Jump to content

Lightening The Marine Corps


Recommended Posts

 

1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.

2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was. As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.

Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.

3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.

 

The F-35B drastically impacted the performance of the other variants and the costs of the total program. All so a dozen aircraft can take off from a landing platform when there is absolutely no shortage of space on any of the actual carriers. If I were in charge, the Marines would be told to pound sand and fly the 35C off CVs. Yes, the B version is useful for US allies, but the US shouldn't have based its single largest procurement program on our allies.

 

I've no gripe with the America class. It still can perform as a landing craft and as long as the F-35B is a sunk cost, we might as well get some mileage out of it.

 

Its not that there is shortage of space on the carriers, its that there is a shortage of carriers. Ultimately if that is the case, the USMC is going to get more deck from using the QE's, Japan and Europes helicopter carriers, than it will from conventionally equipped carriers, such as the Charles De Gaulle or the Indian carriers. its for that reason the USMC have been trying to use their LPH as ersatz carriers, there isnt enough to go around anymore. Even fewer perhaps now the Fords seem to have had their procurement trimmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The entire plan is starting to sound like a response to an order to come up with a doctrine that refocuses the raison d'etre for future USMC funding, and its existence itself, on Obama's pivot to the SCS.

 

Based on how far up the bureaucracy it would need to travel, the emergence of it a few years after the fact sounds about right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.

2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was. As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.

Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.

3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.

The F-35B drastically impacted the performance of the other variants and the costs of the total program. All so a dozen aircraft can take off from a landing platform when there is absolutely no shortage of space on any of the actual carriers. If I were in charge, the Marines would be told to pound sand and fly the 35C off CVs. Yes, the B version is useful for US allies, but the US shouldn't have based its single largest procurement program on our allies.

 

I've no gripe with the America class. It still can perform as a landing craft and as long as the F-35B is a sunk cost, we might as well get some mileage out of it.

Its not that there is shortage of space on the carriers, its that there is a shortage of carriers. Ultimately if that is the case, the USMC is going to get more deck from using the QE's, Japan and Europes helicopter carriers, than it will from conventionally equipped carriers, such as the Charles De Gaulle or the Indian carriers. its for that reason the USMC have been trying to use their LPH as ersatz carriers, there isnt enough to go around anymore. Even fewer perhaps now the Fords seem to have had their procurement trimmed.

When have marines ever operated outside the range of land based or CATOBAR aircraft? How useful is the half dozen fighters of a typical MEU? A lot of coin was spent just so marines could have a pair of attack planes in the air at any given moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.

2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was. As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.

Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.

3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.

The F-35B drastically impacted the performance of the other variants and the costs of the total program. All so a dozen aircraft can take off from a landing platform when there is absolutely no shortage of space on any of the actual carriers. If I were in charge, the Marines would be told to pound sand and fly the 35C off CVs. Yes, the B version is useful for US allies, but the US shouldn't have based its single largest procurement program on our allies.

 

I've no gripe with the America class. It still can perform as a landing craft and as long as the F-35B is a sunk cost, we might as well get some mileage out of it.

Its not that there is shortage of space on the carriers, its that there is a shortage of carriers. Ultimately if that is the case, the USMC is going to get more deck from using the QE's, Japan and Europes helicopter carriers, than it will from conventionally equipped carriers, such as the Charles De Gaulle or the Indian carriers. its for that reason the USMC have been trying to use their LPH as ersatz carriers, there isnt enough to go around anymore. Even fewer perhaps now the Fords seem to have had their procurement trimmed.

When have marines ever operated outside the range of land based or CATOBAR aircraft? How useful is the half dozen fighters of a typical MEU? A lot of coin was spent just so marines could have a pair of attack planes in the air at any given moment.

 

You are missing the capablities of some of the new LPH's. In Iraq, they removed all the helicopters from them and were using them as Mini Carriers. Just like the Invincible class in the Falklands, they could take 20 plus Harriers. They can take a similar number of F35B's as well. 20 F35B's is not the kind of threat that can be sneezed at, whether you are Iran or even the PRC. In an era when the US has more threats than carrier decks, its VSTOL is becoming of increasing importance.

