The best article, by far, on the evolution (devolution?) of the Corps as it marched like lemmings toward the FD era. What mystifies me is the fact that Marine Officers have engaged such censorship. Hell, during “Officer’s Call” at the O’Club on Friday nights, we would beat the previous week to death, discussing our performance, both good and bad. The CG of the 3rd MarDiv would invite groups of officers to join his staff and him to his quarters on Saturday for lunch and questions. The discussions were priceless and valuable, as we were withdrawing from Vietnam…No subject was off the table. How in the world did we get where we are today? Semper Fi
There is plenty of debate about this in the ranks. The real questions are not why and how FD is warranted/ effective/ ill-conceived, etc...The lessons learned every day in UKR, the Red Sea, and Israel are not being taken seriously by DOD let alone the USMC. We should look at funding (these are my opinions based on relevant and current knowledge) Hardened A/C Shelters, an actual JOINT communications and information system, divesting of systems that have proven to be vulnerable in peer threat environments, EW upgrades, Drone defense and making the rifle companies/stand in forces more lethal through the purchase of low cost, high probability of hit munitions.
It is crystal clear that the current and former Commandant (and their ilk) are very much aware of the innumerable deficits associated with FD 2030. General Van Riper along with many, many other very senior and talented officers and civilians have methodically and logically identified the failings of FD 2030. Yet, Marine Corps leadership continues on this insanely and dangerous path. One would think that with all these voices against FD 2030 that this would cause a pause to reflect and adjust course. But, instead of introspection and course correction we are faced with blind arrogance and unlimited hubris. It is full speed ahead......right over the cliff! God help our Corps!
Today’s post recalls a very relevant quote and enduring truth: “Deception can only live in the darkness and shadows. There is no place for it to hide once it is illuminated.” Mary Friedenfeld, "The Book of Simple Human Truths".
Those who forget (refuse) to rember history are bound to repeat it. WAKE ISLAND is too easy to forget. Refusing to remember it and its outcome are a sun flare hot example of avoiding the issue and debate of Force 2030 concept.
Bottom line: Change that Force 2030 concept —.or Fix Bayonets and suffer the ultimate, predictable Consequences.
The current crop of senior (05-06) and flag officers in all branches of our military, reflect the times that they live in. The public reflects and DOD directs. The public fearful of a military it does not know, and therefore can not understand, wanted a warm fuzzy friend. Someone that was nice and comforting, most of it did not and currently continues to not want to serve it's own national defense. It wants a civilianized military that it can relate with either through video war games or fancy "Top Gun" movies. They leave the national defense to a few, mostly lower and middle income men and women who hear a higher calling, and maybe their nation, saying come and help. The Marine Corps has been one of the scariest of the branches, for decades it refused to go along to get along. Senior officers and generals went up to the Hill and told congress we are designed to kick down doors (literally and more figuratively) and yes Congressperson he/him/her/she we KILL people and spend most our time figuring out ways to be better at it. Imagine a police dog, well trained, very handsome to look at, but keep it a good distance away from small children and the elderly, and sure as Hell don't let it near a college campus. Into this mush, comes a clouded world view. The Corps has had a mission so simple and concise it is almost like a steel ball bearing, nearly impossible to screw up. That mission as we enter more uncertain times is even more critical and importantly demands proper execution. However, for whatever reason the current leadership became blinded by video games, DC cocktail party circuit conversations, with lobbyists, congress, reporters, and the specter of a retirement not spent writing and reading and lecturing at the MCA, rather lucrative consulting gigs, TV spots as experts and so on and so forth. Thus they came up with a plan that was, is and will NOT be able to meet the scrutiny and reality of the world we inhabit. Thus, when queried and asked to justify massive divestment, a failure to deliver one SIF, one MLR, one small vessel, etc., etc., capable of supporting the FD2030 vision over a 6 year period, they get mad. Boy, do they get mad. They get so mad, they shut down debate. They refuse retired general officers the opportunity to debate and present a different viewpoint. The have retreated to the reverse slope defense of calling anyone who disagrees with them, names and of late disloyal and a discredit to the Corps and Nation. Many here just hold their heads in their hands, recalling as one has already, the Friday afternoon Officer's Call when a few beers down the stuff would fly and as long as it was inside the lines of acceptable decorum, anything went. The Marine Corps in many ways IS the thinking service. We don't get enough credit for it, for the cerebral nature of our approach.
