Sunday, June 27, 2021
Elena Wicker is currently attempting to identify every type of “warfare” that the U.S. military has ever theorized/proposed/written doctrine for or named (Must See Twitter Thread!)
Currently attempting to identify every type of “warfare” that the U.S. military has ever theorized/proposed/written doctrine for or named. So far I have found 63…
— Elena Wicker (@ElenaWicker) June 25, 2021
This is a briefing slide from my days as a CGCS student at FT Leavenworth in 1994 and list some of the names that have been used to describe low intensity conflict in the spectrum of conflict. pic.twitter.com/YmHTTXKnoK
— David Maxwell (@DavidMaxwell161) June 26, 2021
Saturday, June 26, 2021
The Folly Of Tripwire Forces (aka Berger's Missile Marines)
I read an excellent article on the hazards of tripwire forces when it comes to a nation's defense but I wasn't able to properly put it together for the blog.
Luckily I don't have to.
via Texas National Review
A pillar of American grand strategy since 1945 has been the deployment of forces — sometimes smaller and sometimes larger — abroad. A key logic underpinning smaller deployments is that they serve as tripwires: Attacking them is assumed to inevitably trigger broader intervention, deterring aggression. We question this logic. Not only are small tripwire deployments unlikely to prevent an attacker from capturing its objective and establishing a strong defensive position, tripwire-force fatalities may be insufficient to provoke broader intervention. To deter, forward deployments must be sufficiently substantial to shift the local balance of power. Our claim is examined in three 20th-century deterrence attempts: the successful 1949 American attempt to deter a North Korean attack on South Korea; the unsuccessful 1950 American attempt to deter a North Korean attack on South Korea; and the unsuccessful 1914 British attempt to deter a German attack on Belgium.
From my chair it appears that Berger is trying to "compete" (they still can't put drawers on that term...word salad without meaning, no application militarily and simply buzzword idiocy), deter and when all fails (as it will without a doubt) then to TRY and interdict Chinese warships before they reach our ever shrinking fleet.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
It won't work.
What I found interesting is a MilTwitter thread on the topic. Check this out...
When I read pieces like this (will get to what like this means in a minute), and I read a lot of pieces like this regarding the SCS/China, I start to feel like Liddell Hart circa 1939, like I have an understanding of the American way of war that people have lost sight of. 🧵1/17 https://t.co/AyAwEBVSeW
— Nick Prime (@NC_Prime) June 26, 2021
We've been analyzed by an ally and he found our strategy wanting. I bet the Chinese have too.
D. If C is correct, I'd rather suffer a Day 1 loss of a couple of F-15s and a tripwire ground force than a CSG and/or a BCT (or larger) ground force. E. The strength of the course that can thus be out of the adversaries reach and can retaliate is a more assured deterrent.
— Nick Prime (@NC_Prime) June 26, 2021
The MOST INTERESTING and telling part of the thread is above.
Nick says it plainly enough. The tripwire force must be right sized and that is the complete and total failure of Berger's Folly.
Let's assume its correct for the Pacific (for a second because he's taking this Marine Corps wide). Let's assume that a tripwire force based in Okinawa/Guam/perhaps Korea is necessary.
The size and scope of this force and its implementation means that IF WAR WERE TO COME then we would see a Marine Littoral Regiment micro fragmented off the face of the earth.
There is NO GUARANTEE that the American people would go to war over that loss...especially in this day and age. We've become weak and decadent. In layman's terms, pussified.
The loss of Taiwan would probably broker the same. The American people would not go to war.
Even if policy makers did decide to go to war in defiance of the people then you have lost a tremendous amount of potential combat power at the start of hostilities.
A tripwire force turned into a graveyard of dead Marines.
Berger's Missile Marines won't work. The very foundation of the concept is misguided and can be better accomplished by technology. Wasting Marines is NOT the Marine Corps way.
Worse.
If war does NOT come then the Chinese have already accomplished a tremendous win. By their very actions they've gotten the US to completely transform the Marine Corps without firing a shot. They've also tied up the Marine Corps to one theater/one region/one locale that can't be of utility anywhere else in the world.
In other words without doing anything but getting better they've limited our ability to respond to emergencies in other parts of the world.
I don't recall the amount of ground combat power WE ONCE brought to the table for our nation but that is now gone...tied up in the Pacific. Same goes for air power.
They've already achieved perfect victory.
