The Corps has one item that simply must be Marine unique and it is not boots, field uniforms, rifles, tanks, radios, artillery or aircraft. It is the ship to shore combat vehicle that takes Marines from a ship to a shore and inland. While we spent billions on Harriers, Ospreys and everything under the sun we simply could not figure out how to replace the LVTP-7. That was a level of incompetence, paralysis through analysis and skullduggery that innumerable Amtrackers drew attention to non stop and fell of the deaf ears of the senior leadership when this should have been Marine priority #1.
The Osprey has exactly two characteristics the CH-46 did not. Greater range and faster. To achieve that it gave up numerous tactical advantages and a low availability rate. Need we even discuss the F-35 availability rates. Your capabilities if you are not available is zero. It becomes a mirage.
Once you start to cannibalize you have de facto admitted to a broken supply system and a broken cradle to grave concept critical to warfighting sustainment.
How the current vehicle is an improvement to the LVTP-7 escapes me.
The Marine Corps was a world class fighting organization. The RD&A efforts over the last 30 years were subpar and resulted in a less capable Corps.
Of course, bad went to disastrous with Gen Berger whose divestment may have started the Corps on its road to extinction.
I think this problem goes even deeper than the Marine Corps, eventhough the Marine Corps has its own problems. Some examples from ours and other services: AAAV/EFV. Army: Stryker, M10 Booker, M551 Sheridan, MBT-70. Navy: LCS, Zumwalt DDs. I don't know much about aircraft, but you get my point. We build sophisticated equipment that can't meet the parameters needed. Then halfway through the contract, whoops, this thing doesn't work. We need to spend government money like it's our own money!
Without an amphibious vehicle capable of a Battalion sized assault in each MEF, we no longer meet our statutory roles and missions requirements. It doesn't count if they only have a 25% readiness rate.
The ACV has already become “Royalty” in the Corps.
No not the “King of Battle,” we got rid of a huge slice of Artillery.
Our “King of Battle” capability/capacity could be renamed the “Joke of Battle.”
Yes, the ACV is the Queen, as in “Hanger Queen.”
—>
Randy Shetter is on target.
The systemic problem is the Defense Industrial Complex now controls the requirements side of acquisition through officers that sell their soul to the devil for “30 Pieces of Silver.”
The requirement is not to win wars/battles.
The requirement is to make $$$’s.
—>
Col Rape is on target. The Corps is Amphibious.
We started loosing our way when we took the word “Amphibious” out of our combat formations name and replaced it with the Land Army word “Expeditionary.”
We took away our “Amphibious” name to sound better to Congress to fund MPS.
Since WWII, MPS-like forces have been a part of the Landing Force.
Break out the Landing Party Manual and start all over.
MPS is an element of AFOE and Follow-up Shipping.
The Marine Corps should remain “Amphibious” until the oceans dry up.
71% of the World is Ocean.
80% of the World’s Population lives within 100 miles of the coast.
You damn right we need a Marine Corps.
As technology changes, our smartest Marines should constantly be figuring out how to “Land the Landing Force” and maneuver once ashore.
Never forget the “Close With” part of the Rifle Squad mission starts at CPen, CLNC, and worldwide posts & stations.
The “From-the-Sea” doctrine was a good start to program Forces with Capabilities.
Middle East insurgency got in the way just like in Vietnam, but post Vietnam we rebuilt the Corps into a solid “Combined Arms” Force for Desert Storm.
The most formidable obstacle will continue to be the “time & distance” of the ocean.
This will remain true until “Scotty can “Beam the a Landing Party Ashore” from CPen, CLNC…
Well until congress wakes up and starts investigating how and why the Corps is in such a pickle it is a long narrow rocky lane with no turning in a hot sun and no shade. Where is the SecDef? The SecNav? Currently on Libo or UA. We are a seagoing force and the vast majority of the work ahead will be short sharp ship to shore one way or the other efforts. For the love of Mike this stuff needs the light of day up there on Capital Hill.
