Posted on 07/19/2019 8:34:31 AM PDT by robowombat
Money quote
“We must accept the realities created by the proliferation of precision long-range fires, mines, and other smart-weapons, and seek innovative ways to overcome those threat capabilities. I encourage experimentation with lethal long-range unmanned systems capable of traveling 200 nautical miles, penetrating into the adversary enemy threat ring, and crossing the shoreline – causing the adversary to allocate resources to eliminate the threat, create dilemmas, and further create opportunities for fleet maneuver.”
Berger also noted mine countermeasures as an area of focus for developing this future amphibious force capability.
He also noted that there isn’t enough money to build gear optimized for desert use, arctic use, jungle use and so on – instead, the Marines must focus on high-end, contested maritime spaces as its north star for developing and fielding new technologies.
Finally someone that lives in realville and not the WWII time and mindset.
The incredible shrinking military, is what it brings to mind here.
One of these days we’re going to be faced with a serious global situation and have limited ourselves to a one theater force plan that leaves our flank wide open.
Relative peace has deluded some people into thinking global conflict will never happen again, thus bringing that eventuality closer to reality.
My cousin is married to a Marine Tank Battalion Lt. Colonel.
What does the future look like for Marines in tanks?
A global conflict may happen again, but that doesn’t mean we should gear up for it now. I like the idea of citizen-soldiers and an army that winds up from civilian to military as needed.
A standing army is immensely expensive as is a specialized force like the marines. This is a difficult military and political decision: how big is big enough?
Note that our standing army was small up to WW II. I’d prefer to return to the pre-WW II model.
Likely the same as for the Army - the USA has been moving away from heavy armor for some time now - The Stryker sound familiar?
My Uncle Ed (RIP) was a tread head for a short time - then switched to anti-armor unit. Called them (tanks) mulri-ton bullet magnets....
Hard to say when these 70+ ton battle behemoths will ever be used again in any number...
America will destroy itself from within by way of Civil War II that I see on the horizon within the next 10 years. In our moment of chaos and weakness on the world stage, it is then that China will step in and make its move on the United States. China ALREADY has a huge contingent of operatives in the United States awaiting their marching orders to sabotage our systems, thereby further weakening us and prepping the field for China.
Fallout from the 2020 presidential election will bring us that much closer to the inevitable Civil War II.
Yep, we have domestic enemies like the media, the schools, and many elected officials pushing us towards collapse.
Quote:”an incentives-based model would offer the ability to target incentives to specific individuals the Service wants to retain. We should use money like a focused weapon, and aim it at the exact individual we need. Currently, we target people via a mass fires approach, instead of more selective targeting. While we hope this results in the retention of the most talented, our antiquated models may also retain poor performers,” he wrote.” End Quote.
The fact that this is written in bureaucratic jargon is a bad sign in itself. All that’s missing is mention of paradigms. How about some plain speaking instead of overblown prose?
“Note that our standing army was small up to WW II. I’d prefer to return to the pre-WW II model.”
The military and the United States paid a huge price for that small and ill prepared military force, ranked behind Bulgaria when WW2 started. It was a politically expedient but really bad idea then and it still is, especially given the much higher velocity of military operations today.
My takeaway is that we are telling the navy to go ahead and cut the funding from some of the new amphibious ship construction budget, since "the future is going to be different" - which will thrill the Navy, since they've always hated to devote any part of their budget to amphibious ship building and manning.
Another takeaway is that the Marine Corps has no idea what the future will actually bring but the many career-dead Majors and Lieutenant Colonels of Marine Corps Development will figure it out.
My last takeaway is that this Commandant has no clue at all what the "next Marine Corps" will be - only that we will have to be "inclusive" and not discriminatory of gender and sexual preferences.
I guess the best we can hope for is that the machines take over combat as soon as possible.
My 60s era tank commander dad called them armored coffins.
Best part is the Generals commitment to the Navy/Marine Corps team consept, never should have been an effort to separate, (Divide & Conquer Democrat thinking). Sounds like the adults are running the show again. The USMC is the Navy’s most deadly weapon, and often Vice Versa. When the 2 work as a fully integrated team, bad things happen to bad people. As a side note, in this old Corpsman’s humble opinion, the USMC keeps the Navy Honest.
