via Defense One.
Sequestration is here. We have to deal with it and we have to plan accordingly. So the question becomes ...what do we cut? What capability can we SAFELY take a holiday on? Where are we fully capitalized and any additional resources would be wasteful?
This is what I would cut.
The F-35. You don't like it. You want to deny it, but life is a bitch and checkbooks aren't bottomless. The USMC can't afford it. I doubt that the Brits can. Neither can our other partners. And unless the USAF buys its full compliment and gets the program ramped up quickly (I find the earlier statement by Lockheed about ramping up production adding to more jobs comical) it just won't happen.
Whats worse for F-35 supporters? Your daddy Amos admitted that sequestration is here. You can stick a fork in F-35 purchases...at least accelerated purchases. You heard it here first. The plane is in a death spiral. Everyone knows it, you just won't admit it.
If what I'm saying turns out to be true then why not wait for the death? Because the USMC needs to get ahead of the problem. Fixed wing aviation for our LHDs and LHAs can be managed now, if we take the necessary steps. Best course of action. Take steps to extend the life of our Harriers. NAVAIR says they're good right now till 2030. We need to squeeze every bit out of them while we start a proper STOVL program....A joint program that will include all the free nations that operate Big Deck Amphibs. The Navy and Air Force won't participate but the Japanese, Singaporeans, S. Koreans, Italians, Australians, Spaniards and new members of the club would love the chance to design the Harrier III in conjunction with the Marine Corps. With these partners it would be bigger than the F-35C part of this program and would be a money maker for corporations and money saver for all those defense departments.
V-22. I would kill all future purchases right now. Don't pass go. No retreat just cold reality. We would join the Navy in the purchase of the MH-60 series and save a shit load of cash. Excess V-22s would be tossed to AFSOC or the 160th.
SPMAGTF. I would kill these organizations and toss the crazy idea of a Crisis Response force that isn't based on MEU's to the Special Forces or if its too big for them over to the US Army. Marines float, they're aboard amphibs and they are the Corps Crisis Response Force. No more craziness that hasn't been properly experimented. The days of pulling concepts out of your ass are over.
Reduce the number of Generals. An outfit that is comprised of 4 Divisions (reinforced) is allocated (and is filled with) 80 General Officer spots. You've got to be joking! 80 Generals to command a force that totals a bit under 200,000 right now! If I need to go on about the insanity of this then something is wrong.
Civilian Personnel. There was a time when civilians cost less to employ than a Marine in a particular job. Those days are over. Additionally many of those civilians are operating as contractors instead of civilian government workers which mean they're even more expensive. Any job that can't be justified will be cut. We won't even have to do the work. We simply ask each department to issue a statement (one page or less) explaining how what they're doing is essential to the day to day operations of the Marines and if its bullshit they're gone.
Keep MARSOC but support goes. I'm resigned to the idea that Amos is in bed with MARSOC so it'll continue until the COIN mafia is put back in its cage. But that doesn't mean that it can't be streamlined. There are three battalions of shooters and three support battalions. Make them lean. Three battalions with one support battalion. If that means that personnel are rotated in and out so be it, homesteading in SOCOM shouldn't be a Marine Corps thing.
Close Logistics bases. We have Logistics bases on both coasts. Why? Shut them down and move the activity to Pendleton and Lejeune respectively.
There are probably many more cuts available but this is off the top of my head. Its not perfect but its a start. But even better tell me your ideas. Sequestration is a reality. Deal with it and lets plan for the lean times.
Note: What's left unsaid is what isn't being cut. Infantry Battalions are intact. Artillery, Engineers, Aviation. Some gear, senior ranks, civilians and bases are sacrificed for people.
And the Marines are undergoing historic budget cuts and threats to cut the force structure to as low as 150,000, something Amos says will be impossible to do. “I’m past denial,” he said. “I’m no longer in denial of sequestration. I’ve confessed that it’s here and we own it. We don’t like it but we own it and we’re going to have to live with it.”Even a liar can occasionally be counted on to state the obvious.
Sequestration is here. We have to deal with it and we have to plan accordingly. So the question becomes ...what do we cut? What capability can we SAFELY take a holiday on? Where are we fully capitalized and any additional resources would be wasteful?
This is what I would cut.
The F-35. You don't like it. You want to deny it, but life is a bitch and checkbooks aren't bottomless. The USMC can't afford it. I doubt that the Brits can. Neither can our other partners. And unless the USAF buys its full compliment and gets the program ramped up quickly (I find the earlier statement by Lockheed about ramping up production adding to more jobs comical) it just won't happen.