To be fair, the AAV replacement has been a long running train wreck that pre dates FD (2030)(+) , though FD has exacerbated the problem (2018 called and wants it's story back: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/amphibious-vehicles-are-the-militarys-latest-tax-dollar-sinkhole/). Instead of trying to make a Bradley that swims at 20knots over the horizon (EFV/AAAV) or a fat open ocean stryker (ACV)....the USMC would have been better off with an evoltuionary upgrade of the simple AAV-7 platform. Still would.
After reading a recent comment questioning the effect that Compass Points posts have across the defense community, I decided to query the publisher. Here is what I learned from our discussion.
Compass Points has multiple-thousands of subscribers, and daily posts are viewed thousands of times, upwards of 10,000 views in a day. Though the site is free there have been a large number of commitments to pay; readers have pledged close to $11,000 for a paid subscription though the publisher has no intention of changing its status as “free.”
The actual readership is impossible to determine because many subscribers forward the daily posts to others and several large email lists routinely pick up and distribute the daily posts. Based on available data one Internet authority estimated that approximately 150,000 people view Compass Points within 48 hours of its posting.
Email addresses allow the publisher to identify some subscribers. He reports there are dozens of subscribers with a “usmc.mil” address, meaning they are active duty Marines. Among these are some senior executives. Noted journalists from such outlets as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and CBS News also subscribe and read nearly every post. As do analysts from the Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office, and several defense focused think tanks.
I asked several other retired Marines, and they shared that their experience is the same as mine, that is, we have never met an active duty Marine who does not read Compass Points posts.
One recent comment suggested that the online journal, Real Clear Defense, which frequently republishes Compass Points posts is not highly regarded nor widely read. The reality is just the opposite. A former Marine I know who works on the Hill tells me that RCD is the most important source of media news on defense for members of Congress and their staffs. It has more than 64,000 followers. One web report states: “RealClearDefense (RCD) was created at the request of the Pentagon and Hill staff on the House Armed Services Committee. These groups felt that existing defense coverage was fragmented and there needed to be one place to go for information about military affairs, defense policy, national security, and foreign affairs. RCD does the best job in the industry of digesting the day’s news for military and defense professionals and enthusiasts. With its balanced mix of curated stories and original content, RCD is a force in the defense world, providing an open resource for anyone seeking a comprehensive understanding of the landscape.”
I note that those questioning Force Design 2030 and the course on which it has placed the Marine Corps have had 203 articles (authored or coauthored by 117 different writers) published in 53 different media outlets. Supporting articles consists of an additional 150 articles, authored or co-authored by 125 different writers, and published in 59 different media outlets.
So, in closing, I offer my sincere thanks to the Publisher, Editor, and staff of Compass Points for more than 1,000 informative daily posts. Please continue your exceptional work.
One more comment...I wish I had thought to divest a third of my company's vehicles and then cannibalize the divestature to get to 100% readiness in the remaining vehicles; that's genius(in Bizzaro world). Seriously, what is happening with the source of supply? Or is this something worse, like a run of bad major assemblies (frame?).
Desperate people do desperate things — and this whole spectacle reeks of desperation. You’re spinning a routine equipment move into some kind of scandal. Hate to break it to you, but this isn’t a gotcha. It’s just logistics. As Cfrog already noted, most of this goes back to 2018. You’re not exposing anything. You’re just late.
Here’s the reality:
I MEF has too many ACVs. Instead of stockpiling them pointlessly, those excess vehicles are headed to places like, EAP in 29 Palms, or Barstow or MPS shipping, where they’ll be staged until 4th MARDIV can receive and employ them. That allows 3rd AAV Bn to focus on managing their assigned slice — with the right balance of vehicles, crews, and facilities. That’s not scandal — it’s force management 101. 31st MEU ACVs and II MEF are doing just fine.
