The EABO/SIF concept is neither efficient nor effective. SIFs are duplicative of Army, Navy, and Air Force capabilities and inferior to all three. SIFs are unsupportable inside contested areas. They can be easily defeated or left to wither and die on the vine for lack of logistics support. The Marine Corps should do the right right and kill EABO/SIF before more money is wasted on a failed concept. The money being wasted would be much better spent on restoring a combined arms force, capable of global response across the spectrum of conflict.
As a Marine Corps Drill Instructor 1965-1969 sadly I was a recipient of the 100,000 not a good thing to send unqualified boys/men into war as cannon fodder. The results of this venture was devastating to our Corps of which we nearly lost our Corps, the cost was not only to those who were mentally deficient but also to their brothers they served with.
For many of us that lived during the McNamara years, and for those older (presumably many of Chowder Society II) the damage that Robert McNamara did whilst CEO at Ford and then with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations bears no resemblance to the current situation, either directly in regard the future of the Marine Corps or the Department of Defense writ large. Robert McNamara spent several years outright lying to the American public. He had also lied to Henry Ford II about the Edsel. There were Kennedy Whiz Kids everywhere and the Python finally swallowed the last of the Kennedy C team right about the time Eagle Claw went sideways. McNamara never built a damn thing in his entire career and towards the end of his life wrote a mea culpa that made many of us at the time, very angry.
Elon Musk has built at least 3 companies. An online bank (PayPal), An electric car company (despite what the writer may think of electric cars) Tesla that is successful. A rocket, satellite and deep space company, AKA SpaceEX.He has had to navigate the very murky and greasy waters of the Federal, state and local governments in all three businesses. Let's not leave out the new AI company and other Venture Capital fledgling enterprises he has seeded with foundational capital.
If the DOGE has done nothing else and frankly does nothing else, it has shined a very bright light on just how bad we have let things get across the board. It is all idle speculation as to what and how the DOGE, OMB, POTUS and other cabinet members work things out going forward. But, Ebenezer Scrooge was a mean penny pincher, we are surrounded by bloat, laziness, lying, and just outright fraud, "Fat Leonard" would be a movie but Hollywood wouldn't touch such fantasy, sadly it is a true story. We have been on a DOD drunk for years. Failed 7 consecutive DOD audits, have had and have two CMC's just willy nilly invent out of whole cloth a new basically unvetted set of doctrines and wasted time and money into the bargain. All the while absolutely diminishing the fighting capability of the Marine Corps by stripping the Corps of major combat assets, failing to meet mission requirements and all the while saying "look what good little boys we are, we are."
Nothing the DOGE does in coming months in this writers opinion, can truly make things worse. Unless they do conclude that Marine Corps needs to be binned, in which case they may have a large fight on their hands. But, if it takes two guys from outside to tip the apple cart and then make apple sauce then it may well be worth giving them some free passage to give it a try.
If General Van Riper says we are getting somewhere and mind your manners, and stand by for further instruction, than the commanders is intent is clear. Stand by, they will call us when they need us. In the meantime get your popcorn and coke, the DOGE is a show you don't want to miss.
I hope you are right that significant reductions to the Corps would result in a big fight. I do not know who would fight that fight. I do not sense that Congress or the American people are inclined to fight.
The last time I checked Pete Hegseth, a Field Grade Officer with Combat Experience has been nominated for Secretary of Defense not Elon Musk.
The US Military has long suffered from a Military Industrial Congressional Complex that sifoned off Billions to fund weapons that were not needed; It become more and more politicized and then infected with a DEI virus.
McNamara was a bean counter; the NSC and White House were happy to use him to interfere in the conduct of the Vietnam Air War - and NO FLAG OFFICERS Objected. Accountability was and still is a problem.
Hegseth will have his hands full. The Pentagon Swamp has been growing since 1950; it has never slimmed down from the World War 2 Model.
