if the 35B flies, why not take ove the Warthog for real CAS? AF doesn’t want it.

add a tailhook and we’re in business ;-P

Even though the f-35B is the bete noire of all f-35 –a lot of technical challenge and limitations would not exist without this one– it’s the one that got no real alternatives. The f-35c could be replaced by a god enough super hornet block 3 but the harrier is getting old. And eliminate the C and emals became unnecessary, let it grow slowly.

Scrapping the B could yield more saving but I think it would require a drastic change of strategies so I doubt it could yield saving in the near future. Really getting all the benefits would require yet another f-35 redesign, which mean an even later f-35, that’s quite unrealistic.

As to the software –ironically the real promising innovations are there– if something has to survive that program, that’s this one. It’s just a nonsense that it’s not a separate contract, one that would be fleet-wide; install the hmd+sensor fusion into the f-15se and the f/a-18 and you get a heck of a “good enough” alternative. But it should be build around Ada, and use a cheaper HMD first and then take an incremental approach.

“Good enough” solutions, what can go wrong?

–More LCS: nearly 5 years of service and still floating;

–More apprentice: good enough cheaper workforce;

–More f-35: with proper missile, it’s a good enough f-22;

–More unqualified crew: good enough repairs, good enough job;

–More automation: good enough when everything goes right;

–More bureaucrats: good enough decisions, we need more of them;

–More windows-based missile and aircraft: good enough, when it fail hit Ctrl+Alt+Del;

Not by an A/C that doesn’t work (never will for the Corps) and will be downed by lack of a LOX farm.

I heard the USAF is trying to get rid of their CAS Mission (A-10). We may be able to get them cheap. We’ll just have to give them a few Baskin Robbins and promise to keep our guys off of kadena.

I would rather have one A-10 AirFueled than five F-35Bs.
11 hard points vs 8 (2 light).
23mm protection vs being taken down by my daughter’s pink .22.
Flys on one engine (even if other one shot off) vs has one.
Pilot can eject vs pilot having broken neck due to huge helmet that May or may not work.

Both need LOX. But F-35B needs replenishment of emergency seat pan oxygen often due to it being needed to land, since OBOGS shuts off during vertical T and L’s. You do not want pilot to drop mask when it may be needed during ejection when the engine FODS. A-10 flys below 10k.

We can strap on an old A-6 probe to A-10 for refueling. DO NOT soil the KC-130 with a boom.

A-10s are paid for. Their pilots love them so I’m sure they would be willing TBS candidates. Hell, try and get their old 53 drivers too.

I have a ground breaking idea…The Corps should scrap their fixed wing combat arm. Turn that entire role over to the Navy/Air Force, and scrap the VTOL/STOVL F-35. The Marines are never going to execute combat operations without Naval Carrier Task Force support anyway. In this day and age of combined arms combat support, having their own combat jets is a just redundant.

The problem is that the Infantry is a very small part of the overall scheme.
When the US first went in to battle in the Middle East it faced a fierce air war, the Soviets sold all of their Mig fighters.
Iran has not only Soviet era fighters but 70’s era US hardware, and far more up to date French and Russian hardware.
Infantry is the answer only after the air battles are finished.
And, that is what makes modern warfare so expensive, we and France and Russia are selling all this hardware to the world.

Then it just means Navy/Air Force pilots will take Marine mission and marine dollars.

What’s the net savings here? Once you stand down the fluff in charge of marine aviation, it just leads to more fluff in charge of the units assigned to the Marines, so you won’t save in personnel either.

It is quite true though that the MC will probably operate with carrier air on tap…but it isn’t a guarantee.


To the contrary, aircraft fly using an RTOS from Green Hills on Power PC architecture

“Just comment out all those lines, we’ll do IOC and debug later”

Roll back perks at the top

Cannot land A-10 on Amphib Carriers need VSTOL. Still A-10 on fleet carriers would be excellent. More Ordnance and time on station than F-18’s. Plus paid for and easy to maintain.

The A-10 needs at least 3,000 feet for take off on land (compared to about 1,000′ for a Super,) so it’s not going to work on a CV either. Retrofitting a cat capable nose gear and arresting hook would not be cheap, and is not necessarily structurally feasible.