Russia’s Gigantic Submarine, Belgorod, Sails For The First Time
What are the Russians up to with this genuine GOLIATH of a submarine? The talk of them actually producing the "Poseidon" is troubling. A nuclear powered torpedo? Sounds like something out of a bad sci-fi movie.
Side note. If you're not a fan of the original Star Trek then you should check out an episode called "doomsday machine". Everytime I think of those torpedos I think of it. Add AI and the beast will probably be the death of us all!
Renders of the Hanwha AS21 Redback
Some sweet renders of the Hanwha AS21 Redback. Arguably the most modern infantry fighting vehicles in soldiers’ hands at the moment. pic.twitter.com/6UuiuEPJZ4
— Gregory Knowles (@2805662) June 26, 2021
8th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 2nd ABCT, BreachMaster Company, exercised the new Joint Assault Bridge during Doctrine and Tactics Training on Fort Hood.
 |
| Check this out! #BlackJack Troopers with 8th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 2nd ABCT, BreachMaster Company, exercised the new Joint Assault Bridge during Doctrine and Tactics Training on Fort Hood. The JAB provides rapid combined arms gap crossing capabilities to maneuver units |
Friday, June 25, 2021
Berger signaling new cuts to the F-35 (definitely slicing this puppy), CH-53K (maybe plus ups...depends on cost) and JLTV (have no idea what the evil mutant is thinking with this one)...
via SeaPower
Berger added that in the current budget climate, the Corps will pay for its Force Design 2030 initiatives by retiring some legacy systems and shifting the savings to new programs.
“We will self-fund our modernization,” he said. “To ensure the success of this approach, I will ask for your support in reducing the total procurement of some platforms commensurate with the recent reductions in our end-strength.
“The fact is, our Marine Corps is significantly smaller than it was a decade ago, about 24,000 Marines smaller,” he said. “That means we won’t need as many ground vehicles; we won’t need as many aircraft as we thought we did when initial procurement decisions were made decades ago. With the reductions outlined in our Force Design report, I believe we will have sufficient resources to create the modern capabilities required for competition, deterrence and crisis response without a further reduction in our end-strength.
“That approach, however, relies 100 percent on this committee’s confidence on allowing the Marine Corps to retain and reallocate the internal resources we generate through end-strength reductions, cutting legacy platforms and right-sizing programs of record for new capabilities like the F-35 [strike fighter], the CH-53K [heavy-lift helicopter] and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle,” he said.
I'm not sure about what the evil mutant is thinking on this one!
 |
| AKA...Berger MODOKLMC (Mobile Organism Designed Only for Killing the Legacy Marine Corps) |
The F-35 is certainly on its way to being right sized down. The maintenance just doesn't allow for the programmed buy. That alone will eat up the Marine Corps budget.
Not sure about the CH-53K. Like CoffeeJoeJava says (and he's banging the table on it too!), this whole thing is hanging on the string of logistics. I personally don't think they're up to it. Not even in a peacetime scenario much less full on combat. If they can POSSIBLY make this thing work it means they're gonna need CH-53Ks. Or do they? If they can make the small robot boat thing work then surface resupply becomes possible.
Still hate the idea and many people don't know it but piracy is an issue in the Pacific region. I can see more than a few opportunistic fishermen and full bore Jolly Roger flag flying idiots grabbing robot boats filled with supplies...that's not even counting the Chinese Navy/Coast Guard.
The JLTV? I am lost in the woods on this one. They're moving forward with Nemsis or whatever they call it. A two shot launcher instead of following the lead of the Army and basing it off a FMTV chassis? Don't make sense UNLESS he's pushing the recon thing of this even more than I thought.
An entire service devoted to recon when you can do better with a constellation of sats flying overhead? Makes no sense but there you have it.
I'm guessing he might buy more JLTVs.
Off topic but it needs to be addressed. They're sitting pretty with recruiting because they're cutting. But in the future when you need warm bodies how do you sell this new Marine Corps?
What the fuck is it? If you sell the glorious past then you're lying about what new recruits will walk into. If you try and sell what its going to be then no one will want to join. Better the Army if you want to be a trigger puller. Better to be an Airman or Sailor if you want to launch missiles.
How the fuck do you sell the New Missile Marine Corps to potential recruits? What the fuck is it? How do you make the case if you don't sell a past that is no longer part of its future?
The AMPV
The AMPV: The next generation answer to the Armored Brigade Combat Team’s (ABCT) protection, mobility, reliability and interoperability needs. pic.twitter.com/bIW5dNLgJB
— BAE Systems, Inc. (@BAESystemsInc) June 25, 2021
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)