 

Well its the old argument I had with Chris, is it better to operate at the end of a tanker to the target, or better to have them on hand on a carrier deck with a tanker. I think personally the latter, if only because of airframe and pilot fatigue, you are going to get a better sortie rate, at least as long as the ammunition lasts. As far as CATOBAR, yes in theory those large carriers are far more effective. But ive pointed before to the diminishing number of capabilities on the average US Carrier deck. 30 years ago you had electronic, awacs, tankers, fighters, interceptors and antisubmarine. Today you just have fighters, electronics and Awacs. I suspect 20 years from now you are just going to have fighters. Its not enough to justify 100000 tons of real estate, which may be why the Ford class seem to be having their procurement trimmed.

 

The F35B in is a LOT more than just an attack aircraft. The onboard sensors make it practically an RC135 for starters. In fact, I believe the USAF are withdrawing JSTARS at least in part because of the F35A. There is only two ways its not as effective as F35C. One of them is range, and with tankers I think that may be a moot point. And the other is G load, and I suspect with the dogfight missiles we have now, its increasingly irrelevant.

 

 

Just a personal view anyway FWIW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Iraq, did those aircraft actually bomb anything? If so, what was their sortie rate? Could they have been replaced by a squadron based on the CV two miles away? Or by land based air out of Al Udied?

 

The F-35 *is* a lot more than an attack aircraft. But inside an MEU, about the only role it has is as a CAS aircraft. The STOVL requirement was a complete waste of resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand - if the USMC really wants to this, here's how it should be done with existing equipment. Use LCACs and helos only. LCUs, and any other landing craft they intend to buy, are too slow and too large of a target. Heavy equipment on the LCACs, lighter stuff on the 53's, personnel in MV-22s. The entire force must be delivered in one LCAC lift, plus helos (these can probably do a couple shuttle runs in the time LCACs can land). Use the new forward base ships to supply additional LCACs as attrition replacements, as well as basing additional heavy ground equipment spares. Keep these ships well back from the regular MEU but within LCAC ferry range. For offensive weapons, use HIMARS. Spend the money on an antiship variant of PrSM; the Army has already done most of the leg work. It is faster, longer ranged, and backwards compatible with existing artillery units. Don't drop all tanks and howitzers, simply re balance Pacific theater MEUs to emphasize shoot and scoot rocket artillery missions. Provide some kind of short to medium range air defense; buy SHORADs directly off the army and some kind SLAMRAAM mounted on hummer using the existing GATOR radars as fire control.

 

I still don't think the idea has much merit, but if you do it my way you use existing infrastructure, reduce the exposure time of the landing force, and increase total effective range all while sacrificing minimal overall USMC capability.

 

ETA: you also gain the capability to bombard opponent islands within 500 clicks.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Iraq, did those aircraft actually bomb anything? If so, what was their sortie rate? Could they have been replaced by a squadron based on the CV two miles away? Or by land based air out of Al Udied?

 

The F-35 *is* a lot more than an attack aircraft. But inside an MEU, about the only role it has is as a CAS aircraft. The STOVL requirement was a complete waste of resources.

They werent just bombing in Iraq, they were using tanker aircraft (including some British tanker units I gather) to bomb in Afghanistan too!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Harrier-Operation-Enduring-Freedom-Aircraft/dp/1782003444/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=harrier+units+osprey&qid=1591370706&sr=8-3

Ill grant you in second Iraq they subsequently deployed ashore to get a higher sortie rate (and there was a Marine Detachment at Bagram IIRC). But they still had the floating workshop off shore if they needed it.

