USMC has a frugal future? A few modest proposals...

via the USMC.

Commandant calls Marine Corps' future 'frugal' 

2/9/2011  By Gunnery Sgt. Bill Lisbon  , Marine Corps Air Station Yuma 

 

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION YUMA, Ariz.  — The Corps’ commandant gave a glimpse at the future of a frugal Marine Corps returning to an expeditionary mindset Feb. 9 during a speech in San Francisco’s Marine Memorial Club. Six months before Gen. James F. Amos took the stage, the Secretary of the Defense stood at the same podium, asking the Corps to define its place in the future of the American military.
“When the boss challenges you to do something, you probably ought to take it seriously,” said Amos.
Amos’ response was outlined in his October 2010 planning guidance, calling the Marine Corps a middleweight force – “light enough to get there quickly, but heavy enough to carry the day upon arrival.”
Yet, over the past six years, the Corps has grown accustom to large budgets linked to virtually limitless funds to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those days are over, said the commandant.
“In today’s fiscally constrained environment, we must continue to improve our efficiency. Marines have historically been known as ‘the Penny Pinchers,’” said Amos. “At the end of the day, Congress and the American people know that the Marine Corps is a value and that we only ask for what we truly need.”
In fiscal year 2010, the Marine Corps consumed only 8.5 percent of the defense budget, yet provided 31 percent of the nation’s ground operating forces, 12 percent of its fighter and attack jets and 19 percent of its attack helicopters.
On Feb. 7, Amos briefed Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the results of a comprehensive review of the Corps’ force structure and his plans to craft a post-Afghanistan Marine Corps.
Among the changes in store, the Corps would “right-size” for a post-Afghanistan world. While Amos didn’t detail what that size would be, it’s likely to be between 15,000 and 20,000 fewer Marines, according to Gates.
The commandant also plans to eliminate unnecessary headquarters and flatten the Marine Corps command structure “where it makes sense to do so” and transition 7 percent of non-operational forces to operational billets.
A vital part of building capabilities to support a middleweight expeditionary force is the Joint Strike Fighter, said Amos.
Despite the Marine version of the JSF being put on a two-year probation, Amos said the Marine Corps is committed to working closely with industry to get this platform back on track in terms of cost, performance and schedule.

“I am personally tracking the progress of the F-35B on a daily/weekly/monthly basis,” he said. 

The capability inherent in the F-35B, a short take-off and vertical landing jet similar to the AV-8B Harrier, facilitates the Corps’ doctrinal form of maneuver warfare and its need for close air support in the many austere conditions and locations where it will likely operate in the future, said Amos.

“When evaluating runways around the globe, there are 10 times as many 3,000-foot runways capable of handling the STOVL JSF variant as there are 8,000-foot runways required for conventional fighter aircraft,” said Amos. 

Additionally, the efficiency gained in training, maintenance, and support realized when the Marine Corps is operating a single aircraft, instead of three, will save the nation more than $1 billion a year, said Amos.

Ok Sir.

If you're serious about frugality then lets get real.  Here are a few modest proposals.

1.  Kill the IAR.  Its not needed, not necessary and to be honest is just a twinkle in the Gunner's eyes.

2.  Stop production of the MV-22.  Speed up development of the CH-53K.  The MV-22 is a great airplane but is too niche driven for the USMC.  The CH-53K will be a capable, full spectrum jack of all trades.  If we are going to be frugal then we must realize that specialization is for insects!

3.  Stop purchases of new snivel gear.  The Grunts have had  a heyday.  Time to put an end to the good times.  Upgrades to equipment carriers, boots, etc...are unnecessary.  Not only is manpower diverted to these efforts when we can simply have a small staff in place with Army development teams, but it also has our supply chain in turmoil.  Change and upgrades are good.  Too much and its not so good.

4.  Officially withdraw from the JLTV program.  Nice to have but too expensive.  Capsulize the HUMVEE, upgrade its engines and suspension and be done with it.  Continued upgrades will give us adequate if not great vehicles.

5.  Kill the MPC program.  Controversial I know but lets face some facts.  The Marine Corps hasn't been fully motorized in its history.  If another desert war occurs then we've already shown that we can make do.  MTVR's and AAVs along with HUMVEEs should carry the weight of our infantry mobility for a few years.  Risky but manageable.

6.  Speed up the AAV Replacement Program.  You want the Marine Corps to retain its Amphibious roots?  Then this vehicle replacement is necessary.  Also get those upgrades on legacy vehicles going ASAP!

