In his written statement before the HASC’s Readiness Subcommittee on 30 April, the ACMC stated: “We possess the fully trained and ready forces necessary for any crisis or contingency… we are ready for the unknown and the uncertain future ahead… we are ready to fulfill our title 10 requirements; ready to support our Allies and partners globally; ready to support sea denial efforts; ready to seize and defends key maritime terrain; and ready to respond to crises in every theater… our combat arms units are equipped with modern capabilities - - both for sensing and lethality - - far superior to past formations.”
I strongly disagree with this rosy assessment. Left unaddressed is how the Marine Corps can respond to global crises and contingencies across the spectrum of conflict with only 12 amphibious ships notionally ready for operations, only 7 MPS ships anchored in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, and an emasculated combined arms capability that is unable to adequately support Marine infantry in the close and rear battles. Statements not backed by facts are dangerous. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: “When the nation calls, the Marines will go to war with the forces and equipment they have, not the imaginary forces and equipment briefed to Congress.”
But let’s just focus on one aspect of the written statement; specifically, “[we are] ready to support sea denial efforts.” Is the Marine Corps truly ready for this mission? We would know for sure if someone at Headquarters Marine Corps answered the following three questions:
1. How many of the 14 short-range, subsonic Naval Strike Missile batteries are manned, trained, and equipped today for employment in contested areas? How many of these batteries (if any) have their full combat load of missiles?
2. How many of the 3 mid-range, subsonic Tomahawk Land Attack Missile batteries are manned, trained, and equipped today for employment in contested areas? How many of these batteries (if any) have their full combat load of Maritime Strike Tomahawk missiles, which are needed to strike a moving ship?
3. How many of the 35 Landing Ship Medium (formerly Light Amphibious Warship) that the Marines say are needed to deploy Stand-in Forces into the contested areas, reposition them, and logistically support them are crewed and in theater today?
Answers to the above questions would tell us if Marines are truly “ready to support sea denial efforts,” unless of course one is talking about Marine air, which is always ready for any mission.
The ACMC is either misinformed by his staff or he intentionally deceived the HASC. His misstatements and or lies must be made clear to the HASC. He has no integrity and should resign. No one above him in DoD or the Executive Branch will take action to fire him because they are corrupted, compromised or busy w DEI or CRT.
The Houthis are ready for sea denial and they don't have any of that stuff(They've effectively taken the Red Sea out of the global shipping network). That said, I think the USMC would be in a worse position (opportunity lost/cost) if they could answer yes to those questions.
Attacking and sinking PLAN warships, equipped with state-of-the art anti-missile defenses, in the vast reaches of the Western Pacific is far more difficult that intimidating unarmed commercial ships in the narrow confines of the Red Sea
Well, sure, except some key areas of focus (Malacca Straight). Not to mention, rank amateurs, the Houthis, have shut the Red Sea to global shipping as a practical fact, regardless of the efforts of Operation Prosperity Guardian. They should be easier to defeat; they don't even control a majority of Yemen and have one crummy port. In any case, the real point is, even if the answer to all 3 questions was yes, would that be Opportunity won or lost for the USMC?
Yep, I was not impressed by the answers by either the SECNAV or the Commandant. To generalize the SECNAV answers to the individual committee questions on ship building, ship maintenance, lack of amphibious, small amphibious, F-35, FD 2030, the USS boxer, recruiting, bad barracks, etc., etc., etc. SECNAV answer was: Yes, that is a problem but it is now a priority (the "to fix" was implied). When one Congressman ask something like: SECNAV you seem to have a lot of priorities, which one is the highest priority? SECNAV’s none answer: Yes. I have many priorities.
I have also said this before: The Commandant showed no indication he was backing off the MLR and anti-ship HIMARS. In fact, he stated that the small amphib ship’s are a gotta have to move the HIMARS. When the SECNAV was asked why the current plan calls for only six amphibs, his answer; Yes, that is a problem and the small amphib are a priority. At least that is my perception.
I have some limited experience with Congress, consequently, I am not surprised when the Congressional Committee seemed to accept SECNAV’s equivocating answers. For example, “There’s no question in my mind that we should have been buying more amphibious ships earlier,” Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro told the House Armed Services Committee…” The correct answer should have been: “Yes, we (the US Navy) has problems in ship building of subs, frigates, destroyers, amphibs and their maintenance. We are seeing delays in all our new ship building and maintenance plans of 12 to 36 months. We are working to fix these system wide problems, however, by focusing on amphibs, as a Joint Force Provider, we are ensuring the Combatant Commanders have the flexibility and combat power of the US Marine Corps MAGTF. In addition, by focusing the priority on the amphibious fleet we will be avoiding the embarrassments like the USS Boxer.