Well, what they did not count on, is a group that refuses to quit, and as the nature of the FD vision becomes more open and clear they won't have a leg to stand on. So we forge forward, and make as big a ruckus as ever possible. This writer has a vision of General Louis Wilson, MOH hanging around the neck of his Dress Blues, steely eyed, looking down on him with those razor sharp blue eyes, and saying "Damn it son, don't you give up on me now." No sir, I won't! Not as long as I can take a living breath. We win with relentless debate and facts. We win this fight because we are right, and the proponents of FD whatever are wrong. This post was indeed one of the best so far, of many "this is the best post so far."
Gen VanRiper‘s comments about Gen Gray bringing in critics brought back memories of listening to Colonel John Boyd talk about OODA-Loop to my AWS class 79–80. Of course, a lot of us of wondered why are listening to this Air Force guy….We quickly learned why. He challenge us to think and we had robust debates and discussions in the seminar rooms that followed. I was a skeptic, but quickly learned how little I did know.
The same thing occurred at Camp Lejeune when we had to go to the base theater to listen to this fat civilian named Bill Lynn. His comments made us uncomfortable, but his comments also made us think and in the end made us all better. I share this only to make the point, how could Marines ever be afraid or concerned to discuss their ideas with each other. If that’s the case, we are in the wrong business.
You would think that with all the experience of the former Commandants and General officers, the developers of FD would want to be scrutinized in order to get it right. Peer review is always a welcomed activity in order to gain trust that a new concept will work.
However, if the designers of FD are afraid of academic scrutiny, how will FD actually stand up in combat?
I was a brand new Lieutenant in the early 90's and remember the debates well - they were dispassionate and not personal. The entire goal was how to accomplish the mission more effectively, more efficiently, while taking care of our Marines. The debates forced all of us to think critically and, through the magic of the dialectic, to come closer to the truth. This discussion and debate also provided us with intellectual fodder to adapt principles to various situations - which is the essence of maneuver warfare. I had the pleasure of visiting LtGen Van Riper at his residence on Quantico to discuss a Erwin Rommel biography and felt totally at ease having a frank discussion. All of this is honest and open debate is sadly lacking in today's Corps - our mission and our Marines may suffer for this.
It is Our Sworn Duty as Marines to Speak Out and Write about Our Marine Corps. No one has the right to silence us or ignore us. We will not be silenced by those who are failing Our Republic whether they be on active duty or were elected or appointed to office! Grok:Here are quotes from ancient Greek thinkers on the right and necessity of citizens, including veterans, to speak out on military warfighting preparation:
1. **Plato** - “We are twice armed if we fight with faith and truth, but to fight we must speak.” (Emphasizes truth-speaking as essential for effective military and civic action, implying a duty to critique preparation.)
2. **Aristotle** - “The good citizen must speak out when the state’s safety is at stake, for silence is complicity in its ruin.” (Suggests citizens, including veterans, have a moral obligation to address military readiness to protect the state.)
3. **Socrates** - “To know what is right and not speak it is the greatest cowardice, especially when soldiers’ lives depend on it.” (Urges speaking out on military matters as a courageous act of justice.)
4. **Pericles** - “The strength of our city lies not only in our arms but in the open discourse of our citizens.” (Highlights public discussion, including on military preparation, as vital to a strong state.)
5. **Thucydides** - “A nation’s power is judged by its readiness, and its citizens must question and ensure that readiness endures.” (Encourages scrutiny of military preparedness to maintain national strength.)”!
According to this article the concept of a “Lighting Carrier” not only started testing in 2016, I also get the impression that it is a US Navy idea. At last, A Navy Admiral thinking like he understands amphibious operations. I am thinking that a US Navy idea is an easy sell to SECNAV for the Marine Corps. Was this concept ever considered when the Marine Corps Commandant developed FD2030 back in 2019?
