Blame Paralus for this blog post.
I have a modest proposal. I've been looking at the Marine Corps budget trying to understand why our armor programs are in such a shit state and it keeps coming back to the aviation side of the house.
In essence the Marine Corps is paying an aviation tax because of the purchase of the V-22 and F-35.
I have a modest proposal. We have already shuttered several Infantry Battalions...time to close some aviation squadrons and get armor instead.
If we do without one squadron of V-22's and F-35's then we can have surplus numbers of Amphibious Combat Vehicles and Marine Personnel Carriers. As it is our Marine Corps is unbalanced and biased toward aerial insertion and light infantry actions.
We won't have the mobility or the firepower to engage a Chinese Mechanized Infantry Unit without intense air and artillery support. Even having M1 Abrams along probably won't prevent the Marine Ground Combat Element from being over run by a similar sized Chinese outfit.
We talk about being a medium sized force? Not hardly. Right now the Marine Corps is drifting towards being a bitched up seagoing 101st Airborne with fast movers added.
UPDATE: It just occurred to me that somewhere, Sweetman is laughing his ass off. I made the complaint about the Marine Corps needing a replacement for the EFV and that even at its present cost it was still a bargain/must have. He said the Corps could afford it if we weren't paying 100 mil a pop for the V-22. DAMN IT! The son of a bitch was right.
Ummm... What you accusing the USMC of is exactly the plan.
ReplyDeletehttp://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/26/the_future_of_amphibious_warfare_is_airborne
The truth is that we are positioning ourselves to be the Benghazi reaction force. That is what the new Quick Reaction MAGTF is for and what the Brass is pushing as a dream for the future. That a quick reaction force of 100 Marines in MV-22 with MV-22 refuelers will be able to fly 300 Nm from the MEU to rapid reaction.
I do not think it will work at all. If the situation is bad enough that the call "Send in the Marines" is sounded, then 100 grunts is not going to change anything with the rest MAGTF 300 Nm away. Instead you are adding 100 Marines to the previous death total.
My opinion is that we are setting our selves up not a middle weight force but as an extremely expensive lightweight force that is not capable of bringing enough ass to fight to make a difference.
A few weeks ago you had a post about how the US Military was in danger of becoming "SOCOM-ized" into a drone strike/raiding force in lieu of crafting a genuine grand strategy and implementing it with appropriate forces.
ReplyDeleteI think you may be onto something if the USMC is turned into something too light to do much of anything besides raiding.
This was at Danger Room the other day:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/decades-of-war/
basically they want to wage endless war with AQ.
And since we aren't ever going to send in the forces the size of the OIF or OEF debacles, who would they be looking at to beef up SOCOM?
Ocean-going Rangers a la the Royal Marines aka SOCOM, Mk 2.
That's what would happen to the USMC if they didn't have enough armor.
The wrong strategy, the wrong tactics and the wrong force-size and weight.
exactly right and let me say off the bat that i don't like the current Commandant. he's a nice enough guy and in the wing he's the perfect leader but he's not a grunt, he's not from the ground side...when the butter seperates and one side goes to the wing and the other to the ground the difference because extreme. all Marines but different INTENSITY!
Deletewe don't have anyone that is looking out for the needs of the Ground Combat Element. think about it. we basically have TWO Aviation boosters at the top of the Corps. an aviation Commandant and an Assistant Commandant for Aviation!
the Commandant has already said he's a fan of MARSOC which is in my opinion because he's influenced by his SGTMAJOR of Marines who's a Sniper and works an awful lot with that org.
the bigger Corps is getting screwed and NO ONE IS SAYING IT OUT LOUD!!!
Get rid of MARSOC first and then bring back Force Recon.
ReplyDeleteMarines are committing one mistake after another. First of all, they shouldn't killed off EFV outright. Second, if they had doubts regarding MPC, they shouldn't go ahead with half-hearted committment. Third, they should rejected re-manufactured Jeep (Growler) for ITV selection and instead went for a brand new design. And lastly, they choose JLTV over HUMVEE recap to appease Army and play politics.
wow. i agree 500% but will add that we need to KILL FURTHER MV-22 purchases and buy blackhawks to make up for the shortfall and KILL A squadron or even two of F-35's to pay for armor.