Because the SECNAV did not say that, the Commandant should have stated to the Committee: “My wish is that “we” focus on building and maintaining the amphibious fleet in order to provide the Combatant Commander’s a “heal to toe” US Marine MAGTF in their AORs.
The Commandant could have walked the Committee through the 1992 Operation Provide Relief to Somalia. A CENTCOM Marine MEU established a toe hold in Mogadishu securing the airfield and port. Once the airport was secure, USTRANSCOM established two intermediate airfields (outside of Somalia) to provide 27/7 operations at the Mogadishu Airfield. With the port secured, portions of a Marine MPS landed to kick start the support and sealift moving into the Mogadishu port. SOCCOM teams were then establish in the outer provinces to ensure distribution of relief to the population. TADA! A successful relief and US JOINT Operation (led by the US Marine Corps).
One more thing. During the Committee hearing the members complimented the SECNAV on the recent successful operations in the Red Sea. The success they sighted is the US Navy’s ability to destroy Houthi drones and missiles. Then, as part of the compliment, one of the Committee members mentioned that the commercial sea traffic through the Red Sea has been reduced by 70%. If we can agree that a global war and great power completion with the CCP will be focused on the SLOCs, how is a 70% traffic reduction in a major SLOC be considered a compliment?
Hiring civilians to perform the functions (housing inspections) of Marine NCOs and officers is, unfortunately, what we have come to expect. Is anyone doing a little self analysis?
Base housing used to be under the cognizance of military personnel. They have changed that to civilian control. How is that working out? Same issues as the barracks are having.
The chow halls used to be 100% Marine controlled. Now? Civilians. Pink chicken is the norm.
Who will the barracks managers report to? This should be the duty of squad leaders, plt commanders, 1st Sgts and company commanders. What's next: den mothers in the squads??
It will not be a Marine Corps chain of command. Let a 1stSgt or Bn CO yell at one of these civilians and they will be brought up on harassment charges. This will not end well and is not the fix for this issue. This is a Marine Corps issue, it needs to be kept in house
And in other news some 30 Marines and Sailors part of the 24 MEU training somewhere off the coast of northern Florida were involved in a training incident, injuries are reported. More details apparently to follow, but an LCAC is noted and guess what vessel? The USS Wasp. Ship to shore, Marines training to go ashore. What could possibly go wrong? Everything!!Which is why we train and should train so hard the Marines feel like they want to stop complaining they’re so fed up and tired of TRAINING. This highlights that things do go wrong during training exercises and sometimes it’s negligence and sometimes it is just something going wrong. Regardless we have an ACMC sayjng everything is rosy and we see a glaring deficiency in ships and issues with readiness.
The drum beat needs to continue, we are not ready, we do not have the right equipment, we can not met Title X mandates currently (to say otherwise is just flatly false) and we need to make noise about it with the members of HASC. The MAGTF needs its full compliment of air and ground assets to conduct missions within the mandate of Title X. Full stop.
The PI has their own anti ship missiles they want control and will not allow USMC SIF to deploy the puny HIMAR etc… Perhaps they remember the WW II Japanese offensive that depended on a large US Military Presence. “The Philippines has yet to publicly announce the delivery, which started just days before Balikatan 2024 began
MANILA, Philippines – Over two months after the Philippines’ National Security Council promised the military’s entry into the supersonic age, all batteries of the BrahMos missile system have arrived in the Philippines, according to Indian media.
Delhi-based Hindustan Times, citing sources, said the first batch of the missile system arrived on April 18 and the fourth arrived on April 23. The Times did not say where the system was delivered to, but noted that it was brought to the Philippines aboard a C-17 Globemaster aircraft of the Indian Air Force.”!
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, according to Indian broadcaster NDTV, also made the announcement on April 18 during a campaign rally speech.
The Philippine military has, thus far, declined to comment on the reported delivery, telling media that it’s the Department of National Defense that will officially receive the shipment as part of the procurement process.
