Let's focus on one sentence from FragO 01-24 highlighted in today's post: "With Force Design in place, we will continue our proud history as our Nation's expeditionary shock troops that can deliver combat power from sea to land - now with the additional capability to project power from land to sea."
How much combat power can today's Marine Corps deliver from "sea to land"? Not much! With 31 amphibious ships and 40% availability and only 7 MPS ships in two MPSRONS (down from 20 ships in 3 MPSRONs as late as 2018), the Marines would be hard pressed to globally source a MEB. And given the divestments in tanks, cannon artillery, assault breaching/bridging, etc.), the MEB would not have the combined arms capability (and probably training) needed to fight and win against most of our nation's adversaries.
And we "now" have the "additional capability to project power from land to sea." Really! I wonder if Greg "Pappy" Boyington would agree with that statement if he was still around? Since Marine aviation has always been able to project power from land to sea, I assume this gratuitous comment refers to the 14 Naval Strike Missile (subsonic with an unclassified range of 115 NM) batteries and the 3 TLAM (subsonic with an unclassified range of about 1,000 NM) batteries. This speed and range of these missiles make them increasingly obsolete against a peer or near peer competitor in the future.
Bottom line - - while the highlighted sentence in the FragO is technically correct, it is certainly misleading. The capabilities of today's operating forces (Navy and Marine Corps team) are a shell of their former selves
Generals Zinni, Krulak and Conway have reinforced the point that the Marine Corps cannot follow the path of the WWII Japanese Special land Forces hunkered down in relatively marginal sized units living in caves with unpredictable supply and reinforcement. The real-time laboratory that has shown the traditional Marine Corps Air-Ground Team to be the viable warfighting organization is the Ukraine. Artillery, air power, support from the sea, drones, HIMARS, hypersonic missiles, and cyber support is the team for the next fight. Although it has been 55 years since I sat in a muddy foxhole in Vietnam and called in 105 and 155 artillery fire, I doubt that if we were configured in the Force Design organization, and a company of VC were 200 yards from overrunning my position that I would be able to call in missiles danger close. Get rational members of Congress to review this Force Design, reallocate the money to rebuild the Marine Corps and amphibious shipping, and let's get on with the job of keeping America safe.
Hard to support a MAGTF with ships like the BOXER! 10 DAY TURN AROUND, hardly out of territorial water. Sad, as we try to talk power projection,SecNav can’t row past sight of the shore.
Let's focus on one sentence from FragO 01-24 highlighted in today's post: "With Force Design in place, we will continue our proud history as our Nation's expeditionary shock troops that can deliver combat power from sea to land - now with the additional capability to project power from land to sea."
How much combat power can today's Marine Corps deliver from "sea to land"? Not much! With 31 amphibious ships and 40% availability and only 7 MPS ships in two MPSRONS (down from 20 ships in 3 MPSRONs as late as 2018), the Marines would be hard pressed to globally source a MEB. And given the divestments in tanks, cannon artillery, assault breaching/bridging, etc.), the MEB would not have the combined arms capability (and probably training) needed to fight and win against most of our nation's adversaries.
And we "now" have the "additional capability to project power from land to sea." Really! I wonder if Greg "Pappy" Boyington would agree with that statement if he was still around? Since Marine aviation has always been able to project power from land to sea, I assume this gratuitous comment refers to the 14 Naval Strike Missile (subsonic with an unclassified range of 115 NM) batteries and the 3 TLAM (subsonic with an unclassified range of about 1,000 NM) batteries. This speed and range of these missiles make them increasingly obsolete against a peer or near peer competitor in the future.
Bottom line - - while the highlighted sentence in the FragO is technically correct, it is certainly misleading. The capabilities of today's operating forces (Navy and Marine Corps team) are a shell of their former selves
Generals Zinni, Krulak and Conway have reinforced the point that the Marine Corps cannot follow the path of the WWII Japanese Special land Forces hunkered down in relatively marginal sized units living in caves with unpredictable supply and reinforcement. The real-time laboratory that has shown the traditional Marine Corps Air-Ground Team to be the viable warfighting organization is the Ukraine. Artillery, air power, support from the sea, drones, HIMARS, hypersonic missiles, and cyber support is the team for the next fight. Although it has been 55 years since I sat in a muddy foxhole in Vietnam and called in 105 and 155 artillery fire, I doubt that if we were configured in the Force Design organization, and a company of VC were 200 yards from overrunning my position that I would be able to call in missiles danger close. Get rational members of Congress to review this Force Design, reallocate the money to rebuild the Marine Corps and amphibious shipping, and let's get on with the job of keeping America safe.
Hard to support a MAGTF with ships like the BOXER! 10 DAY TURN AROUND, hardly out of territorial water. Sad, as we try to talk power projection,SecNav can’t row past sight of the shore.
SECNAV....Bah, Bah, Bah...with four years of the excuse we will do a study....but no action.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/04/16/navy-senators-argue-over-who-is-to-blame-for-a-too-small-fleet/