This is a must read gents. Drink it in and then circle back here to discuss!
Friday, June 11, 2021
Marine Corps Force Design 2030. When it comes to missions, “in” is integrated deterrence. “Out” is seizing and holding terrain.
via 19fortyfive.com
A Narrow Focus on Success in the Indo-Pacific
When it comes to missions, “in” is integrated deterrence. “Out” is seizing and holding terrain. Yet in Europe and elsewhere right now, the nation is watching Russia seize and hold terrain on a regular basis. In Asia, if the United States were to not able to stop a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan, then those forces would ultimately need to be evicted from the land by ground forces.
As China and the Indo-Pacific region replaces the Middle East as the center of American strategic attention, Marine Commandant General David Berger seeks to return to the sea and position the Corps as the premier littoral combat force in the region. The central question Berger seeks to answer is, as noted in Force Design 2030, “what does the Navy need from the Marine Corps?” for the joint force to succeed.
The Pentagon’s 2022 budget request offers a reimagined Marine Corps: shrinking its infantry battalions, exchanging cannon artillery for longer ranged rockets and missiles, and, significantly, removing tanks from the Corps completely. The redesigned force will be tailored to projecting force from ship to shore in small, dispersed units, before turning its firepower back to sea to threaten opposing ships. However, as a result of focusing on the need to make naval power more effective in a conflict with China, the new structure potentially creates dependencies on the other services and in some scenarios transfers some responsibilities to the Army. These are important areas for Congress to explore.
----------
The Price of Specialization
While the Marine Corps is redesigning itself for the Indo-Pacific, China has chosen a different path for its marine forces, the People’s Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps continues to employ its own tanks and a variety of other armored vehicles, which given their likely focus on an invasion of Taiwan, makes sense. Not oblivious to the possible need for armor, the Marine Corps Force Design 2030 observes, “[h]eavy ground armor capability will continue to be provided by the U.S. Army. Pressured by downward pressure in the defense budget and feeling the necessity to make these changes to the Marine Corps, Gen. Berger has been forced to trade capabilities and end strength within his own service in order to pay for adaptation. Given more funding, he probably would not have made the choices he did. Nevertheless, the resulting new structure constitutes a potential new claimant for Army combat power.
Should unanticipated conditions require armor, artillery and more rotorcraft, the Marine Corps’ need for Army support could cause the mission to stall until additional forces can be deployed.
Some have criticized the Marine Corps’ efforts as too narrowly focused on one enemy—one area. Former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb notes, these changes “undo the value of the Marine Corps as the one-stop guarantor of a homogeneous tactical readiness that can “go anywhere, fight anybody, and win.”’ Worse, at least today, the Army is likely not prepared nor resourced to fulfill such new requirements.
CSIS’ Mark Cancian observes, “Army support for the Marine Corps, if provided at all, will likely come from the later deploying elements of the Army’s reserve components after the Army’s own needs have been met.” Certainly, theater commanders, if they anticipate the need for armor or artillery, could plan ahead to make Army support available at the point of need, but given unexpected situations, it’s possible the dependence created on Army support could threaten the very flexibility and responsiveness Force Design 2030 is designed to create.
Force Design 2030 is not the first time one of the uniformed services has prematurely reduced its armor capabilities to achieve a promised benefit of transformation. As the Iraq war ended, the Army restructured its last armored cavalry regiment into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. With the earlier decision to strip divisions of their cavalry squadrons to build organic but less capable reconnaissance units for now-interchangeable brigades supporting the war on terror, the Army’s reconnaissance formations were left without organic tank support. By 2016, however, tanks had been returned back in armored reconnaissance formations, a clear acknowledgment of the value of tanks in near-peer competition.
Academy Tells Army to Stick With Fossil Fuels; All-Electric Vehicles Not Practical
via National Defense.
Battlefields of the future will require the Army to invest in a mix of energy sources, including jet propellant 8 (JP-8), diesel and renewable diesel, but all-electric vehicles are not yet practical — at least through 2035, according to a study undertaken by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
The study — which was sponsored by the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology — tasked the Academies’ Committee on Powering the U.S. Army of the Future to analyze the energy needs of dismounted soldiers, manned and unmanned vehicles and forward operating bases on future multi-domain battlefields.
The report — which was unveiled June 9 — examined technological innovations regarding energy storage, power conversion and fuel efficiency.
While the Army prefers to use a single fuel across its vehicles, generators and turbine-powered aircraft, diversifying its fuel options would be beneficial, said the report, which was titled “Powering the U.S. Army of the Future.”
“JP-8, diesel and biodiesel will be the primary source of battlefield energy and power for the foreseeable future,” said John Luginsland, the committee’s co-chair and senior scientist and principal investigator at Confluent Sciences. “The combination of energy density and power is unmatched.”
However, the right mix would depend on whether it was war or peace time, the report noted.
Diesel is a very reasonable choice for powering military vehicles and could be preferred over JP-8 in selected climates during wartime conditions,” the report said. “It is readily abundant in many locations, which in certain situations would enable local resupply."
Diesel has a 9 percent higher volumetric energy density than JP-8, making it possible to reduce the number of supply trucks dedicated to fuel by an equivalent amount.”
During peacetime operations, biodiesel may be preferred to address environmental concerns associated with the continued use of fossil fuels, it added.
However, the report noted that the use of multiple fuels could present logistical challenges given the Army’s long-standing policy on using a single fuel type.
“Therefore, the advantages of using multiple fuels … need to be balanced against the logistic complexity challenges associated with their distribution,” the report said. “If such logistics proves to be excessively challenging in certain situations, then JP-8 use remains the preferred method of transported energy to the battlefield, to remain compatible with aircraft needs.”
Meanwhile, despite the Army showing interest in electric vehicles, the report noted that all-electric ground combat platforms and tactical supply vehicles are not practical for the majority of battlefield vehicles now or in the foreseeable future.
First, the energy density of batteries today is roughly two orders of magnitude less than JP-8, the report said. That results in excessive package weight and volume to meet maneuver needs.
“Advances in battery energy density will undoubtedly take place, but not enough to offset that magnitude of a disadvantage,” the report noted.
So much for using the Pentagon to fund the climate change agenda...unless they play stupid and further erode our defense posture by playing to the crowd instead of focusing on defending the nation.
Electric vehicle just ain't ready for prime time. It's an energy dead end...at least for now and the foreseeable future.
French Serval Multi-Role Vehicle qualified for amphibious operations...
Qualification du #SERVAL ➡️ la DGA vient de valider le transport du futur véhicule @armeedeterre à partir d’un porte-hélicoptères amphibie, de l’engin de débarquement amphibie rapide et du chaland de transport maritime #SCORPION #NotreDéfense pic.twitter.com/5mk37R9xDc
— Direction générale de l'armement (@DGA) June 1, 2021
Delivery of the first Griffon for the 1st REG
[UNE LIVRAISON ATTENDUE]
— Chef de corps 1REG (@CDC1REG) June 9, 2021
Livraison ce jour du premier Griffon pour le 1er REG ! Il s'agit d'un modèle "EPC" (pour engin poste de commandement). Premier d'une large dotation, 18 autres Griffon sont attendus au 1er REG dans les 12 mois à venir. pic.twitter.com/ZPwuYpr6x9
Thursday, June 10, 2021
A UK MP (some sort of politician) said this about our current President....
We're supposed to have a special relationship with the UK right?Your daily reminder of the kind of reckless and feckless people running this country. https://t.co/ElVA9nzOCd
— Tony Osborne (@Rotorfocus) June 10, 2021
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)