In his written statement before the HASC’s Readiness Subcommittee on 30 April, the ACMC stated: “We possess the fully trained and ready forces necessary for any crisis or contingency… we are ready for the unknown and the uncertain future ahead… we are ready to fulfill our title 10 requirements; ready to support our Allies and partners globally; ready to support sea denial efforts; ready to seize and defends key maritime terrain; and ready to respond to crises in every theater… our combat arms units are equipped with modern capabilities - - both for sensing and lethality - - far superior to past formations.”
I strongly disagree with this rosy assessment. Left unaddressed is how the Marine Corps can respond to global crises and contingencies across the spectrum of conflict with only 12 amphibious ships notionally ready for operations, only 7 MPS ships anchored in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, and an emasculated combined arms capability that is unable to adequately support Marine infantry in the close and rear battles. Statements not backed by facts are dangerous. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: “When the nation calls, the Marines will go to war with the forces and equipment they have, not the imaginary forces and equipment briefed to Congress.”
But let’s just focus on one aspect of the written statement; specifically, “[we are] ready to support sea denial efforts.” Is the Marine Corps truly ready for this mission? We would know for sure if someone at Headquarters Marine Corps answered the following three questions:
1. How many of the 14 short-range, subsonic Naval Strike Missile batteries are manned, trained, and equipped today for employment in contested areas? How many of these batteries (if any) have their full combat load of missiles?
2. How many of the 3 mid-range, subsonic Tomahawk Land Attack Missile batteries are manned, trained, and equipped today for employment in contested areas? How many of these batteries (if any) have their full combat load of Maritime Strike Tomahawk missiles, which are needed to strike a moving ship?
3. How many of the 35 Landing Ship Medium (formerly Light Amphibious Warship) that the Marines say are needed to deploy Stand-in Forces into the contested areas, reposition them, and logistically support them are crewed and in theater today?
Answers to the above questions would tell us if Marines are truly “ready to support sea denial efforts,” unless of course one is talking about Marine air, which is always ready for any mission.
The ACMC is either misinformed by his staff or he intentionally deceived the HASC. His misstatements and or lies must be made clear to the HASC. He has no integrity and should resign. No one above him in DoD or the Executive Branch will take action to fire him because they are corrupted, compromised or busy w DEI or CRT.
The Houthis are ready for sea denial and they don't have any of that stuff(They've effectively taken the Red Sea out of the global shipping network). That said, I think the USMC would be in a worse position (opportunity lost/cost) if they could answer yes to those questions.
Attacking and sinking PLAN warships, equipped with state-of-the art anti-missile defenses, in the vast reaches of the Western Pacific is far more difficult that intimidating unarmed commercial ships in the narrow confines of the Red Sea
Well, sure, except some key areas of focus (Malacca Straight). Not to mention, rank amateurs, the Houthis, have shut the Red Sea to global shipping as a practical fact, regardless of the efforts of Operation Prosperity Guardian. They should be easier to defeat; they don't even control a majority of Yemen and have one crummy port. In any case, the real point is, even if the answer to all 3 questions was yes, would that be Opportunity won or lost for the USMC?
Yep, I was not impressed by the answers by either the SECNAV or the Commandant. To generalize the SECNAV answers to the individual committee questions on ship building, ship maintenance, lack of amphibious, small amphibious, F-35, FD 2030, the USS boxer, recruiting, bad barracks, etc., etc., etc. SECNAV answer was: Yes, that is a problem but it is now a priority (the "to fix" was implied). When one Congressman ask something like: SECNAV you seem to have a lot of priorities, which one is the highest priority? SECNAV’s none answer: Yes. I have many priorities.
I have also said this before: The Commandant showed no indication he was backing off the MLR and anti-ship HIMARS. In fact, he stated that the small amphib ship’s are a gotta have to move the HIMARS. When the SECNAV was asked why the current plan calls for only six amphibs, his answer; Yes, that is a problem and the small amphib are a priority. At least that is my perception.
Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda,
I have some limited experience with Congress, consequently, I am not surprised when the Congressional Committee seemed to accept SECNAV’s equivocating answers. For example, “There’s no question in my mind that we should have been buying more amphibious ships earlier,” Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro told the House Armed Services Committee…” The correct answer should have been: “Yes, we (the US Navy) has problems in ship building of subs, frigates, destroyers, amphibs and their maintenance. We are seeing delays in all our new ship building and maintenance plans of 12 to 36 months. We are working to fix these system wide problems, however, by focusing on amphibs, as a Joint Force Provider, we are ensuring the Combatant Commanders have the flexibility and combat power of the US Marine Corps MAGTF. In addition, by focusing the priority on the amphibious fleet we will be avoiding the embarrassments like the USS Boxer.