7.  Dump the term "Expeditionary"...Marine Expeditionary Units should revert to their historical (Vietnam era) name of Marine Amphibious Units....Marine Amphibious Brigades...Marine Amphibious Force.

Words mean things and the word expeditionary has been bastardized.  Its lost its luster and doesn't suit the Force in Readiness from the Sea that the Marine Corps is.  Amphibious is the term that most matches the Marine Corps mission.

8.   Cut General Officer positions by 25%, Headquarters Staffs should be consolidated or eliminated..extraneous missions should be given to the other services and the Marine Corps should once again be a place of warfighters, not technicians.  I realize that it already is but this image should be burnished, polished and brightly shown.  Cuts in the General Officer Corps and slashing of Commands/Headquarters Staffs would go a long way to doing this.

9.  Revisit the proposal to not allow married first term Marines to enlist or remain in the Marine Corps.  The modern family is strangling the Marine Corps.  Its no good for the Marine or his family.  How many PFCs have you seen with a wife, two kids, a dog and a cat living in base housing, barely making ends meet and consuming not only command time but requiring an enormous amount of base services.

Be bold.  Make this happen.

German STOVL efforts during the 60's...

Few remember it but the West Germans were the most aggressive of all the allies when it came to efforts to field STOVL aircraft back in the 60s.

They were faced with the same threats that US forces are presented with in the Pacific vs. the Chinese military.  Just as we fear bases being rendered unusable due to attack, the West Germans faced that possibility from the Soviet Union.

Two examples of promising planes that were left on the drawing board.



Note the FOB (Friend of Bill) at the beginning of this second video..I wonder if he knows this guy;))

Experimental Fighters from the '60s...

XF-108

XF-109

XF-103

XF-107

A blogger named SteelJawScribe has me on a historical kick when it comes to aircraft.  He's been doing a series on the Centennial of Naval Aviation which got me looking a bit more at the history of aviation in general. A little light Googling brought me not only these futuristic (even today) examples but many others that date even earlier.

Fascinating stuff...At least in my opinion.  More to come.

Just plain dumb. Force cuts and boost-ups make no sense.

Thanks again Lee...

via Navy Times.

A comprehensive review of the Marine Corps’ size and capabilities wrapped up in December. Amos was expected to brief Gates on its findings late last month, the service’s assistant commandant, Gen. Joe Dunford, told Marine Corps Times in January after the Defense secretary mapped out an aggressive cost-savings plan to shed between 15,000 and 20,000 active-duty Marines beginning in 2015.
That announcement also included plans to cancel procurement of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, an armored amphibious troop transport long plagued by setbacks and cost overruns, and to delay development of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, a stealthy short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing aircraft that has encountered its own developmental difficulties.
As planned, the manpower reduction would leave the active-duty force at 182,000 to 187,000 Marines, larger than it was in January 2007 when Gates authorized the plus-up to 202,000. It raises questions, however, about the units that may be cut. As part of the buildup, the service activated numerous units that had been dormant for years, including three battalions that had fallen under 9th Marine Regiment, out of Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Those units — 1st Battalion, 9th Marines; 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines; and 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines — now belong to other regiments, with 1/9 reporting to 8th Marines, 2/9 reporting to 6th Marines and 3/9 reporting to 2nd Marines.

A couple of points.

1.  Killing the EFV?  Old news.  Accepted.

2.  Delaying the F-35B?  Old news.  Accepted.

3.  Killing 9th Marines?  Again?  One of the most fabled units in the Marine Corps?  Gonna have to think hard about that one.  But the problem with this is ... any unit that gets deactivated will be fabled.  Tough choice.

4.  Stopping at a max 182, 000 Marines?  Why that number and not 175, 000?  That has always been the traditional number and has proven to be an effective peacetime strength.  Gonna have to get some metrics on that.

Later in the Navy Times article we have this blurb...

Conway’s guidance also called for options to expand numerous capabilities, including special operations, civil affairs, cybersecurity, information operations, psychological operations and military advising.

5.  Why is the Marine Corps even bothering with Cybersecurity?  Just like Medical services, wouldn't it be better to farm this off to the Navy or Air Force?  Not accepted.

6.  Civil Affairs?  Again, why not provision this from the US Army?  Not accepted.

7.  Information Ops/Psych Ops/Military Advising?  I see the worth of having these skills but again, if we're in the midst of tight budgets why not resource these units from the US Army.  Better to have an Army detachment assigned to Marine Corps Battalions rather than having to develop these resources in house.

