Jump to content


Photo

Lightening The Marine Corps


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#1 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,646 posts

Posted 24 March 2020 - 0951 AM

https://www.military...pM5gK5q_Yv_w6tE

 

This is one of a number of articles I've seen regarding trimming the Corps down and redefining the mission.  

My perception is that there is a faction sees the present Marine Corps as being too heavy, and too vulnerable, in essence a second army prepared for an outdated mission; opposed amphibious assault.

The 'new' mission seems to be short-duration 'raids', quickly establishing a temporary base, performing assigned strikes, then quickly withdrawing.

Either direction has its risks, but the new ideas will also help make the Marine Corps more distinct from the Army, helping to justify its mission and existence.


  • 0

#2 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,232 posts

Posted 24 March 2020 - 1027 AM

Cutting out the tanks seems reasonable enough. Cutting the Viper attack heli units seems a bit much though but I guess F-35B is to generally take that role. If any Vipers become availble for sale, JGSDF might take keen interest in them. A bit surprised to see even a tilt-rotor unit get put on the cutting board though. Getting more anti-ship missiles seems a natural and good idea.
  • 0

#3 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,646 posts

Posted 24 March 2020 - 1039 AM

It seems to go back to the classic marine mission (aside from suppressing mutiny, that is :P ) of being a maritime raiding force as an extension of naval objectives.  Still heavier than the hit-and-run units such as the Royal Marines, but not a second lumbering army with different uniforms


  • 0

#4 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,071 posts

Posted 24 March 2020 - 1145 AM

If they go too far the Marines will become a heavier version of the SEALs but without being able to parachute into a battlespace.


  • 0

#5 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,646 posts

Posted 24 March 2020 - 1200 PM

More like Royal Marine Commandos, heavy


  • 0

#6 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,277 posts

Posted 24 March 2020 - 2321 PM

Amphibious assault is an outdated mission, until the moment one is needed.

 

Without it, they lose one of their justifications for existence. Lose too many of those, and the next trim is going to be close.


  • 0

#7 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,909 posts

Posted 25 March 2020 - 1137 AM

Heavy armor is not a bad idea to have in the back pocket, especially with regards to consolidating your hold on beachheads in anticipation of a counter attack.  Just because you have them doesn't mean you have to use them, but as an organic tool in the toolbox that already has cohesion with regards to operational protocol and training it's nice to have.

The impression I get is that they're not doing this because they don't think the Marines should have heavy assets on principle and we're finally just trimming the vestigial fat -- they're doing it because they suck hind tit with regards to budget and it's the only way they can afford the enablers they'd like to have more because they're more likely to be used under this new vision.  Having both would be better, but they don't have the luxury of that so something had to go to pay for what they wanted.

Anti ship missiles? Didn't they come in on ships that are already bristling with those?


Edited by Burncycle360, 25 March 2020 - 1303 PM.

  • 0

#8 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,460 posts

Posted 25 March 2020 - 1925 PM

SW pacific island hopping campaign.


  • 0

#9 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,232 posts

Posted 25 March 2020 - 1942 PM

Yeah, I change my mind. How expensive could it possibily be to maintain a unit of tanks to warrant cutting them all?

Everything for F-35B, SSBN, B-21, so no tanks for you, sorry!
  • 0

#10 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,909 posts

Posted 25 March 2020 - 2013 PM

Imagine the backlash if they got rid of all fixed wing pilots and transferred those assets to the Navy, relying on the Navy exclusively for fixed wing air support.

"MY ESPRIT!"
 


Edited by Burncycle360, 25 March 2020 - 2014 PM.

  • 0

#11 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,652 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1158 AM

Amphibious assault is an outdated mission, until the moment one is needed.

 

Without it, they lose one of their justifications for existence. Lose too many of those, and the next trim is going to be close.

I agree.


  • 0

#12 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,971 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1401 PM

AS I WROTE IN 2000.

 

Today, the Marine Corps maintains a precarious balance in its armored fighting vehicle inventory, with modern units fielding capable weapons. The lessons of the Gulf War reside mainly in the archives and with the collective  but fading memories of the armored units themselves. Just as in 1945, one cannot speak of “armor” in the Marine Corps, just tank, amtrac and now armored reconnaissance units, which may or may not be used in modern combined arms or limited military operations with imagination and verve. We can expect to see a continuing search by the Marine Corps for the “light fighting tank” or even a tankless fighting vehicle force. The doctrinal weakness for operating mechanized forces may continue, as well as the emphasis on the smallest of units, especially with the reluctance to attempt costly mechanized and amphibious operations or exercises of any appreciable scale.  However small, the virtues of a technically and tactically superior fighting vehicle force remain a marked Marine Corps tradition.  It only remains for its leaders to take the fullest advantage

 


  • 0

#13 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,380 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1428 PM

Would it be completely unfair to think the DOD is making the USMC pay for the Navys procurement mistakes?
  • 0

#14 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,971 posts

Posted 28 March 2020 - 1537 PM

Hard to say at this point, Stuart, as amateur hour seems to rule equally from the White House, through the departments of DOD, State, Energy, inter alia. Just as the Dept of Homeland Hysteria flubs in its mission, thanks to appointments of the wrong persons to positions, critical positions remaining unmanned for over a year and so forth. An Army general is Chairman of the Jt Chiefs and the usual nonentities are the service chiefs. Their main requirement is to hail the Clown-in-Chief whenever possible, thus their work over the crystal ball of defense strategy, allocation of resources, can be unusually miscast. Dept of State is a disgrace, with few good men remaining; may be the same for Defense. Running it as if it were part of Trump Enterprises remains a scary prospect, however likely.


