via the USMC.
Ok Sir.Commandant calls Marine Corps' future 'frugal'
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.
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.
of all of your proposal's Solomon, I think 9 makes a lot of sense. I had not even heard that there was anything ever being considered in this area to begin with. I grew up Navy, enlisted in the Marines in 81', and have seen the amount of personal that are effected negatively having an impact on overall effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteI wish I had something to add, but well said Sir! I know that you are found of the F-35B, but to be honest I would love to see a remanufactured AV-8C?, with possibly the new sensors from the JSF and a new engine, that combined with the new APKWS. Semper Fi
ReplyDeleteYou forgot something, cut the F-35B. The F-35B is behind schedule, costly and is bogging down the JSF program as a whole. The F-35B also has a major problem in that it has nasty habit of melting carrier decks which could be a problem in a shooting war, not to mention the fiasco with the F-35B bulkhead if remember correctly. But everything else is right on.
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of thoughts...
ReplyDelete1. Is a monetary drop in the bucket and should only be weighed as an opportunity cost since its cost is effectively offset by the rifles it pushes back into storage that can be used to refurbish and maintain others. Now that there are reliab;e 60rnd magazines intended partially for these they will excel at providing more reliablely f/a fire to Marines that the more widely distributed M4 does to the army. In most units its only intended to supplement, its only intentionally lighter reconaissance units that are suppose to lose M249.
2. I think the speed and range advantage of the MV22 are more than niche and with the Navy wanting the Marine to operate from further off shore. As long as that is the case MV22 is an unfortunate necessity.
4. The JLTV is a bit of a break even. As it is the Humvee with all its add-ons and upgrades is overweight. The JLTV is about building a vehicle as capable as the upgraded Humvee but with less weight. Lower weight will reduce operating costs and in the long run pay for themselves. So if the money doesn't exist right now, back out, but the Marines will eventually want to do something like this.
Anonymous.
ReplyDeletethanks! they first proposed that idea during the Clinton admin (i think) and were almost castrated for it. i think (again) that they did a study and it would be a tremendous money saver but PC crowd won the day.
Will and USSHelm...
thanks for the agreement (where we agree) but understand...this is a no bash the F-35B zone! we love the F-35B, and support its movement into the fleet.
Keep the IAR, but give it to all of the branches and up the caliber to 6.8SPC, the M4 is old, although it looks the same as an M4, the IAR is truly revolutionary. Keep the MV-22, we're too deep into it, and it seems like it's coming more online for combat, it's the future of VTOL! Get the EFV back, or start on it replacement soon, another project so close to completion, it's a really good vehicle. The F-35B, must be completed, another VTOL craft that will lead that aerial arena.. Get rid of that 120mm mortar vehicle that fits in the V-22 and cost $850,000, and you need 2 vehicles, one to carry the mortar, and the other to cary the mortar ammo, nuts! Put it all on one, like the General Dynamics Flyer, and make a family of these vehicles, mortar, reconnaissance, spec ops, etc. We need the Marines, they're the ready to go force! I like the idea of a middle weight force concept. MOBILITY, LETHALITY, LOGISTICS!!!
ReplyDeleteYour world view is still stuck in the 80's. Welcome to the 21st Century, USMC.
ReplyDelete