What I have gathered is a conflict with the CCP will require distributed operations, especially in the INDOPACCOM AOR. I also get the impression that all the US Military Services have bought into the distributed operations concept. Doesn’t the idea of a Lighting Carrier/ARG fit nicely into the idea of distributed operations? In addition, the F35B does not need a 10,000 Ft. runway and can do nicely on a FARP located on a small pacific island.
In the case that the CCP ties up carriers in the Pacific over Taiwan and then one of the CCP’s surrogates closes a SLOC (like we just seen in the Red Sea/Suez Canal SLOC) seems a Lighting Carrier/ARG would do nicely as a counter (with a couple Arleigh-Burk Destroyers and a submarine loaded with TLAMs for good measure).
The “Lighting Carrier” idea also seems to stay true to the US Marine Corps amphibious roots. It does have drawbacks as pointed out in the video. Here is an AI search on Lighting Carriers after action takeaways:
Key Takeaways from Available Reports and Analysis
• Proof of Concept: The USMC successfully demonstrated the Lightning Carrier concept by conducting flight operations with numerous F-35B Lightning II jets from amphibious assault ships like the USS Tripoli. This shows the feasibility of operating these fifth-generation aircraft from this platform type.
• Operational Flexibility: The Lightning Carrier concept offers the Marine Corps increased speed and flexibility in deploying F-35Bs, particularly in regions where access for larger carriers might be restricted, according to Yahoo. They can operate from smaller ports and function with a smaller supporting fleet compared to traditional carrier strike groups.
• Supplementing the Carrier Fleet: Lightning Carriers can potentially supplement the existing conventional aircraft carrier fleet, increasing overall naval air power and providing additional options for force projection.
• Limitations and Vulnerabilities: These ships face limitations compared to conventional aircraft carriers. They have lower survivability levels, making them more vulnerable to attack. Their smaller size limits ordnance stowage and overall flight operations compared to larger carriers. Resupply needs are likely to be more frequent.
• Impact on Regional Conflicts: Some analyses suggest that while Lightning Carriers provide additional capabilities, they might only offer a marginal advantage in combat scenarios in congested regions like the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan, due to the presence of significant anti-access/area-denial capabilities.
• Focus on Distributed Operations: The Lightning Carrier concept aligns with the Marine Corps' emphasis on distributed operations, using smaller, agile units to achieve mission objectives.
In summary, the Lightning Carrier concept, while demonstrating potential benefits in flexibility and supplementing existing forces, also faces limitations that need to be carefully considered when evaluating its effectiveness in various operational environments.
It surprises me to learn debate has been stifled within the Corps at the officer education level. Clearly no shortage of such criticism in the press. Did the harshness of the criticism contribute to the curtailment of debate?
When will the USMC be in a position to address and implement the "Lessons Learned" from the Unkraine -Russia conflict? Surely not as long as we are fussing about the Force Design 2030 bad dream. This is what we should be organizing the Corps for.
Ukraine is teaching the rest of us what 'innovation in contact' looks like. While there are many nations exploring human-machine teaming for military operations, none are able to conduct the ultimate test of their ideas and technology like Ukraine does in combat every single day.
This Ukrainian learning and adaptation is occurring across the land, air and sea domains, and features the evolution in operational concepts, organisations, training, technology, military-industrial collaboration as well as how military institutions can learn how to learn better.
And while the Ukrainian context might be unique to that part of the world, and each nation will need to translate #Ukraine insights for they own particular geography, culture, resources and threat, the core ideas we see emerging from Ukraine about human-machine-AI operations are now foundational for the force designs and operating concepts for military organisations worldwide.
The best article, by far, on the evolution (devolution?) of the Corps as it marched like lemmings toward the FD era. What mystifies me is the fact that Marine Officers have engaged such censorship. Hell, during “Officer’s Call” at the O’Club on Friday nights, we would beat the previous week to death, discussing our performance, both good and bad. The CG of the 3rd MarDiv would invite groups of officers to join his staff and him to his quarters on Saturday for lunch and questions. The discussions were priceless and valuable, as we were withdrawing from Vietnam…No subject was off the table. How in the world did we get where we are today? Semper Fi
The perpetrators of this debacle are not lemmings leaping off a cliff - they are gerbils burrowed in their bosses’ backsides.
