via USNI News
The policy statement also took aim at bill language that would set a minimum requirement for 31 amphibious ships for the Navy – in line with what the U.S. Marine Corps has said it needs to execute their emerging Force Design 2030 island hopping campaign and perform crisis response missions.
“Requiring the Department to maintain a minimum inventory of major platforms would limit the Secretary of Defense’s ability to optimize future force structure, increase the long-term cost of sustaining the force, and further delay necessary efforts to keep pace with the challenge posed by the People’s Republic of China in key warfighting areas,” according to the memo.
The rift between the Navy, Marines and the Office of the Secretary of Defense over amphibious shipping manifested during budget testimony. Congress ultimately sided with Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger.
Berger also used his unfunded budget priorities list to keep the San Antonio-class (LPD-17) amphibious warship line alive, with an ask for $250 million in advanced procurement funding for LPD-33. The Senate in the policy bill authorized the funding, which the White House also opposes.
“The Administration urges Congress not to add Advanced Procurement funding to Landing, Platform, Dock (LPD)-33. The Department remains focused on investing in the right mix of capabilities, including future amphibious platforms, to deliver the ships the Joint Force needs to campaign in the Indo-Pacific region and implement the 2022 NDS,” reads the memo.
Here
Many things about Force Design 2030 puzzle me.
For example.
The Commandant wants to use the well decks on amphibious ships for everything BUT getting Ground Force Element gear ashore.
Is it any wonder that the Navy looks at that and says, ok, you want a light amphibious ship, aren't gonna use Gators to get forces ashore anymore so why not decommission some?
If the New Marine Corps is all about the sea battle then doesn't it make sense for the Navy to prioritize ships that directly participate in it?
I'm evolving on the concept.
I can see a few more good elements of it.
The problem is that the approach being taken is from my chair half hearted. If its about the sea battle (and every indication points to that), then the Marine Corps needs to change even more than it already is doing.
To be blunt?
The ACV needs to go away. The AH-1Z and the UH-1Y need to go away. Cannon artillery needs to go too. Infantry battalions? For what reason? A force that relies totally on stealth is still going to maintain the ability to seize ground? Seriously? The New Marines aren't capable of that. Perhaps a raid so we can cut them too.
CB90's, a few ROGUE Fire vehicles and enough infantry to pull security and you can call it a day.
SOCOM will be on the islands and the Army is taking the playbook and will be able to land MANY more missile to conduct strikes than the USMC so its no longer a unique function.
MARSOC, SEALs, Rangers and Special Forces will be acting as shore watchers...so what's the "new mission" that will ensure the Marine Corps survival?
Things are a mess and this ship numbers issue is just the latest canary in the coal mine.
