By the way. We are going to upgrade a lot of M1A2Cs/M1A2SEPV3s for many years to come.

Upgrading tanks a 100 a year is not transformational change, and maybe that's fine....but to CT's point (I think), attrition warfare is over. We will not build tank for tank like we did in the 80s. The Army has made a clear choice that it intends to shape and win on the battlefield with better integration of the force - and prioritized LRF, Future Veritcal Lift, C2 structure, Bradley replacement, etc. Greater mobility, lethality, and protection are being applied to IBCTs than ever before. How would you offer tanks are utilized in MDO?

You are a few weeks behind in the Buzzword Bingo game. The VCJCS decided that Joint All Domain Warfare should be the concept.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/gen-hyten-on-the-new-american-way-of-war-all-domain-operations/

The Army decided it would be a good idea to adopt the term when submitting their service budget request.

https://www.afcea.org/content/us-army-sets-aside-money-joint-all-domain-operations

It's a Joint Warfighting Concept 'for' All-Domain OPS. Army concept is still MDO though Army used joint language for POM purposes.

"Defense Secretary Mark Esper is directly involved, having ordered the four services and the Joint Staff last fall to create a new Joint Warfighting Concept for All-Domain Operations by December. "That Joint Warfighting Concept will describe the capabilities and attributes necessary to operate in this future all-domain world," Hyten explained."

https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/Messages-Display/Article/2193900/manpower-force-shaping-in-support-of-force-design-phase-one/


This is about the brashest invitation to leave I have ever seen in the Corps including the post Cold War drawdown.

Quote:

---

3.B. For those MOSs listed in paragraphs 2.A and 2.B, M&RA will maximize the use of inter-service transfers (IST) and voluntary authorities such as Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), and Time-in-Grade Waivers; the use of involuntary tools may also be used, as necessary.

---

Quote:

---

...Officers may also resign their commission upon completion of obligations or retire if eligible per Ref (d). 1802 captains and majors are eligible for inter-service transfer per Ref (e) and paragraph 3.E; these officers may apply for IST in accordance with the timeline listed in paragraph 3.G but will not execute until completion of their initial contractual service obligation. More senior majors and lieutenant colonels may be allowed to retain their PMOS and will be assigned PCS or PCA orders based on needs of the Marine Corps until retirement eligible.

---

"Thank you for your service"

Wow.

Can't speak for the Corps, but USAF went thru a post-Vietnam drawdown in the '70s that included several years of service-wide involuntary retraining as well as multiple separation/early retirement selection boards that tossed thousands.

Military service, including its up-or-out promotion system, has always been very Darwinian.

Here's an update. Marines taking a thoughtful, iterative approach to transformation.

War gaming and Testing

F-35B

Out go the tanks and many units.

74OA said:

---

Here's an update. Marines taking a thoughtful, iterative approach to transformation.

War gaming and Testing

F-35B

---

I can't help but laugh at the thought of some Chinese patrol boats trying to attack an LHD only to have have a bunch of pissed off LAVs strapped all over it.

Navy: "How do we supplement more small and medium arms against surface and low altitude threats?"

USMC frantically waving hand: "We've got guns!! Put us in coach!"

Flash to an LHD with LAVS chained all over it in some Mad Max abomination.

74OA said:

---

Out go the tanks and many units.

---

Not gonna lie, this is progressing a lot faster than I expected. I was thinking it would be a multi year tiered step down sort of thing.

Guess it makes sense though. If ya ain't gonna have it, just dump it immediately and not waste any more time and resources.

This whole thing is fascinating to me I must say.

Eliminatus said:

---

74OA said:

---

Out go the tanks and many units.

---

Not gonna lie, this is progressing a lot faster than I expected. I was thinking it would be a multi year tiered step down sort of thing.

Guess it makes sense though. If ya ain't gonna have it, just dump it immediately and not waste any more time and resources.

This whole thing is fascinating to me I must say.

---

Commandant in his "2030" report posted on page 1: "I want to be clear up front: our force design effort is a work in progress. Thanks to the dedication and effort of a great many Marines, Sailors, and civilians over the last six months, we have come to a clearer understanding of some force design changes we can confidently make today, while identifying other areas that require additional analysis."

Apparently, divesting tanks is one of the changes they feel confident about.

As a former Army tanker, I would have to question that call to divest all the tanks. The Marine Corps mission profile is quite different from the Army but there are situations where armor is needed IMO. Of course I understand that the Army needs a lot of tanks. The Marines only need a few for certain missions.

If they only need tanks for a few requirements, but they also need long range fires and other non-existent capacities for 'most' requirements...it would make sense to invest in the latter. We can kill tanks with a lot of things other than tanks these days.

Marines continue to test their new operational concept. Another island-hopping exercise.

Green2Maroon said:

---

As a former Army tanker, I would have to question that call to divest all the tanks. The Marine Corps mission profile is quite different from the Army but there are situations where armor is needed IMO. Of course I understand that the Army needs a lot of tanks. The Marines only need a few for certain missions.

---

That is my thinking. I just don't see armor going away soon. It may not have treads, but from the time the chariot was invented, some form of it has been present in major conflicts.

The Marines only had ~200 Abrams, so it's not like it shed a tank-heavy force.

More to the concern about armor availability, the Corps is still going to have a lot of armored vehicles, they just won't be tanks and they will be much more suited for operations in the Pacific littorals.

For example, it is currently producing an Amphibious Combat Vehicle variant with a 30mm gun, prototyping an Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle to replace its LAVs and I bet it also buys whichever Mobile Protected Firepower "light tank" the Army eventually selects at less than half the weight of a M-1.

