The main reason the Marine Corps bought the V-22 was for the over the horizon Amphibious Assault up to a MAGTAF level. The headquarters air staff had to show we had the air lifting capacity to lift a MAGTAF ship to shore in 1989/90. The V-22 program would have been cancelled by secretary Dick Chaney if we could not meet that requirement. I can see that Force Design 2030 will do great harm to to the MAGTAF mission capabilities.
It has already Destroyed the Division with MLRs vice Regiments. The 300 plus Ospreys are operating under range limitations and the ARGs are w/o enough Ships. The MEFs who are responsible for generating MEU are dead. Fatal Design has killed the Expeditionary MAGTF! I cked out the newest edition of Marine Gazette today. It’s a joke!
One of the great assets of the combined arms MAGTF is that it is tailorable to fight anywhere against a multitude of forces. While it was an infantry heavy force, it possessed heavy artillery, and a credible armored component with tanks and light armor. It could be airmobile, infantry, or mech. Thus, it was a true general purpose combined arms team. The FD force is tailored to just one enemy and one mission. With the removal of most of the artillery and all the armor, it cannot conduct forcible entry or go up against a mech force. As large as the Marine Corps is, without armor and a heavy artillery component, it lacks credibility. It has become a giant commando force.
Now is the time to start planning on what comes next for a new combined arms MAGTF. While an excellent tank, do we still want the Abrams MBT, or something lighter? There are plenty of options: Italian Centauro II, or the Swedish CV90-120 to name just a few. Lighter armor will require a lighter logistics tail. For tube artillery, do we want to stick with just the M777? How about the truck mounted 777, such as the Army's tested Brutus 155? How about a light artillery piece to go with airmobile forces, such as the Hawkeye 105? Or, the 120mm mortar? Instead of the Navy developing a new class of landing ship, they could buy the Swedish CB90 as a rapid insertion vessel for amphibious raids.
One of the points regarding the Romanian military was, "Every spending decision is critical. No dollar can be wasted." We need to spend money, which is the taxpayers, as a precious commodity. No more money wasted on dead-end programs such as the Navy's LCS, or the Zumwalt Class destroyers.
Today's Marine Corps Times has an article by Gen. Christopher Mahoney: Four Lessons on Sea Denial from the Black and Red Seas. Simply put, the argument is that land forces can have an effect on naval operations. It backs up the old Nelsonian adage: "a ship's a fool to fight a fort." The General also points out, that the US Navy has taken the fight to the Houthi's while the Russian Navy has not countered the Ukrainians.
However, the General also does not cover the damage to the force, that FD has created. So much for being a combined arms force.
Sadly the rag tag Houth’s doing Iran’s bidding are allowed to continue sinking shipping in the Red Sea w drones and cheap missiles while the USN FIRES multimillion dollar missiles to protect billions of dollars of ships all because the Biden Administration is appeasing Iran. The lesson is “cut the head off of the snake” before it gets nuclear weapons. We need Praying Mantis II Not Neville Chamberlain.
The versatility of self propelled artillery in an armored chassis is undeniable. Range keeps increasing, crew protection, direct fire capability, mobility…. Jamming is just one Achilles Heel for drones and missiles. Currently Russian drones are launched from safe havens. Might not be that way in a different fight.
The main reason the Marine Corps bought the V-22 was for the over the horizon Amphibious Assault up to a MAGTAF level. The headquarters air staff had to show we had the air lifting capacity to lift a MAGTAF ship to shore in 1989/90. The V-22 program would have been cancelled by secretary Dick Chaney if we could not meet that requirement. I can see that Force Design 2030 will do great harm to to the MAGTAF mission capabilities.
It has already Destroyed the Division with MLRs vice Regiments. The 300 plus Ospreys are operating under range limitations and the ARGs are w/o enough Ships. The MEFs who are responsible for generating MEU are dead. Fatal Design has killed the Expeditionary MAGTF! I cked out the newest edition of Marine Gazette today. It’s a joke!
One of the great assets of the combined arms MAGTF is that it is tailorable to fight anywhere against a multitude of forces. While it was an infantry heavy force, it possessed heavy artillery, and a credible armored component with tanks and light armor. It could be airmobile, infantry, or mech. Thus, it was a true general purpose combined arms team. The FD force is tailored to just one enemy and one mission. With the removal of most of the artillery and all the armor, it cannot conduct forcible entry or go up against a mech force. As large as the Marine Corps is, without armor and a heavy artillery component, it lacks credibility. It has become a giant commando force.
Now is the time to start planning on what comes next for a new combined arms MAGTF. While an excellent tank, do we still want the Abrams MBT, or something lighter? There are plenty of options: Italian Centauro II, or the Swedish CV90-120 to name just a few. Lighter armor will require a lighter logistics tail. For tube artillery, do we want to stick with just the M777? How about the truck mounted 777, such as the Army's tested Brutus 155? How about a light artillery piece to go with airmobile forces, such as the Hawkeye 105? Or, the 120mm mortar? Instead of the Navy developing a new class of landing ship, they could buy the Swedish CB90 as a rapid insertion vessel for amphibious raids.
One of the points regarding the Romanian military was, "Every spending decision is critical. No dollar can be wasted." We need to spend money, which is the taxpayers, as a precious commodity. No more money wasted on dead-end programs such as the Navy's LCS, or the Zumwalt Class destroyers.
Today's Marine Corps Times has an article by Gen. Christopher Mahoney: Four Lessons on Sea Denial from the Black and Red Seas. Simply put, the argument is that land forces can have an effect on naval operations. It backs up the old Nelsonian adage: "a ship's a fool to fight a fort." The General also points out, that the US Navy has taken the fight to the Houthi's while the Russian Navy has not countered the Ukrainians.
However, the General also does not cover the damage to the force, that FD has created. So much for being a combined arms force.
Sadly the rag tag Houth’s doing Iran’s bidding are allowed to continue sinking shipping in the Red Sea w drones and cheap missiles while the USN FIRES multimillion dollar missiles to protect billions of dollars of ships all because the Biden Administration is appeasing Iran. The lesson is “cut the head off of the snake” before it gets nuclear weapons. We need Praying Mantis II Not Neville Chamberlain.
Possibly a job for a MEU to take out the Houthi missile units.
The versatility of self propelled artillery in an armored chassis is undeniable. Range keeps increasing, crew protection, direct fire capability, mobility…. Jamming is just one Achilles Heel for drones and missiles. Currently Russian drones are launched from safe havens. Might not be that way in a different fight.
A friend of mine had dinner last week w the former III MEF Commander prior to Smith. He echoed what we are saying on MCCP.