The Defense Establishment needs great reform; it needs to be modernized and made more lethal and lean; the number of flag officers and the myriad support commands and staff positions cut. Those of us looking for this change are not radical leftists we are every day Americans and veterans looking at a service we no longer recognize. Time for change. Smaller Force. More Lethal. Better Supplied. Fewer Generals and Admirals & More War Fighters.
Smaller force? How small? The Navy is the smallest it has been since before WWI? How many Army combat Divisions? The hollow and little army is a reality. We need a better tooth to tail ratio. And we need more teeth and more tail.
Business management techniques and sports concepts do not translate well to war as it is like no other human endeavor. Efficiency is secondary to effectiveness.
0n Dec 3 ManTech announced a five year contract with the USMC for $716 M to design and test its new littoral warfare systems. It contracted for an additional $268 million to modernize and upgrade JTAC systems. Grand total of $ 1 Billion with both deliverables in five years. Details are lacking and terms like “sensitive” and “secretive” abound. These contracts look like “tell me what to do”. Neither seems to have an acquisition of equipment part. I would appreciate some enlightenment as to what this will buy the Marine Corps in 2029?
On the helicopter aviation side of the Marine Corps the individual pilot replacement in Vietnam appears to have worked well. We were assigned to a squadron that had pilots having up to 13 months of combat experience. We flew as copilots until we had 500 or more combat flight hours before we could qualify to be an aircraft commander. This is in contrast to a full newly deployed helicopter squadron in 1968 during a summer offensive following the spring Tet offensive. In the first month of their arrival they lost almost half the squadron do to lack of in country experience. When MAG 16 switched pilots from other seasoned squadrons their aircraft losses were greatly minimized.
The ground combat units probably had different results.
The US military lost over 5000 helicopters in Vietnam. At no point did that seem to deter anyone nor were helicopters declared obsolete. Of course a squadron has either 12 or 18 maneuver entities. An infantry Bn has up to 800 individuals working in a coordinated fashion and at other times totally on their own instincts, decisions and initiative.
In both cases experience is very important and manpower policies seem to work against retaining experience.
Besides policy a big problem is spending acquisition dollars on systems with very poor R&D results where upgrading a proven system would have been way more cost effective and saved lives.
I agree with you Michael. New and cutting edge is not always better, more reliable and more effective. B-52’s, B-1s, M-1 Tanks are proof that the upgrade and improve process is often viable. The ground up new design holds many unexpected but totally predictable challenges they result in delays, costs and limited availability. Do not shut down the line. Keep improving the product and producing it until the newest version is fielded and kinks are ironed out. The Phase out of the CH-46 and development of the MV-22 Osprey is the example of how not to do it.
As a member of the aviation Headquarters staff I was part of the decision to go with the MV-22 acquisition over the CH-46 upgrade when Chaney wanted to cancel the MV-22 program. The MV-22 R&D result through phase 4 showed very poor results and it killed several Marines. The political pressure on our boss was tremendous. He wanted the staff to come up with a reason to keep the program and present it to congress. The Marines wanted it for the over the horizon amphibious assault concept because of its speed to the beach. It didn’t make sense to me to spend that much (50+M in FY90 dollars) when the complete 46 upgrade was only 3M each. Boeing V was going to re-skin the fram, newest engines, new improved rotor heads and upgraded avionics for that price. They would have come out 0 airframe time and given another 20 to 25 years of life cycle. The cost benefit was about 600M for 150 AC. The price we ended up paying for about 7 MV-22 at 90M each.
Douglas, at the time I had concerns about most of your now proven results. Being a Vietnam CH-53 and CH-34 combat pilot flying these heavy and medium lift aircraft I was convinced the MV-22 would have your mentioned issues. That made no difference in that procurement. To convince Congress and change Chaney’s mind I developed for the staff how we could now lift a MAGTAF ship to shore. The Marines never had this ability which is one of the main missions of Marine Aviation. I took our Vietnam helicopter numbers (250+) aircraft and compared it’s lifting capacity with the future equal number of helicopters (with the MC-22, CH-53D and E’s plus the Huey). It would have taken a month to lift a MAGTAF with the Vietnam era aircraft. I showed it could be done in about 3 days with the newer aircraft. That is what sold Congress and the rest is now history. I still feel remorse for that today.
