Read it all here, but check out this passage....
These comments, interesting enough on their own, again highlight the meandering direction of the Corps, right now. There was no mention of the F-35, MV-22, or aviation assault. To be fair, that was not the topic, however, this demonstrated that the Marines are trying to be all things (expeditionary air force, light infantry aviation assault, conventional amphibious assault) in a time of severely constrained budgets. While they may want to be all things, the budget won’t allow it and the budget choices that the Marines are making show the path they’re committed to. The acquisition of the MV-22 and F-35, the cancellation of the EFV with no replacement on the horizon, the drawdown of personnel, the reduction of tanks and artillery from the heavy end of things, and the multi-billion dollar price tag for new amphibious ships all show that the Marines are going to be a light infantry, expeditionary air force for the foreseeable future. The Marines can talk all they want about traditional amphibious assault but the money simply isn’t there. By committing everything to the F-35 they’ve cemented their path, for better or worse.Change is chaos.
Amos has introduced organizational chaos to the Marine Corps. The biggest threat to the Corps is no longer outside forces. It now comes from so called "change agents" inside.
Looks to me like Navy left MC out in the cold on LCS and JHSV. It appears to be a lack of allegiance of Navy (which holds the purse) for Marines, with Amos not making a peep about being stiffed on watercraft and instead being content with fancy boutique aircraft. Suits Navy, they don't care. Why should they?
ReplyDeleteIt's not rocket science. The Marine units, with their gear, have to get from sea bases to shore. It's been ever thus, but now they'll be further offshore, that's all.
what kills me is that 80km off shore is nothing for an anti-ship missile. the same issues apply at 80 as they do at 25.
Deletethe scary thing that no one wants to admit is that we have two systems ... the MV-22 and the F-35 that don't give us a range advantage when you take into account current threat weapon systems.
we haven't even started talking about stuff in development.
Sol,
Deletehow do you get the GCE to shore ?
...and Gen. Amos did say 70-80 miles offshore = 135 km. - not 80 km.
DeleteAnd if Nautical Miles then = about 150km - near double your 80km...
Just say'n.
i flubbed up on it being KM, Miles or NM offshore. big deal. our conversation was about whether or not it was your standard 50 miles or whatever. it was much greater than that.
Deletethat's the point.
Don't know if you've seen this yet, sol, but it looks like the Navy's fight for more Super Hornets and less F-35Cs has been heating up behind closed doors:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/151662/the-us-navy-and-the-f_35%3A-a-status-report.html