Military Advising is particularly bothersome.  We do that all the time with training missions worldwide.  Cobra Gold going on right now is an example.  Training with the S. Koreans was another example.  Developing a separate unit to perform this mission inside the sphere of Marine Corps Special Ops Command is a waste.  Toss this puppy back to the Army.

8.  Expand Marine Corps Special Ops?

You're gonna hate me.

I don't mind.

Why are we duplicating skill sets that already reside inside US Special Operations Command.

Force Recon is wonderful.

Even glorious.

But really?

Recon?  Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, and Rangers already perform those missions.

Raids?  Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, and Rangers already perform those missions.

Wikipedia gives a good overview of mission sets but the point remains.  The skillsets that are brought to the table already reside in Special Ops Command.

If General Amos is truly bold, he'll pull Force Recon back.

Not accepted.

I can't wait to read General Amos' remarks.

Ounces = Pounds...Pounds = Pain...

I see a whole lot of pain in this pic. 

U.S. Marines with India Company, Battalion Landing Team 3/8, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), Regimental Combat Team 2, prepare to board an MV-22B Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (Reinforced), 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing at Camp Bastion, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Jan. 25, 2011. Elements of 26th MEU deployed to Afghanistan to provide regional security in Helmand province in support of the International Security Assistance Force. (DoD photo by Gunnery Sgt. Bryce Piper, U.S. Marine Corps/Released)

Super Hornet International...Way to go Trimble!

Stephen Trimble over at the Dew Line found this vid of the Super Hornet International.

Consider me impressed!

Seems to be quite capable and much further along than the Silent Eagle.  Maybe the USMC should....

Maybe a squadron or two????

Hardcore USAF thinks about airfield attacks and solutions...

Back in the 1950's that is...when thinking about warfare and future opponents was fashionable.

With a genuine threat from Communist China (as indicated from a Rand study) they still aren't on the STOVL bandwagon.

I wonder why?

Carbines as Combat Rifles...

Lee..love the article...hate the debate(yep, I agree with the other guy)...keep me in the loop..

The debate over the replacement/improvement of the M4 is once again raging.

How the US Army settled on a carbine to arm the majority of its troops is beyond me. 

How the US Marine Corps is slowly adopting this "FASHION" trend annoys the hell out of me!

The latest debate is raging on the pages of DefenseIndustryDaily.  Read the whole thing but make note of the following passages...

“The M4 Carbine is the Army’s primary individual combat rifle for Infantry, Ranger, and Special Operations forces (editors note...WHAT THE FUCK HQ's ARMY!!!  You're actually calling a Carbine a Rifle now???  SNAFU edit). Since its introduction in 1991, the M4 carbine has proven its worth on the battlefield because it is accurate, easy to shoot and maintain. The M4’s collapsible stock and shortened barrel make it ideal for Soldiers operating in vehicles or within the confines associated with urban terrain. The M4 has been improved numerous times and employs the most current technology available on any rifle/carbine in general use today.

and this...

“My unit – B Company, 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment – was deployed to Afghanistan from April 2005 to March 2006. While there, we were attached to Special Forces at Camp Tillman on the Afghan border…. I saw first-hand what happens when your weapon jams up because of the harsh environments we have to call home there. An 18B weapons sergeant was shot in the face due directly to his weapon jamming. I just can’t believe that after things like this happen, the Army is still buying more M4s.

I only have one thing to add to all this nonsense. 

We have a perfectly reliable. 

Superbly lethal. 

Highly effective Rifle in service right now. 

Its called the M-16A4.


If you like nomenclature games then add a sufficiently robust adjustable butt stock to it and call it M-16A5 but the  point is the Army attempted to fix something that wasn't broken all for style points.

Do remember that this was part of General Shinseki's attempt to "Special Op" the entire Army by giving them all berets and a cool Spec Ops rifle.

This from Wikipedia...

