The findings suggest that while Force Design 2030 may have its limitations in addressing such conflicts, abandoning it entirely would require a thorough evaluation of its effectiveness against other emerging threats and operational needs.
The question is how much longer should the Marine Corps spend conducting a “thorough evaluation?”
Do the powers to be spend the next five to ten years studying this concept? How about spending two to three more years evaluating the concept?
I truly believe precious time has been squandered. The Marine Corps may find itself with its proverbial pants down should the CCP decide to invade Taiwan by 2027…that’s not a whole lot of time to refocus and rearm the Marine Corps.
Reequip the Marine Corps with the artillery, air assets, and engineering equipment it previously divested. Yes, I understand—the equipment, personnel, and ships are long gone, and reclaiming these capabilities will require significant funding and time.
However, the Marine Corps must restore its ability to field expeditionary forces up to the MEF level. This means advocating strongly to Congress for the necessary resources, including the addition of prepositioned ships.
Continuing down the current Force Design path is a losing proposition.
While it seems like Force Design has ripped apart the Marine Corps to inefficiently replace better anti-ship assets in the Navy and Air Force, my main issue with the CSIS wargame on Taiwan is that it defines a victory for Taiwan as preventing China from conquering Taiwan within the time frame of the wargames. I think China wins if it retains bridgeheads on Taiwan after a ceasefire. Taiwan only wins if it drives the PLA into the sea. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2020/Dunn-Drive-Into-Sea/
In semi-related news, the MV HOS Resolution (Stern drop ramp test bed) has been sailing around Okinawa in recent months. Currently in Naha according to Marine Traffic. It's done some ramp ops; really not much news apart from 'Twitter/X spottings'. I am suspicious about the lack of puff pieces with it since last February when it demo'd at Project Convergence (US Army event held aboard Camp Pendleton). Apparently it has been approved for the last 12 month option, taking the contractual lease to November of '25. I suppose it's about as ready for EABO as much as anything else. At least it is not just a wargame piece, a budget line item, or a computer rendering. Nice pic of the ship with jacks and ramp down at Kin Blue: https://x.com/hone_hone_bone_/status/1851231724526776524
You are very optimistic. The ship ordered was rendering only. I could not find any version that was already in steel (figuratively speaking). Every bit of material was only cgi. Kind of like my turbine-electric hybrid Mustang GT concept. We are ready to deliver!
The scenarios assume Taiwan invites the MLR's on to their soil, a questionable presumption that fails to satisfy (at least my personal impression) the politics of elected Taiwanese officials to be willing to accept the doubtless harsh response from the Chicom dictatorship. They could easily procrastinate on the decision until its too late.
On the positive side, the extended range ballistic scramjet versions of the PrSM should allow anti-shipping operations over almost the entirety of the first island chain and could be launched from a variant of the NSM's since the weapons are of similar size.
If I were placing these I'd want them on Yonaquni in Japan and Itbayat Philippines.. If we aren't going to war with a coalition, we should not be going to war.
Sorry but since the Rand Corporation war gamed a US/China war and said the US would lose in 15 years, I have little faith in the ability of these to reflect reality. Sort of like the computer simulations of the climate control cultists trying to prove a pre-determined outcome.
Those opposed to FD2030 where told to S1 and S2, FD 2030 it had been vetted thoroughly by a group who were sworn to secrecy and had signed non-disclosure agreements (the NDA’s likely would have been valueless if breached…) but the war games supposedly began and the rest is a pathetic example of hubris gone wild. It’s never the crime but always the cover up. Times wasting. Congress and the new leadership at the puzzle palace need to get busy restoring the Corps capabilities and either agree that Title X doesn’t matter or it does. If it does than all efforts go to rebuilding men and assets to support, augment and otherwise get the Corps back to mission readiness and mission accomplishment. People don’t like hearing about the deep dive the DOGE may do. But if Generals Berger and Smith tried their FD2030 tricks in the business world particularly in the publicly offered securities companies they would have been sacked long ago, the stock in the tank and now a target of a hostile take over. As serious as the business of war fighting is, there is nothing like greedy bankers and money guys who want their pound of flesh and their money back. Stand by. It’s gonna get rough.
You have to see that the mobility that tanks once introduced is now hindered y the tanks presence? I'm all for a title X discussion, but I wouldn't reconstitute to what had been.