I stand corrected.
Ray,
There is plenty of debate about this in the ranks. The real questions are not why and how FD is warranted/ effective/ ill-conceived, etc...The lessons learned every day in UKR, the Red Sea, and Israel are not being taken seriously by DOD let alone the USMC. We should look at funding (these are my opinions based on relevant and current knowledge) Hardened A/C Shelters, an actual JOINT communications and information system, divesting of systems that have proven to be vulnerable in peer threat environments, EW upgrades, Drone defense and making the rifle companies/stand in forces more lethal through the purchase of low cost, high probability of hit munitions.
It is crystal clear that the current and former Commandant (and their ilk) are very much aware of the innumerable deficits associated with FD 2030. General Van Riper along with many, many other very senior and talented officers and civilians have methodically and logically identified the failings of FD 2030. Yet, Marine Corps leadership continues on this insanely and dangerous path. One would think that with all these voices against FD 2030 that this would cause a pause to reflect and adjust course. But, instead of introspection and course correction we are faced with blind arrogance and unlimited hubris. It is full speed ahead......right over the cliff! God help our Corps!
Very true, Frank. Blind arrogance in the face of decades of knowledge and expertise.
Today’s post recalls a very relevant quote and enduring truth: “Deception can only live in the darkness and shadows. There is no place for it to hide once it is illuminated.” Mary Friedenfeld, "The Book of Simple Human Truths".
Those who forget (refuse) to rember history are bound to repeat it. WAKE ISLAND is too easy to forget. Refusing to remember it and its outcome are a sun flare hot example of avoiding the issue and debate of Force 2030 concept.
Bottom line: Change that Force 2030 concept —.or Fix Bayonets and suffer the ultimate, predictable Consequences.
BZ GENERAL AND A HAPPY BELATED BIRTHDAY!
The current crop of senior (05-06) and flag officers in all branches of our military, reflect the times that they live in. The public reflects and DOD directs. The public fearful of a military it does not know, and therefore can not understand, wanted a warm fuzzy friend. Someone that was nice and comforting, most of it did not and currently continues to not want to serve it's own national defense. It wants a civilianized military that it can relate with either through video war games or fancy "Top Gun" movies. They leave the national defense to a few, mostly lower and middle income men and women who hear a higher calling, and maybe their nation, saying come and help. The Marine Corps has been one of the scariest of the branches, for decades it refused to go along to get along. Senior officers and generals went up to the Hill and told congress we are designed to kick down doors (literally and more figuratively) and yes Congressperson he/him/her/she we KILL people and spend most our time figuring out ways to be better at it. Imagine a police dog, well trained, very handsome to look at, but keep it a good distance away from small children and the elderly, and sure as Hell don't let it near a college campus. Into this mush, comes a clouded world view. The Corps has had a mission so simple and concise it is almost like a steel ball bearing, nearly impossible to screw up. That mission as we enter more uncertain times is even more critical and importantly demands proper execution. However, for whatever reason the current leadership became blinded by video games, DC cocktail party circuit conversations, with lobbyists, congress, reporters, and the specter of a retirement not spent writing and reading and lecturing at the MCA, rather lucrative consulting gigs, TV spots as experts and so on and so forth. Thus they came up with a plan that was, is and will NOT be able to meet the scrutiny and reality of the world we inhabit. Thus, when queried and asked to justify massive divestment, a failure to deliver one SIF, one MLR, one small vessel, etc., etc., capable of supporting the FD2030 vision over a 6 year period, they get mad. Boy, do they get mad. They get so mad, they shut down debate. They refuse retired general officers the opportunity to debate and present a different viewpoint. The have retreated to the reverse slope defense of calling anyone who disagrees with them, names and of late disloyal and a discredit to the Corps and Nation. Many here just hold their heads in their hands, recalling as one has already, the Friday afternoon Officer's Call when a few beers down the stuff would fly and as long as it was inside the lines of acceptable decorum, anything went. The Marine Corps in many ways IS the thinking service. We don't get enough credit for it, for the cerebral nature of our approach.