Because the SECNAV did not say that, the Commandant should have stated to the Committee: “My wish is that “we” focus on building and maintaining the amphibious fleet in order to provide the Combatant Commander’s a “heal to toe” US Marine MAGTF in their AORs.
The Commandant could have walked the Committee through the 1992 Operation Provide Relief to Somalia. A CENTCOM Marine MEU established a toe hold in Mogadishu securing the airfield and port. Once the airport was secure, USTRANSCOM established two intermediate airfields (outside of Somalia) to provide 27/7 operations at the Mogadishu Airfield. With the port secured, portions of a Marine MPS landed to kick start the support and sealift moving into the Mogadishu port. SOCCOM teams were then establish in the outer provinces to ensure distribution of relief to the population. TADA! A successful relief and US JOINT Operation (led by the US Marine Corps).
One more thing. During the Committee hearing the members complimented the SECNAV on the recent successful operations in the Red Sea. The success they sighted is the US Navy’s ability to destroy Houthi drones and missiles. Then, as part of the compliment, one of the Committee members mentioned that the commercial sea traffic through the Red Sea has been reduced by 70%. If we can agree that a global war and great power completion with the CCP will be focused on the SLOCs, how is a 70% traffic reduction in a major SLOC be considered a compliment?
Record as Target, End of Mission, Target destroyed.
Spot on…70 percent less is a disaster!
Hiring civilians to perform the functions (housing inspections) of Marine NCOs and officers is, unfortunately, what we have come to expect. Is anyone doing a little self analysis?
Base housing used to be under the cognizance of military personnel. They have changed that to civilian control. How is that working out? Same issues as the barracks are having.
The chow halls used to be 100% Marine controlled. Now? Civilians. Pink chicken is the norm.
"Strategic Outsourcing: it's Strategerrific"
Who will the barracks managers report to? This should be the duty of squad leaders, plt commanders, 1st Sgts and company commanders. What's next: den mothers in the squads??
It will not be a Marine Corps chain of command. Let a 1stSgt or Bn CO yell at one of these civilians and they will be brought up on harassment charges. This will not end well and is not the fix for this issue. This is a Marine Corps issue, it needs to be kept in house
And in other news some 30 Marines and Sailors part of the 24 MEU training somewhere off the coast of northern Florida were involved in a training incident, injuries are reported. More details apparently to follow, but an LCAC is noted and guess what vessel? The USS Wasp. Ship to shore, Marines training to go ashore. What could possibly go wrong? Everything!!Which is why we train and should train so hard the Marines feel like they want to stop complaining they’re so fed up and tired of TRAINING. This highlights that things do go wrong during training exercises and sometimes it’s negligence and sometimes it is just something going wrong. Regardless we have an ACMC sayjng everything is rosy and we see a glaring deficiency in ships and issues with readiness.
The drum beat needs to continue, we are not ready, we do not have the right equipment, we can not met Title X mandates currently (to say otherwise is just flatly false) and we need to make noise about it with the members of HASC. The MAGTF needs its full compliment of air and ground assets to conduct missions within the mandate of Title X. Full stop.
In reading remarks of BG McAbee, I thought of JFK’s book, “While England Slept.” Seems to
me that may apply to
Us today.
In the case of the UK today, it is asleep. It’s Land Forces total less than 80k.
Please!!!! Consider a Course Correction! Please!!!
The PI has their own anti ship missiles they want control and will not allow USMC SIF to deploy the puny HIMAR etc… Perhaps they remember the WW II Japanese offensive that depended on a large US Military Presence. “The Philippines has yet to publicly announce the delivery, which started just days before Balikatan 2024 began
MANILA, Philippines – Over two months after the Philippines’ National Security Council promised the military’s entry into the supersonic age, all batteries of the BrahMos missile system have arrived in the Philippines, according to Indian media.
Delhi-based Hindustan Times, citing sources, said the first batch of the missile system arrived on April 18 and the fourth arrived on April 23. The Times did not say where the system was delivered to, but noted that it was brought to the Philippines aboard a C-17 Globemaster aircraft of the Indian Air Force.”!
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, according to Indian broadcaster NDTV, also made the announcement on April 18 during a campaign rally speech.
The Philippine military has, thus far, declined to comment on the reported delivery, telling media that it’s the Department of National Defense that will officially receive the shipment as part of the procurement process.