Prior to World War II, Army Ordnance began to see the full-size infantry rifle as unworkable as an individual weapon for the increasing proportion of service troops (truck drivers, supply personnel, radiomen, and linemen) as well as some specialist frontline troops who might need a handier weapon (paratroopers, officers, forward observers, medics, engineers and mortar crews). During prewar and early war field exercises, it was noticed that these troops, when issued the rifle, often found their individual weapon too heavy and cumbersome. In addition to impeding the soldier's mobility, a slung rifle would frequently catch on brush, bang the helmet, or tilt it over the eyes. Many soldiers found the rifle slid off the shoulder unless slung diagonally across the back, where it prevented the wearing of standard field packs and haversacks. Alternate weapons such as the M1911 pistol and M1917 revolver, while undeniably convenient, were often insufficiently accurate or powerful. The Thompson submachine gun was very effective in close-range combat but nonetheless heavy, limited in effective range (50–75 meters) and penetration, and not significantly easier to carry or maintain than the service rifle.
U.S. Army Ordnance decided that a new weapon was needed for these other roles but determined that a weapon for non-combat soldiers should add no more than five pounds to their existing equipment load.^[1] The requirement for the new firearm called for a defensive weapon with an effective range of 300 yards, much lighter and handier than the rifle, with greater range, firepower, and accuracy than the pistol, while weighing half as much as the submachine gun. Another stimulus to the carbine's rapid development was a concern over Germany's use of glider-borne and paratroop forces to infiltrate and attack strategic points behind the front lines, forcing support units and line-of-communications forces into combat with the enemy.^[2][3]

As a firearms instructor I follow loves to say...If your rifle is too heavy then you need to get stronger.  Our Infantry should get stronger and deal with the added ounces, range benefits and lethality that a full size rifle can bring to the fight.

Nuff said.  The real debate is over. 

Israel and Egypt...the best analysis by far...

Ferran!  Thanks.  This is by far the best analysis of the dangers that the current troubles in Egypt present to the Israeli people.  

Check out this analysis and follow the link to read the whole thing.  via STRATFOR.

By George Friedman
The events in Egypt have sent shock waves through Israel. The 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel have been the bedrock of Israeli national security. In three of the four wars Israel fought before the accords, a catastrophic outcome for Israel was conceivable. In 1948, 1967 and 1973, credible scenarios existed in which the Israelis were defeated and the state of Israel ceased to exist. In 1973, it appeared for several days that one of those scenarios was unfolding.
The survival of Israel was no longer at stake after 1978. In the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, the various Palestinian intifadas and the wars with Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in Gaza in 2008, Israeli interests were involved, but not survival. There is a huge difference between the two. Israel had achieved a geopolitical ideal after 1978 in which it had divided and effectively made peace with two of the four Arab states that bordered it, and neutralized one of those states. The treaty with Egypt removed the threat to the Negev and the southern coastal approaches to Tel Aviv.
The agreement with Jordan in 1994, which formalized a long-standing relationship, secured the longest and most vulnerable border along the Jordan River. The situation in Lebanon was such that whatever threat emerged from there was limited. Only Syria remained hostile but, by itself, it could not threaten Israel. Damascus was far more focused on Lebanon anyway. As for the Palestinians, they posed a problem for Israel, but without the foreign military forces along the frontiers, the Palestinians could trouble but not destroy Israel. Israel’s existence was not at stake, nor was it an issue for 33 years.

Marine Tanks in Afghanistan...the pictures...

U.S. Marines with 1st Marine Division, 1st Tank Battalion, Delta Company, navigates the terrain of Helmand province, Afghanistan in a M1A1 Abrams Tank while on a convoy escorted by 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward) (1st MLG (FWD)), Combat Logistics Battalion 8 (CLB-8) (not shown)on February 1, 2011. 1st MLG (FWD), CLB-8, provided security and maintenance while in route to forward operating base Edinburgh. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Staff Sgt. Brian A. Lautenslager/Released)

U.S. Marines with 1st Marine Division, 1st Tank Battalion, Delta Company, stop to give assistance to, 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward) (1st MLG (FWD)), Combat Logistics Battalion 8 (CLB-8) as they repair a AMK-970 tanker during a convoy through Helmand province, Afghanistan on January 31, 2011. 1st MLG (FWD), CLB-8, provided security and maintenance for the convoy while in route to forward operating base Edinburgh. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Sgt. Brian A. Lautenslager/Released)

Sgt Michael Fryman with 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward) (1st MLG (FWD)), Combat Logistics Battalion 8 (CLB-8), prepares to change tires on an AMK-970 tanker while on a convoy through Helmand province, Afghanistan, on January 31, 2011. 1st MLG (FWD), CLB-8, provided security and maintenance for the convoy while in route to forward operating base Edinburgh. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Sgt. Brian A. Lautenslager/Released)

F-35B at Pax River...

via Lockheed Martin...

BF-1 flight 88 at NAS Patuxent River, Md.

MMC/Boeing's Ship to Shore Connector.

Lee sent me this a couple of weeks ago (thanks buddy..!!) but life got in the way and I never shared it.  I'm interested in seeing what the competition was offering...but the fact remains.  If you want the Sea Base to actually work then this ship... or something like it... is going to be a big part of it.

SSC Gen Info+Tech Specs 1