 

Well, we will respectfully beg to differ I guess. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Army is already paying for it, with it apparently being part of Spiral 1 introduced in 2025, a couple years after the initial PrSM IOC. The Army will have done all of the leg work; I didn't realize they already had a program to add a moving target capability. The army seems to want it for attacking mobile radars, but terminally targeting ships would be if anything easier. I assume the Army has no ability to block the Marines from buying it, and the USMC would be stupid not to buy some since they already have the launchers for them. They should hard pass on NSM which is a one trick pony that requires dedicated equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

USMC tankers are getting the "Bum's Rush" or "Heave Ho" depending on your nautical bent. There is nothing dignified in the orders given to hasten their demise.

 

MOS 18XXs’ Demise

R 211140Z MAY 20

MARADMIN 302/20

MSGID/GENADMIN/CMC WASHINGTON DC MRA MP//

SUBJ/MANPOWER FORCE SHAPING IN SUPPORT OF FORCE DESIGN PHASE ONE//

REF/A/MSG/CMC/06MAY2020//

REF/B/DOC/CMC/17JUL2019//

REF/C/DOC/CMC/MAR2020//

REF/D/DOC/CMC/15FEB2019//

REF/E/DOC/SECNAV/23JAN2019//

REF/F/MSG/CMC/04MAR2019//

REF/G/DOC/CMC/18SEP2014//

REF/H/DOC/CMC/29MAR2019//

REF/I/MSG/CMC/20MAR2020//

NARR/REFERENCE (REF) A IS MARADMIN 278/20 CHANGE 2 TO THE PUBLICATION OF FISCAL YEARS 2020 THROUGH 2040 TABLES OF ORGANIZATION AND EQUIPMENT. REF B IS 38TH COMMANDANT’S PLANNING GUIDANCE. REF C IS FORCE DESIGN 2030. REF D IS MCO 1900.16 CH2 SEPARATION AND RETIREMENT MANUAL. REF E IS SECNAVINST 1000.7G INTERSERVICE TRANSFER OF OFFICERS. REF F IS MARADMIN 135/19 MARINE CORPS TEMPORARY EARLY RETIREMENT AUTHORITY (TERA) PROGRAM. REF G IS MCO 1300.8 MARINE CORPS PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENT POLICY. REF H IS NAVMC 1200.1E MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTIES MANUAL. REF I IS MARADMIN 179/20 FISCAL YEAR 2020 (FY20) OFFICER RETENTION BOARD NUMBER 1 RESULTS.//

POC/A. L. TARSIUK/MAJ/DC MRA/MP/MPP-30/TEL: 703-784-9365//

POC/G. R. JAUNAL/CAPT/DC MRA/MP/MPP-20/TEL: 703-432-9390//

POC/N. L. RENFRO/MAJ/DC MRA/MM/MMOA/TEL: 703-784-9272//

POC/C. A. ASHINHURST/MAJ/DC MRA/MM/MMEA/TEL: 703-432-9124//

GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. Purpose. This MARADMIN provides an overview of the manpower force shaping authorities and tools Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) plans to use to conduct its active duty end strength reduction in accordance with Force Design Phase One requirements outlined in Ref (a), Ref (B), and Ref ©.

2. Impacted Military Occupational Specialties (MOS). These force shaping authorities and tools are only for Marines in the following MOSs:

2.A. Enlisted. 1812 Armor Marine (fully divest), 1869 Senior Armor SNCO (fully divest), and 2146 Main Battle Tank (MBT) Repairer/Technician (fully divest).

2.B. Officers. 1802 Tank Officer (fully divest), 5803 Military Police Officer (reduction), 2110 Ordnance Vehicle Maintenance Officer (reduction), and 5805 Criminal Investigation Officer (reduction).

2.C. At present, other MOSs do not require active force shaping measures. M&RA will publish guidance if subsequent phases of Force Design require the use of these measures for Marines in additional MOSs.

3. Authorities and Tools.

3.A. M&RA will continue to maximize the use of accessions and MOS assignments, First Term Alignment Plan (FTAP) and Subsequent Term Alignment Plan (STAP) retention, career designation, promotions, lateral moves, natural attrition, and service limitations

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.