The only way to overcome the high tech standoff weaponry is to couple advanced electronic countermeasure wit( high speed, low altitude insertion vehicles capable of multiple wave insertions of our troops and supporting weapons and gear. Otherwise we’ll have to resort to over the horizon bombardments designed to destroy coastal defenses, while simultaneously defending the fleet from long range attacks.
“As a side note, in this old Corpsman’s humble opinion, the USMC keeps the Navy Honest.”
Sheesh, that’s the way it’s always been, Marines tasked with maintaining shipboard order and discipline. LOL! Simper Fi Doc!
I agree that a WWII style amphibious landing is for the most part impractical in a true all out war scenario.
The capability does still need to exist, as alluded to.
I would expect to see more Remote piloted attacks and troop/logistic airlift for initial combat situations with amphibious only for logistical support after beachhead areas are deemed secure.
My view is the Marines have become, since Afghanistan, a 2nd Army. Or at least they seem to be treated that way, when they are intended to be a Naval service providing ground attack capabilities and support.
Note: the reason that Marines serve embassy duty is partially because the Navy has a specific authority to propose and negotiate treaties. Arises from the old days when communications took months if not years. The Marines would then provide security for established embassies/posts that resulted.
Would love to see Marines on every Ship instead of just amphibs and carriers, though I doubt that is going to happen.
I was in (USN) just after the ‘86 document (’85-’94) so the ‘lack of integration’ weren’t as apparent.
I can understand having 2 seats at a joint table could create more conflict between the two. If it’s gotten as significant as it seems from the article then it definitely needs addressed.
Just my initial 2 cents.
“propose and negotiate” in no way of course means ratify.
" I will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) to ensure there are adequate numbers of the right types of ships, with the right capabilities, to meet national requirements.”
Sounds like - "Change horses in the middle of the stream...before we've identified the new horse."
"...no place for those who are intolerant of their fellow Marines’ gender or sexual orientation; no place for those who engage in domestic violence; and no place for racists – whether their intolerance and prejudice be direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional.”
That last part makes Marines a 'free fire zone' for any radical aiming to disrupt the Corps. Accusations of "racism", "sexism", "intolerance" and "homophobia" will be directed at all straight males in the Corps. You might as well make AOC the Commandant and Ilhan Oman Asst Commandant.
"Booo Hooo, my feeling were hurt!"
I hate to say it, but this new Commandant sounds like an impending train wreck.
“There is no place in our Marine Corps for those who deliberately misuse their authority to physically or sexually assault another; no place for those who risk the lives of others by operating a motor vehicle while impaired; no place for those who are intolerant of their fellow Marines’ gender or sexual orientation; no place for those who engage in domestic violence; and no place for racists – whether their intolerance and prejudice be direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional.”
Sounds like no one with a Betsy Ross Flag tattoo is welcome in the Marines.
We gear up now to make sure that never happens. The best way to win a war, is to make the idea of starting one seem absolutely unacceptable to anyone thinking of it.
Cutting our forces to the point it seems someone has a chance, is the only sure fire way to guarantee we’ll have to lose hundreds of thousands of our citizens. (if not millions)
Pre-WWII this world was a much larger place. We had time to react to war and gear up. We won’t have that ace in the hole this time.
If our fleet is not up to snuff (literally invincible) before war breaks out, we won’t have a fleet for the duration. We have very few ship building yards. They would be taken out in short order. Then what?
We use our fleet for a buffer to prevent that sort of thing.
Yes, we have other means to protect our assets, but a cruise missile or two and everything is up for grabs.
We’re not going to have months/years to get our troop numbers up to what we need, trained, armed, and ready to go.
We have come to the place where we think we are invincible. We are not.
Our Navy is less that 1/3rd what it was when Reagan left office, and there’s talk of cutting it more.
How are we supposed to keep the shipping lanes open with a skeleton crew?
We have come up with a war plan that rests on 11 or so carriers. What happens if we lost 1/3rd of those in the opening moments of global conflict?
We already operate at a one theater level of preparedness in the Army. That’s our defense strategy today, and there’s always double talk of cutting this or that to be more prepared.
When pirates were openly plying their trade in the Indian Ocean region, Bush and Obama held off putting an end to it. Then India and even China send ships to stop it.
Is that our future vision for the sea lanes, China stepping in to put down hot spots?
If so, there is something very wrong with this picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.