A big, heartfelt congrats to Compass Points. You’ve officially climbed from the clickbait fringes of defense commentary (Real Clear Defense) to the opinion page of the Washington Times. That’s not prestige — that’s just a slightly bigger echo chamber. But again, congrats (?) on a new high water mark.
And these “three days of prominent articles” you’re bragging about?
Divestature and cannibalization for parts is not the same as admin deadline and equipment transfer. The wording of the I MEF message doesn't support your assertion. What are you basing your claims on?
My basis is simple: I know someone who read the entire request.
I MEF is requesting to transfer vehicles so they’re no longer responsible for maintaining them. They’re also asking to retain select parts to build depth where needed. None of this is unusual—and all of these vehicles are slated to go to 4th MARDIV in time.
I’d encourage you to ask the editor to post the full message. Then ask yourself: why were only certain excerpts highlighted? What was left out—and why?
Same spin, different post. We’ve seen this pattern of selective framing from the site before. Honestly, it just reinforces what I said back on July 6th. “Worse, he has led good Marines — honorable veterans — to believe that tearing down today’s Corps is a form of loyalty.”
What they posted was enough. Words mean things. 'Maintenance management' involves precision and proper terminology. "Divestature" does not equal "Equipment transfer" and "Cannibalization" does not equal "selective interchange". Those are the words used. There are a host of reasons why cannabalizing one end item for parts is anathema to maintenance managment. Cannabalization would only be requested and authorized where urgent operational need, damaged end items, and an extant gap in flow from the source of supply mean there are no other options. It is not used for peacetime operations involving undamaged systems with a functioning (speed irrelevant) chain from the source of supply. Either your source doesn't know what they are talking about or you are saying that I Mef doesn't know how to talk about logistics, which is worse. Really...sending cannibalized hulks to the EAP and 4th Mar Div is your version of victory? That's not the win you seem to think it is. It is improbable at worst, and amateur hour at best.
Cfrog you got it right, "CANNIBALIZATION" is for the battlefield and not for peace time MM. I was reviewing maintenance management procedures for getting spare parts for battlefield repairs with the BN's S4 crew. My MT chief stated "not to worry" there will be plenty of spare parts on the battlefield and the quickest way to get those spares is cannibalization. I had to agree but I also stated we have to make sure the "system" works, and we are still going to submit requisitions and requests for contact teams through the BN COC.
Yes. I've done it all, including peacetime / combat selective interchange and combat cannibalization. Even battlefield selective interchange and cannibalization has to be tightly controlled, or else you wind up with a junk yard, little/no parts orders, amd little/no ready systems. Hangar queens got a bad rap because while in the short term they seem to make sense, in the mid to long term they are very counter productive. For those who don't know, 'selective interchange' is the authorized interchange of 'good parts' from a deadlined vehicle to bring another vehicle back to 100%. This is done with the notion that the parts orders are processed and managed so that the part goes to the vehicle that provided the interchange, with the intent that the sourcing vehicle will also be restored to full mission readiness as soon as possible. 'Selective interchange' is tightly managed because it is easy for a source vehicle to turn into a hangar queen by commission or omission. 'Cannibalization' is the sourcing of parts with no active regard or willful disregard for the restoration of the sourcing vehicle (no parts ordered...no maintenance tracking). Cannibalization is great for fiction etc; in practice it is much less romantic.
The problem is more serious than the cannablization of ACV - it is the cannablization of the Marine Corps by Berger and Smith.
Sad, but maybe true!
Absolutely!
And this is in addition to the previous divestment of 2 of the 6 AAV companies in the active force.
The Corps has one item that simply must be Marine unique and it is not boots, field uniforms, rifles, tanks, radios, artillery or aircraft. It is the ship to shore combat vehicle that takes Marines from a ship to a shore and inland. While we spent billions on Harriers, Ospreys and everything under the sun we simply could not figure out how to replace the LVTP-7. That was a level of incompetence, paralysis through analysis and skullduggery that innumerable Amtrackers drew attention to non stop and fell of the deaf ears of the senior leadership when this should have been Marine priority #1.
