Fly Army 97 said:

---

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.

---

Exactly. The Marine's recent evolution into a mini-Army is the historical deviation, not its return to its maritime roots in direct support of naval campaigns. There's a reason why the Corps is still a part of the Department of the Navy all these centuries later.

Anyway, 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.

Read the Commandant's "2030" rationale linked earlier in this discussion, to appreciate that to contribute effectively to deterring and fighting the current pacing threat--China--the Marines believe they must transform or find themselves unprepared when they'll be needed most.

Update

Massive Navy/USMC exercises coming in '21 to test their new joint strategy for handling China: PACIFIC

Here's the USMC year-in-review highlights: 2020

Cuts to USMC Long Range Fires

The Marines had requested $125 million for Tomahawks and $64 million for GBASM as well as $75 million for long-range fires. The final bill essentially cuts the GBASM budget in half and trims almost $20 million for LRPF research and development roughly a 25 percent cut.
At the same time, the bill adds $250 million for two CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift cargo helicopters.
The commandant, in describing his priorities, said the Marine Corps will need to reduce its heavy-lift capacity as part of its efforts to transform the force.

Latest update. Lots of good links within the article, too.
NSM.
MORE

Tons of new info here.

Somehow the Marines' 2030 plan reminds me of a maritime mobile Maginot Line, whose lavishly equipped fortifications were guaranteed to stop a German onslaught. Until they were outflanked, of course. Sounds like the Army will have to do the serious fighting, with all due respect.

Fly Army 97 said:

---

Not sure I understand that. USMC isn't banking on a non-flexible pillbox defense. They are talking about distributed mobility, fires, and maneuver in 2030. How does that leave the Army with the 'serious fighting'?

---

It is a very odd conclusion to draw from the linked material. TRAINING

74OA said:

---

Tons of new info here.

---

The guy spearheading this for the USMC, Lt. Gen Eric Smith '87, was a bull at the Trigon as a Maj. in the late 90's and a military advisor. As a D&C butt and zip, I remember him being...not very chill. But he did seem intelligent.

Fly Army 97 said:

---

Not sure I understand that. USMC isn't banking on a non-flexible pillbox defense. They are talking about distributed mobility, fires, and maneuver in 2030. How does that leave the Army with the 'serious fighting'?

---

Marine amphibious units had some decent combined arms capabilities in the past. If they are ditching armor, going to 70 member units on oceangoing vessels with artillery heavy emphasis, it seems they are banking on firepower and skills to counter Chinese light/medium armor. What happens if China successfully contests control of the air/cyberspace? Too many variables could go wrong here.

The ARMY needs its own high performance air wing..IMHO

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Plus the Army has a crap-ton of ADA, which gives them enemy denial capabilities (the next best thing to air superiority).

---

The Army doesn't have a "crap-ton of ADA." In fact the Army is deficient in ADA capabilities and over the last two decades has allowed them to decay dramatically. In recent NATO war games the Army was beaten repeatedly because they were unable to counter direct support aircraft and helicopters from near peer forces and short range small "suicide" drone strikes.
There are plans to fill these voids with striker variant ADA vehicles but that will take time.

That isn't an argument for the Army needing a fixed wing high performance air craft, just a clarification.

Yep, the Army has been working overtime in recent years to revitalize its atrophied ADA.

ADA
STRYKER
LASER
IBCS
LTAMDS
MSE
IFPC

Ok - that's something I wasn't tracking on. I have primarily a Marine Corps perspective, which makes every branch look comparatively loaded with assets.

I can also appreciate that the suicide drone / swarm attack threats that have expanded rapidly within the last decade would certainly require for some modernization efforts.

Thanks

Fly Army 97 said:

---

Not sure I understand that. USMC isn't banking on a non-flexible pillbox defense. They are talking about distributed mobility, fires, and maneuver in 2030. How does that leave the Army with the 'serious fighting'?

---

I think he means we are redesigning the Marines around a single foe. What if we suddenly have a serious, non-Chinese foe to fight? Russia, for example, has not suddenly become an ally.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

Fly Army 97 said:

---

Not sure I understand that. USMC isn't banking on a non-flexible pillbox defense. They are talking about distributed mobility, fires, and maneuver in 2030. How does that leave the Army with the 'serious fighting'?

---

I think he means we are redesigning the Marines around a single foe. What if we suddenly have a serious, non-Chinese foe to fight? Russia, for example, has not suddenly become an ally.

---

If you read the 2030 plan and the Commandant's comments, he repeatedly states that the Marines will remain able to contribute to ROMO. Equally to the point, any major engagement will be a joint fight with all the services working together rather than going it alone.

Great thread. Served in a 155 HQ Battery 2/14 out of NAS Dallas before they moved to JRB Ft Worth. Survey and FDC. Semper Fi brothers.