Whats worse for F-35 supporters? Your daddy Amos admitted that sequestration is here. You can stick a fork in F-35 purchases...at least accelerated purchases. You heard it here first. The plane is in a death spiral. Everyone knows it, you just won't admit it.
If what I'm saying turns out to be true then why not wait for the death? Because the USMC needs to get ahead of the problem. Fixed wing aviation for our LHDs and LHAs can be managed now, if we take the necessary steps. Best course of action. Take steps to extend the life of our Harriers. NAVAIR says they're good right now till 2030. We need to squeeze every bit out of them while we start a proper STOVL program....A joint program that will include all the free nations that operate Big Deck Amphibs. The Navy and Air Force won't participate but the Japanese, Singaporeans, S. Koreans, Italians, Australians, Spaniards and new members of the club would love the chance to design the Harrier III in conjunction with the Marine Corps. With these partners it would be bigger than the F-35C part of this program and would be a money maker for corporations and money saver for all those defense departments.
V-22. I would kill all future purchases right now. Don't pass go. No retreat just cold reality. We would join the Navy in the purchase of the MH-60 series and save a shit load of cash. Excess V-22s would be tossed to AFSOC or the 160th.
SPMAGTF. I would kill these organizations and toss the crazy idea of a Crisis Response force that isn't based on MEU's to the Special Forces or if its too big for them over to the US Army. Marines float, they're aboard amphibs and they are the Corps Crisis Response Force. No more craziness that hasn't been properly experimented. The days of pulling concepts out of your ass are over.
Reduce the number of Generals. An outfit that is comprised of 4 Divisions (reinforced) is allocated (and is filled with) 80 General Officer spots. You've got to be joking! 80 Generals to command a force that totals a bit under 200,000 right now! If I need to go on about the insanity of this then something is wrong.
Civilian Personnel. There was a time when civilians cost less to employ than a Marine in a particular job. Those days are over. Additionally many of those civilians are operating as contractors instead of civilian government workers which mean they're even more expensive. Any job that can't be justified will be cut. We won't even have to do the work. We simply ask each department to issue a statement (one page or less) explaining how what they're doing is essential to the day to day operations of the Marines and if its bullshit they're gone.
Keep MARSOC but support goes. I'm resigned to the idea that Amos is in bed with MARSOC so it'll continue until the COIN mafia is put back in its cage. But that doesn't mean that it can't be streamlined. There are three battalions of shooters and three support battalions. Make them lean. Three battalions with one support battalion. If that means that personnel are rotated in and out so be it, homesteading in SOCOM shouldn't be a Marine Corps thing.
Close Logistics bases. We have Logistics bases on both coasts. Why? Shut them down and move the activity to Pendleton and Lejeune respectively.
There are probably many more cuts available but this is off the top of my head. Its not perfect but its a start. But even better tell me your ideas. Sequestration is a reality. Deal with it and lets plan for the lean times.
Note: What's left unsaid is what isn't being cut. Infantry Battalions are intact. Artillery, Engineers, Aviation. Some gear, senior ranks, civilians and bases are sacrificed for people.
Your last point makes some reasonable sense; US military wise there is numerous real estate, buildings, land, bases that either are not used, little used or simply duplicating assets elsewhere in the US.
ReplyDeleteA lot of waste is there, I can understand senators defending them... but that time is over. Centralization now would free up funds/soak in a lot of those cuts.
you say the last point is reasonable but ignore the fact that their are 80 generals inside the Marines? Colonels command battalions so what is the point of having that many generals?
Deletein essence you could put a general in command of every infantry battalion the Marine Corps has and still have some left over.
the MV-22 provides capability that is beyond that which is needed by the Marines. part of the SPMAGTF crisis response is to highlight the need for the V-22. but its a poor application. i could go down the line but it seems that some aren't ready to really start cutting yet.
that's ok. the pain is coming and if not managed it will be real.
people are going to pay the price for the lack of foresight and courage today. just watch.
Oh, I was just commenting on the last point, its strange how that (and Cv staff) wasn't the first option to cut, rather than go for personnel and equipment.
DeleteCentralization in officers is an obvious move too, one that is usually shouted about in the media. I wonder what these 80 odd do? Probably a good number are in project management positions.
You sure are in a hurry to cut the Marine Corps of all its tools
ReplyDeleteThe F-35. The plane is in a death spiral. Everyone knows it, you just won't admit it.
ReplyDeletehttp://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/07/f-35-price-dropping-again-too-bad-so-sad.html
someone tell Mac
"members of the club would love the chance to design the Harrier III in conjunction with the Marine Corps."