The Osprey has exactly two characteristics the CH-46 did not. Greater range and faster. To achieve that it gave up numerous tactical advantages and a low availability rate. Need we even discuss the F-35 availability rates. Your capabilities if you are not available is zero. It becomes a mirage.
Once you start to cannibalize you have de facto admitted to a broken supply system and a broken cradle to grave concept critical to warfighting sustainment.
How the current vehicle is an improvement to the LVTP-7 escapes me.
The Marine Corps was a world class fighting organization. The RD&A efforts over the last 30 years were subpar and resulted in a less capable Corps.
Of course, bad went to disastrous with Gen Berger whose divestment may have started the Corps on its road to extinction.
Another example of 6 years of Incompetence by Commandants Berger and Smith! CMC Smith should be relieved for cause!
I think this problem goes even deeper than the Marine Corps, eventhough the Marine Corps has its own problems. Some examples from ours and other services: AAAV/EFV. Army: Stryker, M10 Booker, M551 Sheridan, MBT-70. Navy: LCS, Zumwalt DDs. I don't know much about aircraft, but you get my point. We build sophisticated equipment that can't meet the parameters needed. Then halfway through the contract, whoops, this thing doesn't work. We need to spend government money like it's our own money!
Without an amphibious vehicle capable of a Battalion sized assault in each MEF, we no longer meet our statutory roles and missions requirements. It doesn't count if they only have a 25% readiness rate.
The ACV has already become “Royalty” in the Corps.
No not the “King of Battle,” we got rid of a huge slice of Artillery.
Our “King of Battle” capability/capacity could be renamed the “Joke of Battle.”
Yes, the ACV is the Queen, as in “Hanger Queen.”
—>
Randy Shetter is on target.
The systemic problem is the Defense Industrial Complex now controls the requirements side of acquisition through officers that sell their soul to the devil for “30 Pieces of Silver.”
The requirement is not to win wars/battles.
The requirement is to make $$$’s.
—>
Col Rape is on target. The Corps is Amphibious.
We started loosing our way when we took the word “Amphibious” out of our combat formations name and replaced it with the Land Army word “Expeditionary.”
We took away our “Amphibious” name to sound better to Congress to fund MPS.
Since WWII, MPS-like forces have been a part of the Landing Force.
Break out the Landing Party Manual and start all over.
MPS is an element of AFOE and Follow-up Shipping.
The Marine Corps should remain “Amphibious” until the oceans dry up.
71% of the World is Ocean.
80% of the World’s Population lives within 100 miles of the coast.
You damn right we need a Marine Corps.
As technology changes, our smartest Marines should constantly be figuring out how to “Land the Landing Force” and maneuver once ashore.
Never forget the “Close With” part of the Rifle Squad mission starts at CPen, CLNC, and worldwide posts & stations.
The “From-the-Sea” doctrine was a good start to program Forces with Capabilities.
Middle East insurgency got in the way just like in Vietnam, but post Vietnam we rebuilt the Corps into a solid “Combined Arms” Force for Desert Storm.
The most formidable obstacle will continue to be the “time & distance” of the ocean.
This will remain true until “Scotty can “Beam the a Landing Party Ashore” from CPen, CLNC…
Well until congress wakes up and starts investigating how and why the Corps is in such a pickle it is a long narrow rocky lane with no turning in a hot sun and no shade. Where is the SecDef? The SecNav? Currently on Libo or UA. We are a seagoing force and the vast majority of the work ahead will be short sharp ship to shore one way or the other efforts. For the love of Mike this stuff needs the light of day up there on Capital Hill.
To be fair, the AAV replacement has been a long running train wreck that pre dates FD (2030)(+) , though FD has exacerbated the problem (2018 called and wants it's story back: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/amphibious-vehicles-are-the-militarys-latest-tax-dollar-sinkhole/). Instead of trying to make a Bradley that swims at 20knots over the horizon (EFV/AAAV) or a fat open ocean stryker (ACV)....the USMC would have been better off with an evoltuionary upgrade of the simple AAV-7 platform. Still would.