Well, what they did not count on, is a group that refuses to quit, and as the nature of the FD vision becomes more open and clear they won't have a leg to stand on. So we forge forward, and make as big a ruckus as ever possible. This writer has a vision of General Louis Wilson, MOH hanging around the neck of his Dress Blues, steely eyed, looking down on him with those razor sharp blue eyes, and saying "Damn it son, don't you give up on me now." No sir, I won't! Not as long as I can take a living breath. We win with relentless debate and facts. We win this fight because we are right, and the proponents of FD whatever are wrong. This post was indeed one of the best so far, of many "this is the best post so far."
Thanks for this comment. Motivating because I was starting to get the feeling we were flailing at windmills.
Gen VanRiper‘s comments about Gen Gray bringing in critics brought back memories of listening to Colonel John Boyd talk about OODA-Loop to my AWS class 79–80. Of course, a lot of us of wondered why are listening to this Air Force guy….We quickly learned why. He challenge us to think and we had robust debates and discussions in the seminar rooms that followed. I was a skeptic, but quickly learned how little I did know.
The same thing occurred at Camp Lejeune when we had to go to the base theater to listen to this fat civilian named Bill Lynn. His comments made us uncomfortable, but his comments also made us think and in the end made us all better. I share this only to make the point, how could Marines ever be afraid or concerned to discuss their ideas with each other. If that’s the case, we are in the wrong business.
You would think that with all the experience of the former Commandants and General officers, the developers of FD would want to be scrutinized in order to get it right. Peer review is always a welcomed activity in order to gain trust that a new concept will work.
However, if the designers of FD are afraid of academic scrutiny, how will FD actually stand up in combat?
They cannot hide their failure nor can they defend it!
I was a brand new Lieutenant in the early 90's and remember the debates well - they were dispassionate and not personal. The entire goal was how to accomplish the mission more effectively, more efficiently, while taking care of our Marines. The debates forced all of us to think critically and, through the magic of the dialectic, to come closer to the truth. This discussion and debate also provided us with intellectual fodder to adapt principles to various situations - which is the essence of maneuver warfare. I had the pleasure of visiting LtGen Van Riper at his residence on Quantico to discuss a Erwin Rommel biography and felt totally at ease having a frank discussion. All of this is honest and open debate is sadly lacking in today's Corps - our mission and our Marines may suffer for this.
A correction, it’s Bill Lind…. that’s what happens when you voice dictation.🙈
It is Our Sworn Duty as Marines to Speak Out and Write about Our Marine Corps. No one has the right to silence us or ignore us. We will not be silenced by those who are failing Our Republic whether they be on active duty or were elected or appointed to office! Grok:Here are quotes from ancient Greek thinkers on the right and necessity of citizens, including veterans, to speak out on military warfighting preparation:
1. **Plato** - “We are twice armed if we fight with faith and truth, but to fight we must speak.” (Emphasizes truth-speaking as essential for effective military and civic action, implying a duty to critique preparation.)
2. **Aristotle** - “The good citizen must speak out when the state’s safety is at stake, for silence is complicity in its ruin.” (Suggests citizens, including veterans, have a moral obligation to address military readiness to protect the state.)
3. **Socrates** - “To know what is right and not speak it is the greatest cowardice, especially when soldiers’ lives depend on it.” (Urges speaking out on military matters as a courageous act of justice.)
4. **Pericles** - “The strength of our city lies not only in our arms but in the open discourse of our citizens.” (Highlights public discussion, including on military preparation, as vital to a strong state.)
5. **Thucydides** - “A nation’s power is judged by its readiness, and its citizens must question and ensure that readiness endures.” (Encourages scrutiny of military preparedness to maintain national strength.)”!
Talking about fear of debate.
