MARINE CORPS NEWS
Comments (4)
A prudent commander wouldn't adopt an operational concept (Stand-in Forces) and divest critical capabilities until he had figured out the logistical means and methods needed to support that concept. General Berger was not prudent and now the Marine Corps is unprepared to execute that concept and because of the structure and systems he divested not able to fulfill its Title 10 responsibilities as the Nation's 911 Force able to respond rapidly as an air-ground-logistics task force with robust combined arms capablites.
Paul K. Van Riper at 11:34 PMSince the United States Marine Corps has shifted its Mission from amphib to Coastal artillery, why do they need so many amphibious ships.? Why can't they make do with the littoral ships which are supposed to go close to the coast? As you know now is the time that we have to squeeze according to Congress they cannot increase any budget they need to decrease. I do believe that still besides being Coastal artillery the Marine Corps largest component is aviation. They spend a lot on that it might not utilize the Navy and its Air Force to give support to this Coastal artillery
TeXan1111 at 12:25 PM
There is a conflict of beliefs and communications here in that not everyone is on the same page and "joint effort" isn't "joint forces effort." The efforts to save money is getting to the point where DoD people are talking in different angles and that increases the confusion and frustrations.
* MUSV...US Navy thinks it is unnecessary to build and acquire, but from what USMC Gen. Berger said, logistics is key and vital so MUSV is needed as another ship to supply logistics. Conflict.
* USSOCOM wants an amphibious seaplane and the US Navy and USMC can use one but no joint effort is being made in terms of new seaplane logistics funding and acquisition. Conflict.
* The USMC wants more large amphibs and the US Navy wants a study on the cost of more large amphibs. Conflict.
* The USMC wants a LAW with light armament that is cheap and the public and the US Navy want a LAW with more armament, armor, survivability and features that is more expensive. Conflict.
* The USMC divested itself of tanks and Legacy systems and pundits think that this is wrong. Conflict.
* The US Navy divested itself of the small and fast Mark VIs and retired the Patrol Coastals with no replacements in sight except the USCG FRCs. And yet the USMC is going smaller and more distributed in boats. Conflict.
* The Number 1 priority of the US Navy is the new SSBN Columbia-class which does nothing in terms of amphib lift and logistics for USMC. Conflict.
* Naval unmanned vehicles are ISR, long-range strike, aerial refueling, and MCM with little emphasis on long-range logistics. Conflict.
* The US Navy's ESBs and EPFs are unarmed and vital for logistics support and the Navy wants to decommission the ESDs to save money. Conflict.
* The US Merchant Marine Fleet and Ready Reserve Fleet are aging and not strong enough in quantity. Conflict.
So all this discussion and the emphasis on naval logistics and amphib lift is correct; however, I am not seeing a concentrated DoD "group effort" to address these issues and Commandant Berger is retiring in a few months. Commandant Berger speaks true sayings.
To quote General Bradley (and many others) "Amateurs talk tactics, Professionals talk Logistics". So for someone to come up with a "new" way of taking the fight to an enemy (much like the Defense Battalions of WWII frankly) and equip the force as such...only to realize that the logistics piece was not addressed just reeks of the hallmark of amateur-ism.
CoffeeJoeJava at 12:14 PM