The Wolf posted this on 13 July
After reading a recent comment questioning the effect that Compass Points posts have across the defense community, I decided to query the publisher. Here is what I learned from our discussion.
Compass Points has multiple-thousands of subscribers, and daily posts are viewed thousands of times, upwards of 10,000 views in a day. Though the site is free there have been a large number of commitments to pay; readers have pledged close to $11,000 for a paid subscription though the publisher has no intention of changing its status as “free.”
The actual readership is impossible to determine because many subscribers forward the daily posts to others and several large email lists routinely pick up and distribute the daily posts. Based on available data one Internet authority estimated that approximately 150,000 people view Compass Points within 48 hours of its posting.
Email addresses allow the publisher to identify some subscribers. He reports there are dozens of subscribers with a “usmc.mil” address, meaning they are active duty Marines. Among these are some senior executives. Noted journalists from such outlets as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and CBS News also subscribe and read nearly every post. As do analysts from the Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office, and several defense focused think tanks.
I asked several other retired Marines, and they shared that their experience is the same as mine, that is, we have never met an active duty Marine who does not read Compass Points posts.
One recent comment suggested that the online journal, Real Clear Defense, which frequently republishes Compass Points posts is not highly regarded nor widely read. The reality is just the opposite. A former Marine I know who works on the Hill tells me that RCD is the most important source of media news on defense for members of Congress and their staffs. It has more than 64,000 followers. One web report states: “RealClearDefense (RCD) was created at the request of the Pentagon and Hill staff on the House Armed Services Committee. These groups felt that existing defense coverage was fragmented and there needed to be one place to go for information about military affairs, defense policy, national security, and foreign affairs. RCD does the best job in the industry of digesting the day’s news for military and defense professionals and enthusiasts. With its balanced mix of curated stories and original content, RCD is a force in the defense world, providing an open resource for anyone seeking a comprehensive understanding of the landscape.”
I note that those questioning Force Design 2030 and the course on which it has placed the Marine Corps have had 203 articles (authored or coauthored by 117 different writers) published in 53 different media outlets. Supporting articles consists of an additional 150 articles, authored or co-authored by 125 different writers, and published in 59 different media outlets.
So, in closing, I offer my sincere thanks to the Publisher, Editor, and staff of Compass Points for more than 1,000 informative daily posts. Please continue your exceptional work.
Must be so frustrating. All those actions and no results.
I shared the CGIMEF MSG W SECDEF, SECNAV, AND THE US MARINES on X addresses, along with my belief that CMC SMITH MUST BE RELIEVED.
One more comment...I wish I had thought to divest a third of my company's vehicles and then cannibalize the divestature to get to 100% readiness in the remaining vehicles; that's genius(in Bizzaro world). Seriously, what is happening with the source of supply? Or is this something worse, like a run of bad major assemblies (frame?).
Cfrog, I think you mean you want to get 100% readiness out of your "remaining" vehicle!
Hah- Q: how many 03s can fit in an Amtrak? A: One more sir...one more.
Does anyone have any info on how good the Chinese amphibious assault vehicles are?
Maybe Cpl G has the solution?
As a matter of fact, I do. . .
Desperate people do desperate things — and this whole spectacle reeks of desperation. You’re spinning a routine equipment move into some kind of scandal. Hate to break it to you, but this isn’t a gotcha. It’s just logistics. As Cfrog already noted, most of this goes back to 2018. You’re not exposing anything. You’re just late.
Here’s the reality:
I MEF has too many ACVs. Instead of stockpiling them pointlessly, those excess vehicles are headed to places like, EAP in 29 Palms, or Barstow or MPS shipping, where they’ll be staged until 4th MARDIV can receive and employ them. That allows 3rd AAV Bn to focus on managing their assigned slice — with the right balance of vehicles, crews, and facilities. That’s not scandal — it’s force management 101. 31st MEU ACVs and II MEF are doing just fine.