Updates:
REGIMENT
CHANGES
2022

Buck Turgidson said:

---

Fly Army 97 said:

---

Not sure I understand that. USMC isn't banking on a non-flexible pillbox defense. They are talking about distributed mobility, fires, and maneuver in 2030. How does that leave the Army with the 'serious fighting'?

---

I think he means we are redesigning the Marines around a single foe. What if we suddenly have a serious, non-Chinese foe to fight? Russia, for example, has not suddenly become an ally.

---

Guess we don't have to worry about that now.

Guess my Russia comment didn't age all that well! They have definitely proven themselves to be our foe, but they are fighting like complete amateurs. Guess we won't need the Marines as a second army after all.

Haven't read through this thread, but just came back to TA after a long break

Has this thread discussed the USMC's move to over-the-horizon autonomous boats? I was recently the program manager for a cool - but way outside what seems to be the USMC's mission - boat program

New World Ag said:

---

rebag00 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Tons of new info here.

---

The guy spearheading this for the USMC, Lt. Gen Eric Smith '87, was a bull at the Trigon as a Maj. in the late 90's and a military advisor. As a D&C butt and zip, I remember him being...not very chill. But he did seem intelligent.

---

Just got word that Lt. Gen Smith is getting his 4th star and becoming Assistant Commandant, pending Senate approval.

---

Spent time with Eric this past weekend at our class of 87 reunion

Those 4 stars looked good on him

Tango_Mike said:

---

Haven't read through this thread, but just came back to TA after a long break

Has this thread discussed the USMC's move to over-the-horizon autonomous boats? I was recently the program manager for a cool - but way outside what seems to be the USMC's mission - boat program

---

LRUSV
IN TEST

74OA said:

---

Tango_Mike said:

---

Haven't read through this thread, but just came back to TA after a long break

Has this thread discussed the USMC's move to over-the-horizon autonomous boats? I was recently the program manager for a cool - but way outside what seems to be the USMC's mission - boat program

---

LRUSV
IN TEST

---

Yep. I was the LRUSV program manager. At the vendor / lead systems integrator, not on the govt side

What's bananas is the company was even building the Marine training program. Everything from which MOSs should be used to determining how to certify training

Ranks right up there with Ormond Simpson and Raymond Murray as the best Marine officers ever commissioned from Texas A&M (IMHO)

Looks like the latest Marine Corps Gazette is devoted to this topic.

Marines practice expeditionary F-35B ops in support of an island-hopping campaign. PLAYBOOK

74OA said:

---

Marines practice expeditionary F-35B ops in support of an island-hopping campaign. PLAYBOOK

---

That is pretty damn cool.

Does make me wonder of how the Chinese are going to counter though. Especially in truly contested waters.

Eliminatus said:

---

74OA said:

---

Marines practice expeditionary F-35B ops in support of an island-hopping campaign. PLAYBOOK

---

That is pretty damn cool.

Does make me wonder of how the Chinese are going to counter though. Especially in truly contested waters.

---

Asymmetrically. Likely with swarms. To China; people and cheap tech are typically highly expendable.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

74OA said:

---

Marines practice expeditionary F-35B ops in support of an island-hopping campaign. PLAYBOOK

---

That is pretty damn cool.

Does make me wonder of how the Chinese are going to counter though. Especially in truly contested waters.

---

Asymmetrically. Likely with swarms. To China; people and cheap tech are typically highly expendable.

---

With thousands of commodity missiles that have a 1:5 cost ratio to the US missiles that shoot them down. Half of them probably wouldn't even carry a warhead because their purpose is to soak up US air defense assets so that the EABO bases have empty magazines when the actual assault takes place.

Notice that in all of the EABO articles the term "low signature" is used once and only once. It's because those low signature technologies are <TRL 6 and they still will be a decade from now. The EABO cultists' insistence that low-signature technology will make their outposts undetectable without any further explanation of how evokes the scene from Young Guns where the outlaws are high on peyote and riding through an Indian camp as the Indians stare at them. Kiefer Sutherland's character says, "You can't see me, I'm in the spirit world"

I'd like to see the playbook for how the "mobile and temporary" capabilities maintain mobility across a thousand miles of ocean once the shooting starts. How long do the supply dumps at the advanced bases last if the shooting starts and the SLOCS are subjected to interdiction by fire that interrupts logistics flow. It just looks like the 21st century version of the plan to defend Wake Island. Sure, the Marines fought valiantly until they ran out of ammo and took too many casualties without being reinforced.

Is there a playbook for committing the reserve in EABO? I suppose that depends on whether there is an offensive and a main effort but those are seemingly antiquated Clauswitzian concepts.

When an EABO unit takes casualties, where do they get evacuated during the golden hour and by what as yet unrevealed VTOL aircraft are they transported? Where's the playbook for that?

There's an overpowering smell of fairy dust and unicorn farts surrounding EABO that just gives me a headache.

/rant