3.C. Details of these authorities and tools not provided in this MARADMIN will be outlined in the following MARADMINs scheduled for release starting June 2020:

FY20 Officer Retention Board #2 (Officer)

FY21 Enlisted Retention Campaign (Enlisted)

FY21 Temporary Early Retirement Authority Program (Enlisted/Officer)

FY21 Lateral Move Program for Marine Officers (Officer)

FY21 Marine Officer Time-in-Grade Retirement Waiver (Officer)

FY21 MOS Reclassification and Directed Lateral Move Boards (Enlisted/Officer)

3.D. Marines may separate from the Marine Corps in accordance with separation authorities per Ref (d).

3.E. For those 18XX Marines listed in paragraphs 2.A and 2.B requesting to IST, commands may submit group packages for several Marines with one O-5/O-6 level command endorsement to MMSR-2 (Enlisted: SMB.Manpower.MMSR2E@usmc.mil / Career Designated Officers: SMB.Manpower.MMSR2O@usmc.mil) and MMOA-3 for non-Career Designated Officers (smbmanpowerofficerpr@usmc.mil). See Ref (d) Figure 3-1 for content and format. General Officer endorsement requirement is waived for all packages. Officers will submit IST packages per Ref (e).

3.F. Beginning in FY21, TERA may be approved per Ref (f) for qualified Marines in MOSs identified in paragraphs 2.A and 2.B.

3.G. For those in MOSs identified in paragraphs 2.A and 2.B that are currently eligible for IST, TERA, and Time-in-Grade Waivers, packages are due to M&RA no later than 30 September 2020. Additional submission timelines will be provided in the respective subsequent MARADMINs listed in paragraph 3.C.

3.H. Consideration is also being given to the future use of Voluntary Separations Pay (VSP), Voluntary Enlisted Early Release Program (VEERP), and Officer Voluntary Early Release (OVER).

4. Enlisted and Officer Assignments. Ref (a) provides direction for all activating and deactivating units. M&RA will continue to issue orders in accordance with Ref (g). Both MMEA and MMOA will issue orders consistent with the needs of the Marine Corps while considering the career progression and desires of each Marine. M&RA may authorize tour curtailment as necessary.

5. Enlisted Marines. The following applies to Marines with a primary MOS (PMOS) identified in paragraph 2.A:

5.A. Sergeants and below. FY20 monthly promotions for sergeants and below will be the last promotion opportunity for these Marines. Marines are authorized to apply for voluntary lateral move to another PMOS; Marines seeking a lateral move must meet the requirements of their desired PMOS per Ref (h). Corporals and below with greater than 24 months time remaining on contract may be reclassified into a new PMOS based on the needs of the service without incurring additional service obligation per the forthcoming FY21 MOS Reclassification and Directed Lateral Move Boards MARADMIN scheduled for release in June 2020. Beginning in FY21, continued service beyond current expiration of current contract (ECC) will be contingent upon lateral move or reclassification and acceptance of a new PMOS for which they meet the prerequisites. Furthermore, there are no promotion opportunities for sergeants and below beginning in FY21.

5.B. Staff Sergeants and above. FY20 Promotion Boards for staff sergeants and gunnery sergeants will be the last promotion opportunity for Marines with the MOSs listed in paragraph 2.A. There are no promotion opportunities for staff sergeants in FY21 and beyond. 1869 and 2146 gunnery sergeants will remain eligible for promotion to first sergeant; 2146 gunnery sergeants will remain eligible for promotion to master sergeant in the 2149 PMOS. Marines are authorized to apply for voluntary lateral move to another PMOS. Those staff sergeants and gunnery sergeants choosing to continue service in the 1812, 1869, or 2146 PMOS may submit and be considered for reenlistment in their PMOS until they are TERA or retirement eligible as long as they meet basic retention prerequisites. 1869 master sergeants may reenlist to obtain retirement eligibility. Marines with greater than 20 years time in service will have their retention request returned with no further action. Marines approved for reenlistment as 1812, 1869, or 2146 will be assigned PCS or PCA orders based on needs of the Marine Corps; those not approved for reenlistment will be allowed to separate from the Marine Corps in accordance with separation authorities or retire if eligible per Ref (d). More senior Marines will be allowed to separate from the Marine Corps in accordance with separation authorities or retire if eligible per Ref (d). Furthermore, TERA may be approved per Ref (f) and paragraph 3.F.

