Changes have been stated, disbanding armor and severely limiting “ the King of Battle ( Artillery)”, in exchange for unmanned technology which simply has not been designed and fielded yet. Sounds like a hatchet job on the USMC.
“Sounds like a hatchet job on the USMC.”
Perhaps. But, I have been hearing lots of Scuttlebutt about returning The Corps to their historical core mission of Littoral Combat. Securing a beachhead. And, relinquishing the more modern mission of in-country inland combat back to the Army.
So, I need to learn more detail before I render judgment.
One new mission that the MarineCorps has recently organized for, and have begun training for in Hawaii, is to rapidly deploy small teams, that will be verylow
...very low signature, to deliver Intermediate Range missiles- like ship killers for Anti-Access/Area Denial in the South China Sea.
To be fair, the current Abrams is so heavy, only one can be brought ashore per LCAC. The current Paladin 155 isn’t a lot lighter. Neither is air-droppable either. That’s a big problem with getting critical mass of forces to the beach quickly.
If its a hatchet job, its a self imposed one. I work with a Marine, and he approves of a lot of the moves. They want to focus to Corps on expeditionary strike missions and simply don’t see armor and artillery (with the accompanying logistical support requirements) as crucial to that effort.
We’ll see what happens.
Drone technology is being fielded, and demonstrating its capability.
When you have cheap drones flying over the battlefield, targeting expensive tanks and artillery, the future of big, expensive hardware is put in doubt, in the same way that big battleships were rendered obsolete by air power in WW2.