Monday, September 07, 2020

Kinetics (a reader of this blog) just made the best statement concerning the "Missile Marines" and future warfare!

Kinetics wrote the best comment about the Missile Marines I've seen yet.  Check it out...
I've yet to hear any of the defenders of the "missile marines" concept, and specifically the organization and armor balance of the current/future USMC, respond to any of the concerns that critics have laid out. There are plot holes as large as Texas in this concept, and it seems like its defenders are more than happy to pretend they don't exist and brush off any criticisms.

Firstly, island sites of any strategic value will be known to us and the Chinese. They'll need to be a certain size, in a certain area, and within reasonable distance of US naval forces in the SCS. You aren't setting up these missile sites without the Chinese knowing. You'll either have to conduct an opposed landing to seize an island that's preemptively taken by the Chinese, or you'll have to repel a significant attack from amphibious Chinese armored forces. To do either, you need armor. You need more than JLTV's, MRZR's, and Javelins...and at the moment all the USMC will deploy with just that - JL TV's, MRZR's, and MTVR's.

**You literally have to conduct the exact operations that the Commandant says are no longer possible, in order to carry out his concept of operations that is supposed to replace the previous operations that are no longer possible.**

Secondly, if Chinese A2/AD pose a strategic risk for future offensive amphibious landings, how does that same network not pose a threat to the slow, sizable landings needed to set up USMMC missile sites of any strategic value? You're talking about multiple batteries of HIMARS and ATACMs, the troops to go with them, supplies for extended duration deployments during a conflict, equipment to reload the launchers - and almost none of it coming in on vehicles with organic amphibious capability.

Third, what will the USMMC bring to the table that another branch can't? If you're essentially just landing HIMARS and ATACMs using LSTs and sts connectors...the Army can do that and they not only already have those missile systems in service, but they are going to have a much more mature command and control system in service, to include linked and networked defensive missile systems that the USMMC will not have.

Finally, there is a misinterpretation of the issue raised by the USMC shedding armor. It's not that you need Abrams to be useful, it's that the USMC is shedding all of its armor and that is a problem. No Abrams, likely no LAR, very limited numbers and types of ACVs, weak SHORAD capability at best, and the majority of the USMMC's armor will come from JLTVs that the USMC have raised strategic concerns over for the better part of a decade.

This concept, or at minimum its application, and the force structure that is intended to carry it out, are fundamentally flawed and broken at best.
Well said bro!  Extremely well said.  What kills me the most about this is one simple thing.

Berger's concept HAS NO APPLICATION in any other region on this planet.  It's a sickly, ailing, broke-dick, one trick pony!

The United States Missile Marines is a broken organization from conception. It should be aborted before it can reproduce.

Sidenote.  One thing I have yet to hear.  NO ONE is speaking in defense of this.  Outside of the usual idiots in the Think Tank community, I don't hear one person that isn't under Berger's desk (pleasuring him with all their might) speaking out in defense of this abomination.  That's telling.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.