Reposting from comments for the previous article: "I am cautious of putting faith in the new crew. Robert McNamara was a money and margins guy, much like many others - that doesn't automatically get the best result. I am very skeptical of DOGE; it is comically inefficient when we already have OMB and GAO, one of which is already in the Executive Branch. And FYI - CMC38 and CMC39 were warfighters, so that is no panacea. Impugning the current direction of the USMC will necessitate many USMC supporters in Congress and the incoming Administration to admit they were incorrect to some degree. Remember, there has been strong advocacy for FD from that vantage point, noted here in the past on CP. I think our criteria needs to be very tight, we should be highly skeptical, and in direct engagement until the results are in. LtGen Van Riper's comments[about positive advancements interacting with relevant Federal entities] provide some glimmer of hope."
McNamara was the reason the Vietnam War escalated after JFK's death (JFK had planned a withdrawal of the US military advisers in late 1963 after he rightly concluded that this was not our fight) and the writer here points out more flaws... good corrolation between his tenure and the current "DOGE" program...
The only reason we were in Vietnam at all is because president Eisenhower committed the US to becoming a member of the Southeast Treaty Organization (SETO) in support of our ally France. President JFK kept his VP out of the loop on most everything so when Johnson became president he didn’t know JFK was planning to pull out of Vietnam. JFK only wanted Johnson on the ticket to win the south. From there the rest is history. McNamara and his Whiz Kids took over from there.
The EABO/SIF concept is neither efficient nor effective. SIFs are duplicative of Army, Navy, and Air Force capabilities and inferior to all three. SIFs are unsupportable inside contested areas. They can be easily defeated or left to wither and die on the vine for lack of logistics support. The Marine Corps should do the right right and kill EABO/SIF before more money is wasted on a failed concept. The money being wasted would be much better spent on restoring a combined arms force, capable of global response across the spectrum of conflict.
As a Marine Corps Drill Instructor 1965-1969 sadly I was a recipient of the 100,000 not a good thing to send unqualified boys/men into war as cannon fodder. The results of this venture was devastating to our Corps of which we nearly lost our Corps, the cost was not only to those who were mentally deficient but also to their brothers they served with.
For many of us that lived during the McNamara years, and for those older (presumably many of Chowder Society II) the damage that Robert McNamara did whilst CEO at Ford and then with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations bears no resemblance to the current situation, either directly in regard the future of the Marine Corps or the Department of Defense writ large. Robert McNamara spent several years outright lying to the American public. He had also lied to Henry Ford II about the Edsel. There were Kennedy Whiz Kids everywhere and the Python finally swallowed the last of the Kennedy C team right about the time Eagle Claw went sideways. McNamara never built a damn thing in his entire career and towards the end of his life wrote a mea culpa that made many of us at the time, very angry.
Elon Musk has built at least 3 companies. An online bank (PayPal), An electric car company (despite what the writer may think of electric cars) Tesla that is successful. A rocket, satellite and deep space company, AKA SpaceEX.He has had to navigate the very murky and greasy waters of the Federal, state and local governments in all three businesses. Let's not leave out the new AI company and other Venture Capital fledgling enterprises he has seeded with foundational capital.
If the DOGE has done nothing else and frankly does nothing else, it has shined a very bright light on just how bad we have let things get across the board. It is all idle speculation as to what and how the DOGE, OMB, POTUS and other cabinet members work things out going forward. But, Ebenezer Scrooge was a mean penny pincher, we are surrounded by bloat, laziness, lying, and just outright fraud, "Fat Leonard" would be a movie but Hollywood wouldn't touch such fantasy, sadly it is a true story. We have been on a DOD drunk for years. Failed 7 consecutive DOD audits, have had and have two CMC's just willy nilly invent out of whole cloth a new basically unvetted set of doctrines and wasted time and money into the bargain. All the while absolutely diminishing the fighting capability of the Marine Corps by stripping the Corps of major combat assets, failing to meet mission requirements and all the while saying "look what good little boys we are, we are."