Heavy armor is never relevant, except for when it is. A simple way to look at the Ukraine Conflict is to state that mobility is hindered by the tanks presence. Except for the fact that both Ukraine and Russia go to great lengths to maintain heavy armor at the point of battle. Noone is complaining about the high consumption of drones; they keep saying they need more. This is the same for armor. As for antiques...the need for heavy armor capability on the battlefield, combined with other legacy and novel systems and concepts, has compelled the Russian Army to rebuild and restore what was previously considered antique armor. If practicality and success meant that armor was no longer neccessary...we would have seen one side gain an advantage by abandoning all use of heavy armor within the past year.
To my mind the purpose of armor for the Marine Corps and their inclusion in the MAGTF is actually pretty limited, but damn handy when you need it. If, you talk to Marine Infantry that fought at the Battle of Hue’ City (my vintage of senior NCO’s and Officers who schooled me up) tanks were the game changer, as well as the Ontos 106 light tracked vehicle. General Cheatham then Lt. colonel Cheatham at Hue’ brought the armor forward and suddenly the built up areas and massive wall structures were less formidable. It is my understanding from similar discussions with Marines at the second battle of Fallujah that tanks were an important part of the whole combined arms scheme of mass and maneuver. Title X needs a good look see, but in the meantime the senior leadership in the Pentagon has to have a come to Jesus moment in which it is admitted the Marines are not achieving their mission. As mentioned either achieve it or don’t, but if it can’t be achieved, wholesale change to avoid hard questions and harder answers wasn’t a very good idea. That is all FD 2030 turns out to be, a bad idea to avoid hard subjects. Additionally a big problem is our elected federal representatives and senators. They are just out of the day to day reality loop.
Also, where can I download a copy of the CSIS wargaming, I would like to evaluate it to further my own insights in to the matter? (Did not see any link above).
The findings suggest that while Force Design 2030 may have its limitations in addressing such conflicts, abandoning it entirely would require a thorough evaluation of its effectiveness against other emerging threats and operational needs.
The question is how much longer should the Marine Corps spend conducting a “thorough evaluation?”
Do the powers to be spend the next five to ten years studying this concept? How about spending two to three more years evaluating the concept?
I truly believe precious time has been squandered. The Marine Corps may find itself with its proverbial pants down should the CCP decide to invade Taiwan by 2027…that’s not a whole lot of time to refocus and rearm the Marine Corps.
Rearm them with what?
Reequip the Marine Corps with the artillery, air assets, and engineering equipment it previously divested. Yes, I understand—the equipment, personnel, and ships are long gone, and reclaiming these capabilities will require significant funding and time.
However, the Marine Corps must restore its ability to field expeditionary forces up to the MEF level. This means advocating strongly to Congress for the necessary resources, including the addition of prepositioned ships.
Continuing down the current Force Design path is a losing proposition.
The Corps was put in and remains in the stall right now as such.
While it seems like Force Design has ripped apart the Marine Corps to inefficiently replace better anti-ship assets in the Navy and Air Force, my main issue with the CSIS wargame on Taiwan is that it defines a victory for Taiwan as preventing China from conquering Taiwan within the time frame of the wargames. I think China wins if it retains bridgeheads on Taiwan after a ceasefire. Taiwan only wins if it drives the PLA into the sea. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2020/Dunn-Drive-Into-Sea/
In semi-related news, the MV HOS Resolution (Stern drop ramp test bed) has been sailing around Okinawa in recent months. Currently in Naha according to Marine Traffic. It's done some ramp ops; really not much news apart from 'Twitter/X spottings'. I am suspicious about the lack of puff pieces with it since last February when it demo'd at Project Convergence (US Army event held aboard Camp Pendleton). Apparently it has been approved for the last 12 month option, taking the contractual lease to November of '25. I suppose it's about as ready for EABO as much as anything else. At least it is not just a wargame piece, a budget line item, or a computer rendering. Nice pic of the ship with jacks and ramp down at Kin Blue: https://x.com/hone_hone_bone_/status/1851231724526776524
When will the Australian ship the Marines ordered be ready? My guess is about the time the lease on the current ship runs out.