And while I’m here…
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/jul/10/funding-wrong-programs-wont-fix-marine-corps/
A big, heartfelt congrats to Compass Points. You’ve officially climbed from the clickbait fringes of defense commentary (Real Clear Defense) to the opinion page of the Washington Times. That’s not prestige — that’s just a slightly bigger echo chamber. But again, congrats (?) on a new high water mark.
And these “three days of prominent articles” you’re bragging about?
https://marinecorpscompasspoints.substack.com/p/compass-points-not-just-the-marine
Still looking.
Prominent? According to whom? Published where? Outside your own Substack newsletter and an op-ed nobody cited?
You’re not shaping the conversation. You’re background noise — predictable and easy to tune out.
I’m so bored. Do better.
Divestature and cannibalization for parts is not the same as admin deadline and equipment transfer. The wording of the I MEF message doesn't support your assertion. What are you basing your claims on?
Appreciate the question.
My basis is simple: I know someone who read the entire request.
I MEF is requesting to transfer vehicles so they’re no longer responsible for maintaining them. They’re also asking to retain select parts to build depth where needed. None of this is unusual—and all of these vehicles are slated to go to 4th MARDIV in time.
I’d encourage you to ask the editor to post the full message. Then ask yourself: why were only certain excerpts highlighted? What was left out—and why?
Same spin, different post. We’ve seen this pattern of selective framing from the site before. Honestly, it just reinforces what I said back on July 6th. “Worse, he has led good Marines — honorable veterans — to believe that tearing down today’s Corps is a form of loyalty.”
What they posted was enough. Words mean things. 'Maintenance management' involves precision and proper terminology. "Divestature" does not equal "Equipment transfer" and "Cannibalization" does not equal "selective interchange". Those are the words used. There are a host of reasons why cannabalizing one end item for parts is anathema to maintenance managment. Cannabalization would only be requested and authorized where urgent operational need, damaged end items, and an extant gap in flow from the source of supply mean there are no other options. It is not used for peacetime operations involving undamaged systems with a functioning (speed irrelevant) chain from the source of supply. Either your source doesn't know what they are talking about or you are saying that I Mef doesn't know how to talk about logistics, which is worse. Really...sending cannibalized hulks to the EAP and 4th Mar Div is your version of victory? That's not the win you seem to think it is. It is improbable at worst, and amateur hour at best.
Cfrog you got it right, "CANNIBALIZATION" is for the battlefield and not for peace time MM. I was reviewing maintenance management procedures for getting spare parts for battlefield repairs with the BN's S4 crew. My MT chief stated "not to worry" there will be plenty of spare parts on the battlefield and the quickest way to get those spares is cannibalization. I had to agree but I also stated we have to make sure the "system" works, and we are still going to submit requisitions and requests for contact teams through the BN COC.
Yes. I've done it all, including peacetime / combat selective interchange and combat cannibalization. Even battlefield selective interchange and cannibalization has to be tightly controlled, or else you wind up with a junk yard, little/no parts orders, amd little/no ready systems. Hangar queens got a bad rap because while in the short term they seem to make sense, in the mid to long term they are very counter productive. For those who don't know, 'selective interchange' is the authorized interchange of 'good parts' from a deadlined vehicle to bring another vehicle back to 100%. This is done with the notion that the parts orders are processed and managed so that the part goes to the vehicle that provided the interchange, with the intent that the sourcing vehicle will also be restored to full mission readiness as soon as possible. 'Selective interchange' is tightly managed because it is easy for a source vehicle to turn into a hangar queen by commission or omission. 'Cannibalization' is the sourcing of parts with no active regard or willful disregard for the restoration of the sourcing vehicle (no parts ordered...no maintenance tracking). Cannibalization is great for fiction etc; in practice it is much less romantic.
Thanks Corporal somehow I knew you would emerge w grace and style.