WTF is a harrier III? What kind of engine would it use? how do you evolve a harrier any more than it already has been? Where does the procurement money come from with sequestration here?
V-22. you have suggested it before and me and several others told you why its a bad idea. Its still a bad idea. Spending billions to buy something, then billions more to replace it after only 5 years is the kind of stupid you would be railing against in this blog if someone suggested it. H-60s can't do what V-22s can. The V-22s are bought and paid for, lets get our money's worth. besides we have trained people with the V-22s and our doctrines have been changed to incorporate its capability.
SPMAGTF. The days of pulling concepts out of your ass are over.
The Marines are constantly looking for ways to stay cutting edge. And SPMAGTF isn't created for the reason you think it is. It has another purpose.
Reduce the number of Generals.
The Marine Corps like all military organizations is not a centralized force. It has a chain of command that from the outside appears redundant but is not.
Civilian Personnel.
So let me get this straight, The Marine Corps is shrinking, and you want to eliminate civilian contractors, thus forcing Marines to have to do those jobs rather than being trigger pullers? You are prescribing more work with fewer people than ever to do it?
Precisely, more work done by fewer people, this is not a comfort job, somehow we won two world wars without all those contractors, I have attended a few schools that had contractors as instructors, and was not impressed, myself and a handful of Captains and Majors, all were very critical of the implementation of contractors within the course, they did not offer anything that another Marine couldnt have taught. Scrap the F-35, design a 4.5 gen fighter that can out-turn and burn anything the ChiComs throw at us and call it a day. Tell the aerospace companies that we wont buy anything above price "X." No idea why we pay for the research, isnt that part of the companies expenses? Not sure why the USG should pay for any part of a product except the end item.
DeleteEIGHTY generals!? Holy moly. Where do they put them all?
ReplyDeleteI think the entire Israel Defense Force has about half that for all three branches, mostly in the army. And a couple that are listed are actually not IDF posts at all, such as the present heads of Shabak (Security Services) and Mossad (civilian intelligence).
How do you find enough busy work for EIGHTY generals?
yeah its pure craziness. we do stuff like setup a Marine Expeditionary Force (FWD) and leave the MEB on the shelf, then we turn around and emphasize the MEB in major exercises!
Deletewe should have two warfighting formations the MEU for small wars, quick reaction and other small contingencies and then the MEF which would take over the roles for the MEB all the way up to two of our four divisions (one reserve) being engaged in combat.
long story short, we give them billets that occupy their time and then give them awards when they leave to go to another duty post.
less than 1 percent of Marine Officers are Flag Grade.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps
http://www.tecom.marines.mil/Portals/120/Docs/Student%20Materials/CREST%20Manual/RP0102.pdf
80 is not excessive for the size and responsibility of the Marine Corps based on its current style of organization.
Cutting that number by even a third would require a drastic reorganization of the way Marines operate from top to bottom.
for example 16 generals (nearly 1/4) are already used for the wing and division commanders and XOs.
This is a red herring. The officers are already being cut as it is, and will continue to be cut as the force shrinks over the next two years. The Marine Corps actually has very few generals, and of course has the lowest officer to enlisted ratio as it is.
are we just complaining that 80 because it "sounds high" or have we actually taken a look to see what they do and where they are to see if some can be trimmed?
So let me get this straight.
ReplyDeleteYour suggestion for a "future Marine corps" is relying on aircraft and helicopters designed in the 70s (that require more aircraft to move the same amount of people Osprey 26 marines black hawk 13),
moving us onto fewer bases with more people crammed in them,
while scrapping V-22s we have already paid for, and canceling an aircraft which we have invested years and billions in and would replace 3 aircraft with one saving us maintenance redundancy,
all while completely altering our T/O & E ?
Keeping the F-35 based upon the logic that we have invested years and billions in the program is false logic. The invested funds are a SUNK COST. This program was badly flawed conceptually from day 1. You do not design one aircraft to do all of the roles that the F-35 has been tasked to do, and that bad concept is now coming home to roost. The navy version cannot reliably land on a carrier because the tail hook is too close to the main wheels. The wings were made small because they had to fit on the elevator of a marine corp small helicopter carrier - which made the wing loading higher, and impacted the maneuverability of the aircraft for all of the services. The F-35 has the wing loading of an F-105, which was shredded in dogfights in 'Nam. The F-35 is overweight, and to reduce weight, some of the fire suppression was removed. Taking fire suppression equipment off a plane that is supposed to be a close air support plane to replace the A-10 would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that this is going to get pilots killed or captured. The F-35 is history repeating itself. Go back and research the TFX/F-111 program in the 60s.
Delete