Don’t forget the weight gain by adding the undercarriage strong enough to withstand the sudden stop of an arrested hook landing or the jolt of going from 0 to 140 in a matter of seconds. The additional weight gain reduces the bomb load substantially. This is one of the reasons for the demise of the F111 in the Navy’s future.

Good point With most conflicts we fight all on the ground A-10s are needed more than fast light weight fighter bombers. We are not fighting the Soviet Air Force like some USAF Generals want us to still believe so they can pump more money for JSF.

I think unlike the Army the Corps been good on planning for the post Afghan war Marine Corps. They want few new weapons but mostly to maintain what works that’s smart buying power. Think other services need to take there cue.

It’s reasonable to expect ‘kicka$$’ times in the next few years as our society adjusts.

All good points above. But I still think USMC + A-10 would be a ‘match made in heaven’, even if the A-10 cannot, or could never be, operated off ships. Yes, it would mean the landing force would need to secure an airstrip after landing ashore, or the aircraft would have to operated from a neighboring friendly country’s airfield rather than from flattops cruising offshore, but just imagine the potency of a force that has the espirit de corps of the Marines coupled with the firepower and survivability of the A-10.

I know (except for the specific architecture). Anyway I wanted to develop that one a little further and the Dodbuzz sarcasm-o-meter kicked-in: message deleted by the administrator.

Mea culpa on my part then.

No structural issues? Then why do they need the mod line at Yuma? Every airframe ever designed has cracks to deal with, and the F-35B has typical problems. I don’t know why you have such high expectations.

There are huge saving to be made by not doing it “the marine way”

The Marines are just letting their base know that they understand that with less to spend the quality has to go way down. If the equipment cant meet the mission anymore that’s ok — be assured the Marines will still buy your rubbish.

In other industries the buyers will squeeze the sellers forcing them to innovate and become more productive. That doesn’t happen in our military market where the buyers are committed to maintaining seller profits at all costs. The only innovation that occurs is dreaming up excuses for the rubbish that results.

The Soviet Air Force no.

However, the Chinese PLAAF is pretty huge and expanding.

Why Ada? Wasn’t the move to C++ motivated by the fact that LM couldn’t find anyone who actually knows Ada?

What about the EFV?

You are forgetting the fact that in 1942 the Marines were abandoned (for valid reasons) by the Navy and had to protect themselves by Marine Air.

Because that’s a programming language that is specifically designed for large scale mission critical real-time program, which fit pretty well the description. And even though Ada is not going to be the most popular programming language anytime soon, statistic prove that it’s getting more and more popular.

From what it available on the net, it look more like that Lockheed bought a company that was used to work with C++ and decided to get them working on the f-35. Lockheed itself got good experience with Ada. They used it extensively in project from aircraft traffic control system up to the f-22.

Why Ada? Sure I got a bias, but it’s much more about code maintainability and validation. Ada is my first programming language, it’s not that hard nor you are in the obligation to use the most advanced feature it has to offer. What it mean? One of your lead programmer could be a victim of a motorcycle accident, you can expect other programmer to be able to understand his code.
Sure the way that the program is managed is the most important factor, but Ada favorize that. I am not a language lawyer but I can mention –for example– the fact that the program (unlike java) have been designed to support unsafe operation, but require them to be explicit. By being more explicit, your code is less likely to be misinterpreted, and more likely to be properly validated. I can’t say that Ada is perfect, but I believe it’s the most appropriate for the job.

Yes it’s very debatable, since there is nothing that you can do in Ada that you can’t do in language machine, or something equivalent in C, C++ or else. I believe it will pay off in the long run. The language itself is so well standardized that you can literally take a program written in Ada 83 (yes 1983) and re-use all that code and complete it with any subsequent version of Ada and it will work without issue (I don’t think you can mix it as you wish, but you can definitely re-use it). That mean that you can take your existing code-base and add new functionality with the newer feature that Ada has to offer (if you wish) without having to re-write everything.

We are dumb as crap. 41% of business investment in Australia the last ten years has been from China. The Sang Hei bank of China(the PLA’s main bank) bout 8000 vacant homes in the Detroit area in the last 3 months. Its the same story in Europe and Africa. and Russian investment in real property worldwide is number 2 using their new natural gas money. They are kicking our asses on all fronts and a USMC with 400,00 troops, 3000 F-35s and 600 Ch-53Ks wont do squat to stop it.