I had one of my TBS Classmates (ECHO CO 74) email the video link take appeared in “Task and Purpose” dated 26 June 2025. Recommend that everyone takes a look. https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/marine-corps-lightning-carrier-pacific/
According to this article the concept of a “Lighting Carrier” not only started testing in 2016, I also get the impression that it is a US Navy idea. At last, A Navy Admiral thinking like he understands amphibious operations. I am thinking that a US Navy idea is an easy sell to SECNAV for the Marine Corps. Was this concept ever considered when the Marine Corps Commandant developed FD2030 back in 2019?
What I have gathered is a conflict with the CCP will require distributed operations, especially in the INDOPACCOM AOR. I also get the impression that all the US Military Services have bought into the distributed operations concept. Doesn’t the idea of a Lighting Carrier/ARG fit nicely into the idea of distributed operations? In addition, the F35B does not need a 10,000 Ft. runway and can do nicely on a FARP located on a small pacific island.
In the case that the CCP ties up carriers in the Pacific over Taiwan and then one of the CCP’s surrogates closes a SLOC (like we just seen in the Red Sea/Suez Canal SLOC) seems a Lighting Carrier/ARG would do nicely as a counter (with a couple Arleigh-Burk Destroyers and a submarine loaded with TLAMs for good measure).
The “Lighting Carrier” idea also seems to stay true to the US Marine Corps amphibious roots. It does have drawbacks as pointed out in the video. Here is an AI search on Lighting Carriers after action takeaways:
Key Takeaways from Available Reports and Analysis
• Proof of Concept: The USMC successfully demonstrated the Lightning Carrier concept by conducting flight operations with numerous F-35B Lightning II jets from amphibious assault ships like the USS Tripoli. This shows the feasibility of operating these fifth-generation aircraft from this platform type.
• Operational Flexibility: The Lightning Carrier concept offers the Marine Corps increased speed and flexibility in deploying F-35Bs, particularly in regions where access for larger carriers might be restricted, according to Yahoo. They can operate from smaller ports and function with a smaller supporting fleet compared to traditional carrier strike groups.
• Supplementing the Carrier Fleet: Lightning Carriers can potentially supplement the existing conventional aircraft carrier fleet, increasing overall naval air power and providing additional options for force projection.
• Limitations and Vulnerabilities: These ships face limitations compared to conventional aircraft carriers. They have lower survivability levels, making them more vulnerable to attack. Their smaller size limits ordnance stowage and overall flight operations compared to larger carriers. Resupply needs are likely to be more frequent.
• Impact on Regional Conflicts: Some analyses suggest that while Lightning Carriers provide additional capabilities, they might only offer a marginal advantage in combat scenarios in congested regions like the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan, due to the presence of significant anti-access/area-denial capabilities.
• Focus on Distributed Operations: The Lightning Carrier concept aligns with the Marine Corps' emphasis on distributed operations, using smaller, agile units to achieve mission objectives.
In summary, the Lightning Carrier concept, while demonstrating potential benefits in flexibility and supplementing existing forces, also faces limitations that need to be carefully considered when evaluating its effectiveness in various operational environments.
It surprises me to learn debate has been stifled within the Corps at the officer education level. Clearly no shortage of such criticism in the press. Did the harshness of the criticism contribute to the curtailment of debate?
When will the USMC be in a position to address and implement the "Lessons Learned" from the Unkraine -Russia conflict? Surely not as long as we are fussing about the Force Design 2030 bad dream. This is what we should be organizing the Corps for.
Ukraine is teaching the rest of us what 'innovation in contact' looks like. While there are many nations exploring human-machine teaming for military operations, none are able to conduct the ultimate test of their ideas and technology like Ukraine does in combat every single day.
This Ukrainian learning and adaptation is occurring across the land, air and sea domains, and features the evolution in operational concepts, organisations, training, technology, military-industrial collaboration as well as how military institutions can learn how to learn better.
And while the Ukrainian context might be unique to that part of the world, and each nation will need to translate #Ukraine insights for they own particular geography, culture, resources and threat, the core ideas we see emerging from Ukraine about human-machine-AI operations are now foundational for the force designs and operating concepts for military organisations worldwide.