NOTE: I'm looking at PROBABLE budget cuts to the Marine Corps and I'm becoming alarmed. Between a force reduction that will leave only 150,000 boat spaces to the need to get new armored vehicles to the drain that the air wing is having on the service, I decided to do a what if. How would the Marine Corps look if I was in the big chair making the choices.
How Would I Build The Marine Corps.
*The Marine Corps is built around the Infantry. I would guard my Infantry Battalions like a mother bear guards her cubs.
1. EFV. It got killed because it ran over budget. Awesome. Strip it down, get rid of the planing, put the most powerful water jets known to man on it and give me a water speed of at least 10 knots or better and I'm happy. It would also lose the 30mm cannon and get either a 50 cal RWS or an upgraded AAV turret.
2. LAV-25. Put out to pasture. I'd redesignate LAV Battalions to Light Armored Infantry, and put them in Marine Personnel Carriers. They would get the legacy turret upgunned to 30mm and would be the basis for motorized raiding, and screening of my forces when we go heavy.
3. MV-22. Killed. I'd stop the buy and get MH-92's for the balance of the requirement.
4. CH-53K. Accelerated. These do everything helicopters will replace the current do everything helicopters.
5. AH-1Z/UH-1Y. Killed. I'd stop the buy, piggy back off the US Army and Navy and supplement the buy with UH-60's. I would also seek to standardize on the MH-60 in the BattleHawk configuration. I would sell the AH-1Z/UH-1Y to nations that want them.
6. M1A1. Upgraded. I would leverage off the US Army and either take some surplus M1A2's from their stocks OR make modest improvements (mainly change the engine to a diesel).
7. JLTV. Killed. I'd standardize on upgraded HUMVEEs.
8. 120mm Mortar. Killed. I'd standardize on the US Army's 105mm Howitzer.
9. AV-8B. Upgraded. The fleet would standardize on the latest model.
10. F-35B. Delayed. The buy would be pushed to the out years. We'll have to make due with the current stock of AV-8B's and husband the batch we bought from the Brits.
11. MARSOC. Killed. Quality will suffer either in the Fleet Marine Forces or in MARSOC with the drawdown to possibly 150,000. The Marine Corps must endure. MARSOC is expendable. Marines that have a desire to stay in SOCOM can do as Marines have always done. Transfer to the Navy or Army and become SEALs or Rangers or SF. The Army and Navy are expanding their Special Ops teams but doing so with a much larger base. The Marines can't afford to lose 3 Battalions of personnel to SOCOM.
12. Bases. San Diego Recruit Depot would close and all initial training would take place at an expanded Paris Island. Mirammar. Closed. The wing would move to either Pendleton or 29 Palms. Bridgeport would become joint, the US military mountain warfare training center west (
13. Civilian workforce. Drastic cuts. General Officers. Drastic cuts.
Thats it for now. I'll probably add to my list later.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteThe Army Mountain Warfare School is at the Ethan Allen Firing Range in Vermont.
Agree whith you.Most of it will happen one way or another...
ReplyDeleteBut some of your points leave some me doubts(not that i dont agree whith you but because i am ignorant in certain matters that you refer here)
Why kill the V-22 and replace it with a slower helicopter with less range?Is it the money?
I also never understood why the USMC didnt use the same helicopters as the Army and Navy...i allways liked the concept of the BattleHawk.And i remember well the late Sea Apache concept.It just makes more sense to have a single platform in all services.
yeah its all about the money. as a matter of fact my plan would have us with the CH-53K, the MH-60 Battlehawk and the S-92. quite honestly i should can teh S-92 and add more Battlehawks. that would leave the Marine Corps with two helicopters to do numerous missions. two helicopters to replace the MV-22, CH-53e, ah-1z and uh-1y.
DeleteThis isn't easy for me because I'm a former Marine, but I would reduce the Corps to about three MEBs, plus the Fleet Security Regiment or whatever it's called. The Navy only has enough amphibs to move a little over two MEBs at a time so why the need for so many infantry battalions? Since after the First Gulf War the MEBs have operated off the MPF stocks - that just makes the Corps another army.
DeleteIf the MPC could replace the AAV I would say do it, but it just seems like another Stryker to me so what's the point.
The only F-35 that should be purchased is the F-35B. I base this on its versatility.
Agree with the MV-22. Spendy bitches. Just buy the 53Ks.