It may be time to look at other departments for improved proformance. The Boarder Patrol is a good example. There should be a shooting competition to see who gets there ass handed to them. Then look at the gear the winnwers are using. Then let the blood suckers cry, of course we need money for officers promotions( right?) NO. Its time the boys sitting miles away giving orders to get out with their Marines. ROE’S should be tossed out until peace is established . Gotta remember where the Commandant came from, I don’t think aircraft will be touched. Semper Fi

Man, are you out of touch with reality. One of the first things the Commandant said after assuming office is ” we must return our emphasis on our amphibian roots.” As for killing the F-35B; with what? It is supposed to replace both the F/A-18 and the AV-8B, aged airframes. If the Navy continues with their F-35 plans, it would mean the Marines would have to gen-up and assume DEPOT level maintenance. It ain’t in the budget. That’s one reason getting new weapon systems online takes so long. You have to look far into the future, guessing what the result would be if THAT plan fell through. I remember how hard the ground shook when the Marines backed out of the OV-1 and F-14 programs. We may have to abandon the B and accept the Navy version, which would me a further delay since Congress has already set the purchase patterns and the vendors have their plans to replan. Not to mention the impact on the Ground Forces structure when response and performance values take a hit.

Rob..I’m a currency trader…here’s the “Facts” on Oz vs US: “The United States is Australia’s fifth largest merchandise export market and our most important market for services. It is Australia’s largest import source for services and second largest import source for merchandise. The United States is the largest investor in Australia. Australia is the ninth largest provider of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States.The United States is one of the top five source countries for visitors to Australia in terms of numbers and expenditure.” per: http://​www​.dfat​.gov​.au/​g​e​o​/​u​s​/​t​r​a​d​e​_​i​n​v​e​s​t​m​e​n​t​.ht… China purchases HUGE amounts of “raw” materials, mostly from US developed resources, the US multi-nationals develop the mines, the Aussies sell the raw product & the chinese are the largest consumer of those “Raw” products.….$$$$$$ all around, as far as ur comment about real estate, it reminds me of the Japanese “scare” of the 90’s w/the THEN all powerful yen.…“The Japanese Own Rockafellar Ctr”!!! omg!… the USD/JPY tanked (along w/Manhattan real estate) & the Japanese lost their shorts & their shirts.….. other than those 2 facts I agree w/ur post 100%.…. I will not touch that Russian stat.…..

pssst: Rob: u mean Hang Seng;The second-largest bank in Hong Kong, HSB is majority (62%) owned by the HSBC Group.HSBC Holdings is a British multinational banking and financial services company headquartered in London, England, United Kingdom. It is one of the world’s largest banks. So basically the Chinese are bank-rolled by the brits.…sneeky buggers aren’t they!

tank turret sp4 ur showin’ ur age using phrases like “Combined arms Combat support”…I thought u were going to close with a reference to the air-land battle doctrine.. :) But I agree w/ur post 100%, the aviation support will be naval or marine…I still haven’t figured out how the Air Force fits into this Pacific pivot strategy yet.…

how about testing on land with those ski-jump ramps that the brits & ruskies use, will the hog have enough umph to git airborne???

Thanks for your insight. I was going to point out that this stuff has been in development since 2002, giving plenty of time to train thousands of Ada geeks, if there was a shortage. Your statements would seem to justify using Ada, and training programmers as required.


“Retrofitting a cat capable nose gear and arresting hook would not be cheap, and is not necessarily structurally feasible“
Roger that, and ditto for integrating a stronger new main gear with 8–10 inches more stroke. I’m sure you have noticed, but FYI everybody, the A-10 nose gear is off-center, adding to nose-tow difficulties. Another obscure issue is that USAF aircraft are not designed for the launch and arrestment g’s, especially Nx (longitudinal). All the equipment supports and the fuel tanks will need looking into. It’s all just too much trouble for what you get in the end product. You can’t get there from here. You have to start from somewhere else.

PREPARING FOR THE WORST: This post is to alert readers that in my opinion Oath Keepers is leading us to the worst outcome, unless and until they regain constitutional standing:

Oath Keepers has apparently been taken over by secret Illuminati infiltrators to start up a rag-tag group of counter insurgents (aka domestic terrorists) domestically to cause US mayhem…as it appears to me:

My 2-cents posted as a former supporter of their ad campaigns:

Demand Constitutional accountability of our Board of Trustees now!