6. Marine Officers. For all company-grade officers with the PMOS of 1802 and a percentage with the PMOS of 5803, career designation and/or continued service will be contingent upon acceptance of a new PMOS per Ref (i). Additionally, officers in the MOSs identified in paragraph 2.B may be allowed to apply for lateral move per the forthcoming FY21 Lateral Move MARADMIN scheduled for release in June 2020. 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. Furthermore, TERA may be approved per Ref (f) and paragraph 3.F.

7. This MARADMIN is not applicable to the Marine Corps Reserve.

8. Refer to M&RA’s website (www.manpower.usmc.mil) for additional Manpower Plans and Policy (MP) and Manpower Management (MM) points of contact.

9. Release authorized by Lieutenant General Michael A. Rocco, Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs.//

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the stroke of a pen, more damage was done to the USMC and national security than China, Korea, Iran or Russia could have ever dreamed of.

All that experience, all the knowledge, all the cohesion built up through decades of working together... gone forever once they cycle out and move on. Even if saner heads prevail years down the road and attempt to resurrect it, they'll have to relearn from scratch, in the midst of war I'm sure.

What a waste.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the stroke of a pen, more damage was done to the USMC and national security than China, Korea, Iran or Russia could have ever dreamed of.

 

All that experience, all the knowledge, all the cohesion built up through decades of working together... gone forever once they cycle out and move on. Even if saner heads prevail years down the road and attempt to resurrect it, they'll have to relearn from scratch, in the midst of war I'm sure.

 

What a waste.

100% correct and sad at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice flames, Rick.

No problem. As a Christian ,a (very) small businessman, and healthcare provider, the GOP is better than the Democrats.I'll admit not much too many times, but that gap is widening.

Uh huh; so you have politicized your religion, business and status as a healthcare provider? Why should we care?

As a Christian, very small businessman, healthcare provider and a voter, I have two choices, Democrats or Republicans. Overall it is the GOP that aligns with my values of God, family, and country. This gap between what I see in the Republican and Democratic parties is only widening. One has to only to see and listen to today's Democratic Party to realize that the "politicalization" of issues is their calling card.

To be fair all politicians of any party the maximum strategic planning is four years or until the next election which ever comes first. They don't really care about the long term military planning until they need the military which is usually to late to save the lives of those who serve and a period of rebuilding is called for. After the war is over they go back to self serving cutting and rinse and repeat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems that the British Royal Marines are following in USMC path - small units less less conventional over the beach stuff

Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems that the British Royal Marines are following in USMC path - small units less less conventional over the beach stuff

They have always to some extent been that end of the spectrum. When the heaviest equipment they had was a Haaglunds, it was much closer to the Rangers than the USMC. Well other perhaps than USMC Recon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be recruitment issues. Fewer percentage of the population being physically fit for the job in the age of instant gratification, indoor activity, and over supply of food. Fewer percentage in young generation to have the patriotism to motivate them to serve with all that bad press on Iraq, Afghanistan, capital hill, and so on. So more money towards big techie things that are less human numbers intensive such as anti-ship missiles. That really could be the underlying cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, and God could come down and make me Master of the Universe tomorrow too....

 

The core men who make up the American nation's combat troops don't want to work with, let alone fight alongside women, fags, trannies, freaks and losers for reasons that need no explanation. "Volunteer" military morons, that has nothing to sell to the recruits you actually want. S/F...Ken M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...