One of the recruit depots could go, but it would be the one that is less modern and trains fewer Marines. I don't care either way.
You are right about MARSOC. IF the Navy killed the SEAL Teams, but kept UDTs I could see the Corps keeping MARSOC or the need to keep MARSOC. But, after killing OBL the SEALS ain't going anywhere. Duplication of efforts.
JLTV - no brainer.
I also like your idea of replacing 120s with 105s or maybe replacing 155s with 105s and HIMARS.
Replace Marine armor with Army armor battalions.
The LAVs are old so replace em, but only about a battalions worth. Each MEB would have a combat assault battalion with an AAV company, LAV company and combat engineers.
If I really had a say in this I would keep the Corps as is, the active Army would consist of the APS stocks (about three HBCTs and two IBCTs), five SFGs, Rangers, etc. The Army Reserve and National Guard would get the majority of the conventional forces.
gute
I can't understand why you don't use Army vehicles and helicopters? The AH-64D is already capable for shipborne operations, courtesy of the Brits. You also mention the extremely capable MH-60S and the bigger S-92. You can also replace the LAV family with Strykers, that should be converted for amphibious operations. The Stryker family has as many variants as LAV family already in use, plus it has an MGS and an NBC variant LAV fam. does not have. also the mortar variant uses 120mm mortar. A big improvement over the current 81mm LAV-MO variant USMC uses at this time.
DeleteThe AH-64 isn't really navalized according to US Navy standards. a study was conducted and it didn't spec out as currently configured. if you google Sea Apache you'll see how modified it would be. the landing gear would have to be moved to make it more stable, it would have to be marinized to withstand prolonged periods at sea and the canopy would have to be modified so if pilots had to ditch they could get out easily.
Deletesame applies with the Stryker. General Dynamics makes a Piranha III that is amphibious but its a much different animal than the Stryker. additionally the MGS is a failure as a gun system it uses a different ammo than any other 120mm gun and it always breaks. the NBC system is of no use because the Marine Corps handles those chores differently and while we have 120mm mortars they're operated as part of the artillery battalions and aren't an infantry weapon so the 120mm mortar wouldn't be used in any LAV battalion..so they're stuck with 81mm.
The Sea Apache concept is very old. I don't think the USMC needs that. A farther improvement of WAH-64D in order to meet the US Navy standards, could do the job.
DeleteThe Stryker is a variant of Piranha III. You can purchase Piranha III using as many common parts with Stryker as possible and I think they a lot. MGS uses a 105mm gun. I don't think you can mount a 120mm gun on top of a Piranha III. 105 is the limit.
i stand corrected. it is a 105mm gun but again, it uses a unique type of 105mm ammo etc. the Stryker and LAV used by Canada are unique variants. the Brazillian Navy uses the Piranha III and its almost a totally different vehicle...by the way the Brazillian Marines use the Piranha III as an amphibious vehicle and instead of buying more they're looking to buy AAVs. so that tells you how well that vehicle performs. as far as the performance of that detuned and unique 105mm gun it constantly breaks. last but not least the Army is having to modify the Stryker further by making it double hulled.
Deletethe Stryker family is a failure. as far as the WAH-64D..its still in the US Army Apache configuration. for shipboard operations its still doesn't meet specs for our Navy and why should it? its an adhoc design that was pressed into ship service by a British force that was being miserly with its funding. its not adequate for Marine ops. we've had that talk. its just not good enough.
Gute.
ReplyDeletei can't argue with a thing you wrote. very solid plan. besides we're not that far off from each other...great minds...
good list.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a leaner, meaner USMC. I think every item on the list is logical and yet simplifies the logistics for training and spares. Why four different helicopters and an MV-22? Having two would be easier.
MARSOC needs to be canned. I still don't know what they do that makes them so unique. Just take their experiences and training to expand the number of FORECON DA and DRP platoons
1. don't get fancy here. just keep AAV, go with another round of SLEP plus limited upgrades (enhanced armor, new comm. gears, etc)
ReplyDelete2. kill MPC, LAV-25 up-guns to LAV-30
3 & 4. I would go the opposite way. eliminating heavy lift (C-53K) and keep medium lift (MV-22) only
5. keeping/upgrading H-1 is far more cost effective than buying brand new Black Hawks. besides, H-60 can't really replace AH-1 gunship.