  • 0

#15 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,828 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 0541 AM

Hard to say at this point, Stuart, as amateur hour seems to rule equally from the White House, through the departments of DOD, State, Energy, inter alia. Just as the Dept of Homeland Hysteria flubs in its mission, thanks to appointments of the wrong persons to positions, critical positions remaining unmanned for over a year and so forth. An Army general is Chairman of the Jt Chiefs and the usual nonentities are the service chiefs. Their main requirement is to hail the Clown-in-Chief whenever possible, thus their work over the crystal ball of defense strategy, allocation of resources, can be unusually miscast. Dept of State is a disgrace, with few good men remaining; may be the same for Defense. Running it as if it were part of Trump Enterprises remains a scary prospect, however likely.

In all honesty and without a flame war, how was Obama and his choices any different? How was Clinton as Secretary of State any different?


  • 0

#16 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,380 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 0628 AM

In fairness, he US has lacked a strategic direction since the end of the cold war. I was reading Bob Woodwards book on Bush the Youngers white house, and some of the problems they had (senior military men who really didnt know what they were doing and what was required) seem eeriely similar to today. At least in part because the Politicians, lacking the certainty of a 40 decade conflict, didnt really know what they wanted anymore either.

 

I dont really see why the USMC needs to reinvent the Royal Marines, because thats what you have allies for. I also dont see why it needs to reinvent the Rangers, because that is what you have an Army for. I can only assume this is cost cutting dressed up as a rethink. We did the same thing in the early 90's as well.


  • 0

#17 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,971 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 1145 AM

 

Hard to say at this point, Stuart, as amateur hour seems to rule equally from the White House, through the departments of DOD, State, Energy, inter alia. Just as the Dept of Homeland Hysteria flubs in its mission, thanks to appointments of the wrong persons to positions, critical positions remaining unmanned for over a year and so forth. An Army general is Chairman of the Jt Chiefs and the usual nonentities are the service chiefs. Their main requirement is to hail the Clown-in-Chief whenever possible, thus their work over the crystal ball of defense strategy, allocation of resources, can be unusually miscast. Dept of State is a disgrace, with few good men remaining; may be the same for Defense. Running it as if it were part of Trump Enterprises remains a scary prospect, however likely.

In all honesty and without a flame war, how was Obama and his choices any different? How was Clinton as Secretary of State any different?

 

 

No need for any flame, Rick. Obama had his hands tied with a crashing economy and Republican opposition to voting funds to revive the economy, the opposite of today. Even after Obama managed the recovery from '09 onward, he had by then lost both houses of Congress and had to agree to the sequestering of defense funding [remember?] because the Rep were so fired up against deficit spending [remember that?]. 

 

How things change. Somehow things have been so far forgotten in Amerika, that the Clown-in-Chief can get away with bragging about a $58B increase in defense spending as 'restoring' the US armed forces. Nothing could be farther from the truth, which itself seems seldom used. Despite bragging about 'his' generals, he really treats them like dirt.

 

Not that it's relevant to the topic at hand, but Mrs. Clinton did not drive qualified experts out of State Dept., now largely vacant.


Edited by Ken Estes, 29 March 2020 - 1150 AM.

  • 0

#18 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,971 posts

Posted 29 March 2020 - 1154 AM

In fairness, he US has lacked a strategic direction since the end of the cold war. I was reading Bob Woodwards book on Bush the Youngers white house, and some of the problems they had (senior military men who really didnt know what they were doing and what was required) seem eeriely similar to today. At least in part because the Politicians, lacking the certainty of a 40 decade conflict, didnt really know what they wanted anymore either.

 

I dont really see why the USMC needs to reinvent the Royal Marines, because thats what you have allies for. I also dont see why it needs to reinvent the Rangers, because that is what you have an Army for. I can only assume this is cost cutting dressed up as a rethink. We did the same thing in the early 90's as well.

 

Frankly, I don't see any way to explain what we are seeing, Stuart. The US military establishment seems unable to function with a Fake President who never seeks advice nor accepts responsibility.


  • 0

#19 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,971 posts

Posted 30 March 2020 - 1005 AM

First the tanks, then the artillery, now the aircraft wing. This is beginning to look like the “ Commando “ model.
This CMC is very dangerous.Ugly
 
 

  • 0

#20 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,380 posts

Posted 30 March 2020 - 1032 AM

So how is reconciling aging equipment to be reconciled with entirely new platforms like the F35B? Thats like cancelling the F86 procurement because the F51's are aging. :D

 

If they want to do something about lack of pilots, bin all the F18's. Right now, they are ancient anyway. Then put the pilot that exceed requirements into roles other than flying and promise them an F35 slot when they come online. There, simple. We did that when we binned Nimrod, and whilst I didnt like it, at least we didnt sacrifice the future to pay for the past.


  • 0