You are very optimistic. The ship ordered was rendering only. I could not find any version that was already in steel (figuratively speaking). Every bit of material was only cgi. Kind of like my turbine-electric hybrid Mustang GT concept. We are ready to deliver!
The scenarios assume Taiwan invites the MLR's on to their soil, a questionable presumption that fails to satisfy (at least my personal impression) the politics of elected Taiwanese officials to be willing to accept the doubtless harsh response from the Chicom dictatorship. They could easily procrastinate on the decision until its too late.
On the positive side, the extended range ballistic scramjet versions of the PrSM should allow anti-shipping operations over almost the entirety of the first island chain and could be launched from a variant of the NSM's since the weapons are of similar size.
If I were placing these I'd want them on Yonaquni in Japan and Itbayat Philippines.. If we aren't going to war with a coalition, we should not be going to war.
Sorry but since the Rand Corporation war gamed a US/China war and said the US would lose in 15 years, I have little faith in the ability of these to reflect reality. Sort of like the computer simulations of the climate control cultists trying to prove a pre-determined outcome.
Those opposed to FD2030 where told to S1 and S2, FD 2030 it had been vetted thoroughly by a group who were sworn to secrecy and had signed non-disclosure agreements (the NDA’s likely would have been valueless if breached…) but the war games supposedly began and the rest is a pathetic example of hubris gone wild. It’s never the crime but always the cover up. Times wasting. Congress and the new leadership at the puzzle palace need to get busy restoring the Corps capabilities and either agree that Title X doesn’t matter or it does. If it does than all efforts go to rebuilding men and assets to support, augment and otherwise get the Corps back to mission readiness and mission accomplishment. People don’t like hearing about the deep dive the DOGE may do. But if Generals Berger and Smith tried their FD2030 tricks in the business world particularly in the publicly offered securities companies they would have been sacked long ago, the stock in the tank and now a target of a hostile take over. As serious as the business of war fighting is, there is nothing like greedy bankers and money guys who want their pound of flesh and their money back. Stand by. It’s gonna get rough.
Cfrog. Dead on analysis. Ukraine conflict demonstrating a lot of teaching moments.
You have to see that the mobility that tanks once introduced is now hindered y the tanks presence? I'm all for a title X discussion, but I wouldn't reconstitute to what had been.
Heavy armor is never relevant, except for when it is. A simple way to look at the Ukraine Conflict is to state that mobility is hindered by the tanks presence. Except for the fact that both Ukraine and Russia go to great lengths to maintain heavy armor at the point of battle. Noone is complaining about the high consumption of drones; they keep saying they need more. This is the same for armor. As for antiques...the need for heavy armor capability on the battlefield, combined with other legacy and novel systems and concepts, has compelled the Russian Army to rebuild and restore what was previously considered antique armor. If practicality and success meant that armor was no longer neccessary...we would have seen one side gain an advantage by abandoning all use of heavy armor within the past year.
To my mind the purpose of armor for the Marine Corps and their inclusion in the MAGTF is actually pretty limited, but damn handy when you need it. If, you talk to Marine Infantry that fought at the Battle of Hue’ City (my vintage of senior NCO’s and Officers who schooled me up) tanks were the game changer, as well as the Ontos 106 light tracked vehicle. General Cheatham then Lt. colonel Cheatham at Hue’ brought the armor forward and suddenly the built up areas and massive wall structures were less formidable. It is my understanding from similar discussions with Marines at the second battle of Fallujah that tanks were an important part of the whole combined arms scheme of mass and maneuver. Title X needs a good look see, but in the meantime the senior leadership in the Pentagon has to have a come to Jesus moment in which it is admitted the Marines are not achieving their mission. As mentioned either achieve it or don’t, but if it can’t be achieved, wholesale change to avoid hard questions and harder answers wasn’t a very good idea. That is all FD 2030 turns out to be, a bad idea to avoid hard subjects. Additionally a big problem is our elected federal representatives and senators. They are just out of the day to day reality loop.
Also, where can I download a copy of the CSIS wargaming, I would like to evaluate it to further my own insights in to the matter? (Did not see any link above).
https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan
If you go to the CSIS link provided, the page has a prominent link at the beginning to download the report itself. That is where I got this:https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/230109_Cancian_FirstBattle_NextWar.pdf?VersionId=XlDrfCUHet8OZSOYW_9PWx3xtc0ScGHn