6. agreed. a diesel engine powered tank saves fuel consumption and improves reliability. this should be a army led joint program
7. agreed. the best option for light tactical vehicle fleet is HUMVEE Recap supplemented by M-ATV, good enough
8. 105 howitzer is still much heavier and thus less mobile than 120 mortar, won't fit the Corps' mission profile. better alternative: get rid of EFSS and instead go with army's smoothbore 120 mortar, you get your savings in commonality. also, transfer all HIMARS back to army. big rocket doesn't belong to expeditionary force.
9 & 10. terminate F-35B altogether, just keep extending AV-8B service life for another 25 to 30 years
11. couldn't agree more. No more special operations, MC should go back to her roots and resurrects ForceRecon
12. no opinion since I'm not familiar with the subject
13. yes, and yes. plus more no-combat HQ/units reduction
Questions:
ReplyDeleteF-35C?
Is there any reason why SEALs can't be mixed? Some way a marine could go SEAL and keep being a marine [*]?
Take care.
Ferran. BCN
[*] Yes, I know: once a marine... Still.
well they could go the famous Colonel Ripley's way and do a tour like he did with the Royal Marines only with the Navy SEALs. correction. exchange tour. i don't like the idea because it would bleed off so many forces in a time of austerity. better to let them transfer out of the Marines so that a new guy can get a chance.
DeleteCrazy. You want an infantry centric raid force without attack helicopters???
ReplyDeletedo you know what a battlehawk is? it carries the same firepower as an AH-1Z, plus it can carry a section of Infantry. additionally the Marine Corps can use its AV-8B's to provide support. my bases are covered and its not crazy. its fucking brilliant.
DeleteDude. A Blackhawks w stub wings is no attack chopper. No nose gun and nowhere neer sped maneuverability. Maybe a Sikorsky s97 in a few years to keep pace with V22 whic is unmatched in range payload. The USMC was to be an all VSTOL force till Barry started messing w it.
DeleteKeep V22. More Ch53K get v97 ( which can also cover scout and light transport); only F35B
you're starting to argue without knowing any of the facts. first the battlehawk concept gives the option of having a belly mounted 20mm cannon. next the cannon alone does not indicate an attack helicopter but if it does then you can also be that two 50 cal's inside the helicopter providing supporting fire is also something the APache can't do.
DeleteRecent Stimson Center report on budget cuts/restructuring U.S. Military:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/A_New_US_Defense_Strategy_for_a_New_Era.pdf
gute
I always liked the idea of LAV companies. Something we Brits could do with without a doubt. Think tanks for MEUs are a bit of a waste, even though I understand why the MEU has them.
ReplyDeleteKeep AAV. We wish we had them too, but more for their 4.5t cargo capacity than anything tactical.
For the first time I find myself disagreeing with you Sol! Zulu is a superb attacker and has sensors that now surpass the apache. You could theoretically add them to your attackhawk but it would add weight, and cost and probably curtail the amount of grunts you wish it could carry (the wing mounted weapons and fuel will do this already) it would be extremely sluggish especially in hot and high conditions. I lived in New Mexico and the USAF Pavehawks are lacking in range and wanting in peacetime. Helicopters are extremely sensitive to weight unless they are the bigger types.
ReplyDeleteNow you could Sol, say "ok we will simplify logistics and be less sluggish in operation by having Slicks that dont have sensors, and gunships versions with sensors and weapons" but thats precisely what the Ah-1Z and UH-1Y already do: they have 84 percent parts commonality and are very good at their jobs. They may be "two different" helicopters for you, but they are extremely similar. they also use the same engines as blackhawks! so you are needlessly reinventing the wheel for a minimal gain, just as we are getting them in service!
Speaking of sluggish the H-92 is extremely underpowered and I urge you to check out the hellacious problems the Canadians have been having with it. At this point they will have H-92s (Cyclones as they call them) in about the same time it took the USMC to get the Osprey, but of course with none of the Ospreys perks (and there are perks trust me) Cyclone has been a disaster, it requires new engines, and a new gear box. Its essentially an overweight blackhawk... hey Do you work for Sikorsky or something? Blackhawk? H-92? Ch-53K? coincidence?
If you don't like the osprey fine, but my god do not get the H-92! Thats where your blackhawk should go.
There is other stuff on your list I disagree with as well, but the helicopters really glared at me
I love your blog! Keep up the great work and Semper Fi!
don't work for Sikorsky...but i like their products. also i'm having to reconsider my AH-1Z critique. got word from some guys in country about the work they're doing.
Delete