Nothing the DOGE does in coming months in this writers opinion, can truly make things worse. Unless they do conclude that Marine Corps needs to be binned, in which case they may have a large fight on their hands. But, if it takes two guys from outside to tip the apple cart and then make apple sauce then it may well be worth giving them some free passage to give it a try.
If General Van Riper says we are getting somewhere and mind your manners, and stand by for further instruction, than the commanders is intent is clear. Stand by, they will call us when they need us. In the meantime get your popcorn and coke, the DOGE is a show you don't want to miss.
I hope you are right that significant reductions to the Corps would result in a big fight. I do not know who would fight that fight. I do not sense that Congress or the American people are inclined to fight.
The last time I checked Pete Hegseth, a Field Grade Officer with Combat Experience has been nominated for Secretary of Defense not Elon Musk.
The US Military has long suffered from a Military Industrial Congressional Complex that sifoned off Billions to fund weapons that were not needed; It become more and more politicized and then infected with a DEI virus.
McNamara was a bean counter; the NSC and White House were happy to use him to interfere in the conduct of the Vietnam Air War - and NO FLAG OFFICERS Objected. Accountability was and still is a problem.
Hegseth will have his hands full. The Pentagon Swamp has been growing since 1950; it has never slimmed down from the World War 2 Model.
The Defense Establishment needs great reform; it needs to be modernized and made more lethal and lean; the number of flag officers and the myriad support commands and staff positions cut. Those of us looking for this change are not radical leftists we are every day Americans and veterans looking at a service we no longer recognize. Time for change. Smaller Force. More Lethal. Better Supplied. Fewer Generals and Admirals & More War Fighters.
Smaller force? How small? The Navy is the smallest it has been since before WWI? How many Army combat Divisions? The hollow and little army is a reality. We need a better tooth to tail ratio. And we need more teeth and more tail.
Business management techniques and sports concepts do not translate well to war as it is like no other human endeavor. Efficiency is secondary to effectiveness.
0n Dec 3 ManTech announced a five year contract with the USMC for $716 M to design and test its new littoral warfare systems. It contracted for an additional $268 million to modernize and upgrade JTAC systems. Grand total of $ 1 Billion with both deliverables in five years. Details are lacking and terms like “sensitive” and “secretive” abound. These contracts look like “tell me what to do”. Neither seems to have an acquisition of equipment part. I would appreciate some enlightenment as to what this will buy the Marine Corps in 2029?
I'm sorry, sir, but you must sign a non-disclosure agreement before we can tell you what one billion dollars will buy the Marine Corps.
On the helicopter aviation side of the Marine Corps the individual pilot replacement in Vietnam appears to have worked well. We were assigned to a squadron that had pilots having up to 13 months of combat experience. We flew as copilots until we had 500 or more combat flight hours before we could qualify to be an aircraft commander. This is in contrast to a full newly deployed helicopter squadron in 1968 during a summer offensive following the spring Tet offensive. In the first month of their arrival they lost almost half the squadron do to lack of in country experience. When MAG 16 switched pilots from other seasoned squadrons their aircraft losses were greatly minimized.
The ground combat units probably had different results.
The US military lost over 5000 helicopters in Vietnam. At no point did that seem to deter anyone nor were helicopters declared obsolete. Of course a squadron has either 12 or 18 maneuver entities. An infantry Bn has up to 800 individuals working in a coordinated fashion and at other times totally on their own instincts, decisions and initiative.
In both cases experience is very important and manpower policies seem to work against retaining experience.
Besides policy a big problem is spending acquisition dollars on systems with very poor R&D results where upgrading a proven system would have been way more cost effective and saved lives.
DOGE may have some military value yet.