Deletei'm pissed about this situation. i can see where this is going to lead me and many won't be happy.
I look forward to the day of lighting every HMMWV on fire and watching the motor pool burn because I hate those things. So personally I am looking forward to the JLTV, but not the Marine version of the JLTV. We are insisting that ours weight less than the Army so that it is easier to transport by air. We are doing that by removing the underbody armor that allows the trucks to survive inground IEDs. Our solution is to carry them over the chokepoints using air lift; our official solution for IEDs is to not run over them.
DeleteWe are not the 101st. With the Osprey costing 120 million and a CH-53K looking about the same we do not have the lift capacity to transport an entire BN. We MUST have armor becuase we do not have the platforms to make our air mobile force work.
i didn't know that about the HUMVEE...so in other words the Marine version of the JLTV is worse than an upgraded Hummer...interesting. so we're getting another vehicle that really can't be justified, buying aircraft we can't afford and still ending up with less lift than a BN out of the 101st?
Deletewe're in a shit sandwich.
Part of the problem is that both the Army and Marines have flushed more money down the toilet in the past 2 decades on failed armor programs than it would take to upgrade all the Army and Marines armored vehicles if they bought OTS. They have a high aversion to buying the best available in many cases because it was designed somewhere else as well: see crusader vs PzH2K/AS90/K-9.
DeleteAs far as the EFV, it was primarily a solution looking for a problem. Couldn't swim fast enough for far enough to really make a difference.
As far as getting rid of some F35s and V22s, I would take from the F35s first, the V22s add much more capability to the marines than the F35s do. There are two other sources of mass F35 capability that can be relied on while there isn't another source of V22 capability.
NLOS-C was ready for prime time when that goddamn no good sob secdef Robert Rates slaughtered the entire FCS program. In fairness, NLOS-C was an outstanding piece of equipment comparing to its contemporaries i.e. PzH2000/K-9. It’s compact and agile, comes with a second to none fire control system. My only complaint is the puny 32 cal gun, but it can be easily lengthened to a modern 45 cal weapon. The rational for cancelling FCS? Weak protection especially against IED attack. That argument is valid for maneuver platforms only. Why on the earth we need top of the line armor protection for self-propelled gun. It’s not like the Paladin is such a good MRAP itself.
DeleteFrom what I can see, on paper the JLTV should be better than the HMMWV. That being stated several issues worry me like the air bag suspension. Reliability and durability are big issues to me and I coil spring are better at both than air bags. But we say we have to have the adjustable ride height for the MPF shipping.
DeleteThe other worry I have about the JLTV is that USMC is insisting on it being lighter than the Army version and is doing so by removing the underbelly armor. When Gates was secretary he canced that but apparently Panetta allowed it. Gates insisted that the vehicle be the same for all services but now I keep hearing about differences again.
Yet another worry is that we are going to buy only 5500 JLTV and not replace the entire HMMWV fleet. Instead we are just going to keep using HMMWVs unless you are infantry then you can have one. I hate HMMWVs because they we have pushed them beyond the design limits. If you take a uparmor load in 5 Marines with 3 days of supply and put a trailer behind it with more stuff it will break and or overheat if you try to make it off road or just drive up a hill for 10 minutes.
Maybe its just outsider looking in syndrome, but, the difference between Harrier and Lightning is immense, is the AAV really that bad?
ReplyDeleteThe UK lost 5 harriers during the Falklands War, a force well supplied with MANPADS would shred them.
The AAV would of course be chewed up by modern ATGMs, but so would any realistic replacement.
the vehicle is over 40 years old. if nothing else basic improvements in automotive components will make a replacement more reliable and less maintenance intensive.
DeleteRealistically both the AAV and Harriers need to be upgraded/replaced. The Marines really need an AAV replacement/upgrade with modern feature, even some technologically on par with the bradley would be a massive upgrade. Just having a modern ISR setup would be a nice upgrade.
DeleteThe F35 functionality however can be provided by two separate other branches of the military.