74OA said:

---

The Marines only had ~200 Abrams, so it's not like it shed a tank-heavy force.

More to the concern about armor availability, the Corps is still going to have a lot of armored vehicles, they just won't be tanks and they will be much more suited for operations in the Pacific littorals.

For example, it is currently producing an Amphibious Combat Vehicle variant with a 30mm gun, prototyping an Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle to replace its LAVs and I bet it also buys whichever Mobile Protected Firepower "light tank" the Army eventually selects at less than half the weight of a M-1.

---

And that would make sense. The Chinese (near peer ground force) certainly have "light tanks" in their inventory and any force opposing them would need at least light armor of some sort.
Edit to say that there's a 50mm "chain"gun being proposed as main gun armament for LAVs right now.

.....and, of course, the Marines are never going to fight alone. Any major fight will always be a joint campaign in which the other Services load in all their capabilities, too.

More to the point about China, though, the Corps' new strategy is all about sea control, not going toe-to-toe with Chinese land forces. The idea is to hit and be gone before the enemy can react. It's going to be an interesting experiment to watch in coming years to see how they pull it off.

Here's a couple of updates:
The Problem
Hit and Move
Buying Soon?

I am definitely appreciating the speed at which they are trying to progress through this. Too little, too late? Time will tell, but reading in between the lines of these official statements I can sense a "when it happens" and not "if it happens".

Has anyone here been part of or knows how the ramp up of training new Marines works exactly? On a scale probably not seen since WW2? Because I think we all know here, fighting losses in the front units is bound to be high unfortunately.

To my knowledge, the anti-ship HIMARS missiles are still in development, so the EABO concept still has a few years before it's realistically possible.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

To my knowledge, the anti-ship HIMARS missiles are still in development, so the EABO concept still has a few years before it's realistically possible.

---

The Marines aren't waiting: MISSILES

74OA said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

To my knowledge, the anti-ship HIMARS missiles are still in development, so the EABO concept still has a few years before it's realistically possible.

---

The Marines aren't waiting: MISSILES

---

From that article:

Quote:

---

The missile is slated to be declared operational in 2023, and is likely what the Marines are pursuing as well.

---

So... A few years off still.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

74OA said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

To my knowledge, the anti-ship HIMARS missiles are still in development, so the EABO concept still has a few years before it's realistically possible.

---

The Marines aren't waiting: MISSILES

---

From that article:

Quote:

---

The missile is slated to be declared operational in 2023, and is likely what the Marines are pursuing as well.

---

So... A few years off still.

---

That's the upgraded Tomahawk, the other mentioned missile (NSM) is available now.

But they're saying they plan to slap that one on ROGUE-Fires. Have those been completed, delivered, and operationized?

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

But they're saying they plan to slap that one on ROGUE-Fires. Have those been completed, delivered, and operationized?

---

The NSM is already operational on a number of other naval and ground platforms, so those alternatives are ready now if Rogue doesn't pan out. ROGUE

Ok - so a bandaid solution COULD be cobbled together presently (given necessity and sufficient supplies of the existing missile).

That's better than nothing, but I expect a fielded capability that units are actively training with (a few years from now) will be a much better situation. It looks like a lot of things are scheduled to come together in 2023.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Ok - so a bandaid solution COULD be cobbled together presently (given necessity and sufficient supplies of the existing missile).

That's better than nothing, but I expect a fielded capability that units are actively training with (a few years from now) will be a much better situation. It looks like a lot of things are scheduled to come together in 2023.

---

Yep, that does seem to be a key year, but my original point is that the Marines aren't waiting on HIMARS naval missile development which will take much longer to be fielded.

So, are there Marine units training to this missile's implementation already? It's easy to assume missiles are a "push button, go zoom" solution, but there are a pile of things that need to integrate properly to field these things effectively.

This thread reminds me of how the South African Defense Force (SADF) defeated the Cubans in Angola back in 1987. The SADF had Ratel IFVs and some 90mm equipped Eland armored cars and some Centurion tanks, but the Cubans/Marxist Angolans had T-55 tanks and modern aircraft whereas the SADF was under arms embargo for apartheid policies.
But the SADF had just acquired technology by unknown means so they were able to produce a missile some 127 mm in diameter which strangely resembled the US TOW missile, which was 152mm. That missile, their training and some good gunnery enabled the SADF to smoke a Cuban armored brigade. As a matter of fact, the SADF consistently outfought the Communist forces during the Border War. Veterans of the SADF laugh at the hopeless inefficiency of the current S. African armed forces.

Marines working with Navy to buy support ships tailored for a Pacific littoral campaign: NEW

I personally do not like the transformation as I believe it will pigeon hole the Marine Corps. Future wars can be very unpredictable. This will put the onus on large conventional ground campaigns solely upon the Army.

The onus for ground combat is supposed to be on the Army. That's the effectiveness of having specific roles in the Services.

Fly Army 97 said:

---

The onus for ground combat is supposed to be on the Army. That's the effectiveness of having specific roles in the Services.

---

So you advocate the onus solely on the army? Let's forget about Korea and Vietnam where the Marines made significant contributions to the ground war.

And don't forget Afghanistan. Onus = burden. Land dominance is predominantly and Army burden. Yes, others have a role. It's not their only role. The USMC has a mission in conjunction with the Navy. It's specific, and the Commandant is getting the USMC to dominate in those areas... but the USMC is not all things. They lack a lot of functions the Army has for a reason that ales them great at what they (now) do. Medics - chaplains - robust space capability.