The Board of Trustees of Oath Keepers are leading this flock knowingly to the slaughter by “Going Operational.”

“Going Operational” runs against the domestic democratic methods of constitutionally forming a “well regulated” militia. Going Operational usurps the authority of elected state Governors. Oath Keepers needs rethinking. Their act violates their own Oath by acting unconstitutionally and will not win the hearts and minds of US Citizens.

Those of us who believe in the power of well placed sign boards that speak truth to power and magical “Joan of Arc ” — like significance of riding out alone to turn back would-be concurring armies, must now alert Oath Keepers members that “going operational” is exactly what the Illuminati want. Oath Keepers play right into their plans. It appears Oath Keepers Board has been infiltrated by members of the Illuminati seeking violence.

Stay your coarse and remain nonviolent. Do not go operational. Get wiser board members if necessary.

Do not organize to “go operational” less you become the tool of the last sought-after false flag. Words have meaning when you use them in the commission of a crime. Oath Keepers, in my opinion, is committing itself to criminal behavior in “going operational” without 50 state governor level confirming militia status correspondence in hand. Oath Keepers appears to be usurping the democratic authority of elective state governors to direct, control and regulate the militia. In the end we run a democratic republic and while we vary from that, our wisdom learned through Civil War draws us back to the election process to resolve our difference, corruption in the process to the contrary notwithstanding.

Demand Oath Keepers Board of Trustees Act Constitutionally

My advice to members of Oath Keepers is to demand your Trustees either produce an approved set of bylaws subjected to the approval of each state governor in which Oath Keepers intends to “go operational” or resign and renounce your support of Oath Keepers.

Oath Keepers Board of Trustees, appears through it’s actions, to becoming a tool of the Illuminati to create a rag-tag collection of combat ready, violent, unregulated, counter insurgents without official recognition from democratically elected state governors. By default, this act constitutes an act of domestic terrorism and must be withdrawn immediately or perfected with proper legal standing.

What is lost in “going operational” in my opinion is the very moral high ground needed to confront first responders with persuasive, compassionate, reminder of their duties and oath to the Constitution by wiser, older generation of veterans who have fought our wars. It is NOT the older generation of vets who are taking the group “operational.“
Demand Constitutional accountability of our Board of Trustees now!

It doesn’t fit the mission of Marine Air. It’s too limited and not carrier capable. The A10 is designed for fixed bases with full maintenance capabilities. Built for the Air Force, its maintenance and logistics requirements are not compatible. Marine Air has to be multi-mission and anything that can’t operate from sea isn’t useful. It’s also too old, too expensive to support logistically, has too long a logistics chain to maintain is combat and the production line is closed. Navy/Marine Air Rework Facilities don’t work on A10s and obtaining that capability would be outrageously expensive. You can’t use an A10 for air to air, air refueling, air recon, long at sea strikes on air defenses and a dozen other missions that Marine Air has always and will always do. It isn’t forward deployable to austere bases like the Harrier, etc., and requires too much maintenance that must occur on a shore based maintenance life cycle. Too low, too slow and too limited. While it does one mission very well, it’s all the other mission it can’t do that will kill it for the Air Force and make it not even in the ball park for a sea borne expeditionary force.

First Adam Kokesh and his “Final American Revolution” now this crap.

Yeah, smells of madness.


This is the singular most important decision Oath Keepers can make, and “Going Operational,” in my opinion is exactly the wrong way to take this otherwise noble organization: Oath Keepers.

The Board of Trustees of Oath Keepers must remain impeccably “law abiding” and “Constitutionally pure” or it concedes it’s entire efforts over to militarized threat. I seem to agree with you as to Adam Kokesh : http://​tinyurl​.com/​b​v​n​z​8x4

Other than bringing such things to the attention of either news stations or protesting this publicly to the entire Oath Keeper community via video/social media, I wish I could help you get your point across, but I would not know what to tell you, as I am not part of the organization.

Whatever action you take to prevent unnecessary violence, I commend you and wish you success.

May cooler heads prevail. Pax Americana.

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 | , and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.