I agree with you Michael. New and cutting edge is not always better, more reliable and more effective. B-52’s, B-1s, M-1 Tanks are proof that the upgrade and improve process is often viable. The ground up new design holds many unexpected but totally predictable challenges they result in delays, costs and limited availability. Do not shut down the line. Keep improving the product and producing it until the newest version is fielded and kinks are ironed out. The Phase out of the CH-46 and development of the MV-22 Osprey is the example of how not to do it.
As a member of the aviation Headquarters staff I was part of the decision to go with the MV-22 acquisition over the CH-46 upgrade when Chaney wanted to cancel the MV-22 program. The MV-22 R&D result through phase 4 showed very poor results and it killed several Marines. The political pressure on our boss was tremendous. He wanted the staff to come up with a reason to keep the program and present it to congress. The Marines wanted it for the over the horizon amphibious assault concept because of its speed to the beach. It didn’t make sense to me to spend that much (50+M in FY90 dollars) when the complete 46 upgrade was only 3M each. Boeing V was going to re-skin the fram, newest engines, new improved rotor heads and upgraded avionics for that price. They would have come out 0 airframe time and given another 20 to 25 years of life cycle. The cost benefit was about 600M for 150 AC. The price we ended up paying for about 7 MV-22 at 90M each.
When first looking at the MV-22 from an infantryman’s perspective I had many concerns.
1. Low Speed into and out of an LZ
2. Rotor wash in Arctic and desert environments
3. Size of LZs required.
4. Faster than a 46 but no advantage if facing aircraft or anti aircraft weapons
5. Spots on Amphib ships
6. Ability to take light infantry out of the range of naval gunfire, artillery or any support other than CAS.
These disadvantages and cost convinced me at the time that the juice was not worth the squeeze. I am now more convinced.
Douglas, at the time I had concerns about most of your now proven results. Being a Vietnam CH-53 and CH-34 combat pilot flying these heavy and medium lift aircraft I was convinced the MV-22 would have your mentioned issues. That made no difference in that procurement. To convince Congress and change Chaney’s mind I developed for the staff how we could now lift a MAGTAF ship to shore. The Marines never had this ability which is one of the main missions of Marine Aviation. I took our Vietnam helicopter numbers (250+) aircraft and compared it’s lifting capacity with the future equal number of helicopters (with the MC-22, CH-53D and E’s plus the Huey). It would have taken a month to lift a MAGTAF with the Vietnam era aircraft. I showed it could be done in about 3 days with the newer aircraft. That is what sold Congress and the rest is now history. I still feel remorse for that today.
Reposting from comments for the previous article: "I am cautious of putting faith in the new crew. Robert McNamara was a money and margins guy, much like many others - that doesn't automatically get the best result. I am very skeptical of DOGE; it is comically inefficient when we already have OMB and GAO, one of which is already in the Executive Branch. And FYI - CMC38 and CMC39 were warfighters, so that is no panacea. Impugning the current direction of the USMC will necessitate many USMC supporters in Congress and the incoming Administration to admit they were incorrect to some degree. Remember, there has been strong advocacy for FD from that vantage point, noted here in the past on CP. I think our criteria needs to be very tight, we should be highly skeptical, and in direct engagement until the results are in. LtGen Van Riper's comments[about positive advancements interacting with relevant Federal entities] provide some glimmer of hope."
McNamara was the reason the Vietnam War escalated after JFK's death (JFK had planned a withdrawal of the US military advisers in late 1963 after he rightly concluded that this was not our fight) and the writer here points out more flaws... good corrolation between his tenure and the current "DOGE" program...
The only reason we were in Vietnam at all is because president Eisenhower committed the US to becoming a member of the Southeast Treaty Organization (SETO) in support of our ally France. President JFK kept his VP out of the loop on most everything so when Johnson became president he didn’t know JFK was planning to pull out of Vietnam. JFK only wanted Johnson on the ticket to win the south. From there the rest is history. McNamara and his Whiz Kids took over from there.