via Marine Corps Times...
Magee and DuVall aren’t the only Marines with concerns over the direction of the service’s amphibious procurement strategy. Marine Corps Times has confirmed that Amos received questions about his procurement priorities during the annual General Officer’s Symposium at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., in September and again at a meeting with retired three- and four-star generals.Read the entire article here.
Magee told Marine Corps Times that the generals’ discontent with Amos’ answers to those tough questions prompted Gen. Al Gray, the former commandant and a long-time friend, to encourage him not only to write the position paper but also to reach out to prospective commandants and other generals to lobby for a change in direction. Gen. Joseph Dunford was nominated to become the next Marine Corps commandant at about the time this effort was getting underway.
Gray refused to confirm Magee’s story, even off the record, but Marine Corps Times has confirmed that he’s been conducting speaking engagements recently around the Washington, D.C., area, and gave a closed-door procurement talk to active-duty officers at Quantico.
I told ya. Ya didn't believe me but I told ya.
The entire Marine Corps is NOT pleased with Amos' leadership and now its come out that the vacillation with the ACV project is the focus of that discontent.
Quite honestly, the plan while flawed is in keeping with the direction that was set out with the cancellation of the EFV. We would procure an amphibious combat vehicle tracked and would augment it with a wheeled vehicle.
So the inside politics is that the issue isn't the Marine Personnel Carrier. The issue is with the Marine Corps as Amos has it oriented. The idea of an Air Assault, 101st seagoing Marine Corps is just wrong.
The talk that defenses against ships are so ferocious that we must rely on airpower...while ignoring the fact that formidable anti-ship missiles will be covered by serious air defenses is pure craziness.
Gray came out in public, but the battle is raging in private.
Amos is surrounded. He has few supporters and is witnessing an entire Marine Corps waiting for him to retire.
Amos failed basic leadership one oh one.
Never leave a command in worse shape than when you took over.
He did, and now we're all waiting to clean up the mess.
Solomon, as you know, I'm not a supporter of the Corps' current direction. The referenced article suggests that Amos sees a need to move the assault point past 25 nm - well past. No AAV/ACV/EFV/whatever can do the amphibious bit from that distance. Hence, they must be airlifted and that provides the rationale for the Corps being an air assault organization. Note - this is the logic of the current Marine direction, not my opinion. If all that is correct, the Army has more and better air assault capabilities. That leads one to wonder why we need a Marine Corps if they're to be nothing more than a light infantry air assault group which duplicates an Army function but not as well and not as well funded - again, not my opinion, as you know. I'm just summarizing the logic of the current direction.
ReplyDeleteAll of the above hinges on the question of the assault starting point distance. As you know, I've stated that the point needs to be much closer in versus Amos' position (and the Navy's) that it needs to be much further out. I see the starting point distance as the key to much of the current problems and discussion.
Just a suggestion but I'd love to see a post from you about your thoughts on distance, type of assault, type of connectors, type of AAV/ACV/IFV/whatever that's needed. You've commented on the various bits and pieces but it would be very useful to pull it all together. I could learn something from it, for sure, since this isn't my area of focus. If you've done one in the past, my apologies for missing it and please point me at it!
Love the blog! You're on my daily list.
i've chewed on this for awhile and i think your basic concept is right, but the focus of your ire is wrong.
Deletethe only people saying that the Navy's amphibs can't get closer to shore is the USMC. not the Navy.
additionally Amos' has an agenda. he wants an air assault Marine Corps based around SPMAGTF's which are themselves based around the MV-22. that is also wrong. but its his plan.
so while its true that we must and we can launch closer to shore i still don't think the Navy is the issue.
more to come and i accept your challenge...although i still am working on the best western expeditionary tank....but its in the que....oh and i love your stuff too bro! you're on my daily read also!
James Hasik, normally a clear thinker, wanders off into Ospreyland in his latest piece, where he posits in how D-Day might be handled today.
ReplyDelete"So, in our thought experiment, vectoring across the Channel towards Sainte-Mère-Église—or another target—in the early morning hours of D-Day are not paratroopers in C-47s, but infantry in V-22s. The loss rate to shoulder-fired missiles may be high, but most parachute operations in WW2 were abject disasters, and yet the US and the UK still have paratroopers."
i don't quite know what to make of Hasik.
Deleteeither he's a disruptive thinker in the "cool" sense of the word or he likes to stir shit up. i'd like to meet him to get a sense of where he's coming from.
the good? he's delving into Marine Corps issues from a place that i hadn't considered. the bad? he's delving into Marine Corps issues without operational experience.