The idea to purchase foreign ships either complete on in some specific stage of development is not new. The divestiture of ships over the last 55 years has been nothing short of criminal.
A 30 year plan is obscene. “ Over the bleached and jumbled bones of destroyed civilizations are written the pathetic words: too late, too late.” I cannot recall the author. We simply do not have 30 years. The OODA loop applies.
The 12 May 2026 House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on the Navy and Marine Corps budget offered a clear picture of where things actually stand on Force Design.
Rather than criticism or retreat, the hearing showed continued alignment between the Marine Corps, Congress, Combatant Commanders, and the Administration.
Key takeaways:
• Full Budget Alignment: Gen. Smith reported that the Marine Corps submitted no Unfunded Priority List items, stating plainly that if the submitted budget is approved, the Corps’ requirements are addressed. That is a remarkable statement from a Service Chief and a strong indicator of institutional alignment and support.
• Force Design Capabilities Are Advancing: Gen. Smith highlighted the Corps’ drone task force (led by Col. Scotty Cuomo) rapidly fielding low-cost, 3D-printable systems informed by real-world lessons. On NMESIS and ROGUE Fires, he noted the software and autonomous capability are “rock solid” — the limiting factor now is missile depth, not concept viability.
• Balance, Not Trade-off: The hearing repeatedly reinforced that the Corps is restoring amphibious readiness and ARG/MEU presence while modernizing for the pacing threat. Acting SECNAV Hung Cao and multiple members highlighted ongoing SOUTHCOM operations and global crisis response requirements alongside distributed maritime capabilities.
• Institutional Credibility: Members from both parties highlighted the Marine Corps’ three consecutive clean audits — unmatched in the Department — as evidence of responsible stewardship while pursuing modernization and transformation.
This was not the hearing of a Corps in retreat or abandoning Force Design. It was the hearing of a Service refining, resourcing, and operationalizing its modernization path while sustaining its traditional role as the Nation’s expeditionary force-in-readiness.
The direction remains clear: both crisis response and high-end warfighting capability — integrated, balanced, and resourced. Congress and the Administration continue to support that approach.
Could the Marine Corps of today contribute much in a land conflict as it did during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom? With the Marine Corps' divestment of tanks and field artillery, why are the Chinese, Russians, Israelis, and Ukrainians, not eliminating their tanks?? Why are the NATO nations not dumping their tanks? A traditional Marine Corps could have accomplished the anti-shipping mission, but can the current Marine Corps conduct a robust forcible-entry operation, or mech operation??
If the Marine Corps' mission as a crisis intervention force was so important, why has the CMC not come up with these solutions?? The Marine Corps' main mission is expeditionary warfare and crisis response and yet no solution has been made. There has been justifiable finger pointing at the Navy for lack of readiness, but the expeditionary fast transport ships are the answer until we get more big decks afloat. But this proves that the last and current CMC still do not get it. Are they really serious about the Marine Corps being an expeditionary force? We have had a couple of world disasters where Marines could not respond, because the shipping was not available. They should have come up with this plan years ago! This class of ship has the perfect name for its mission: expeditionary fast transport. These ships need to be brought back online now, with Marines aboard!
LtGen van Riper, without an actual plan to build 21st Century Amphibious Warfare, Marines have severely limited capability to do our main mission--amphibious warfare. ACV needs to be immediately replaced with high-speed, long-range assault amphibian. LCAC needs to be replaced with high-speed, long-range combat logistics vehicle that is truly amphibious.
We see the institutional contempt for "technology" writ large written into the MCDPs, that is, any technology not in existence at the time any given officer pinned-on gold oak leaves.
Which is more challenging: Stealth aircraft or high-speed amphib? USAF did stealth but USMC can't do amphibious tech, certainly not urgently.
ACV and ARV do seem to hinder movement ashore. ACVs can only be placed 2 abreast in a well deck vs 3 for the AAV.
I think our challenge is the LCAC costs too much and in the end is fragile and hard to defend. At least it allows for dry offloading. The best alternate is EDA-R which I suspect ahs its own issues as it too is a complex solution. We need an MSVL that can be well deck compatible. That is how I ended up with a high speed catamaran instead. It would allow 2 lanes of vehicle in most circumstances and center on the narrower ramps we now have at the end of well decks which make loading nested landing craft more challenging than in the past.
The idea to purchase foreign ships either complete on in some specific stage of development is not new. The divestiture of ships over the last 55 years has been nothing short of criminal.
A 30 year plan is obscene. “ Over the bleached and jumbled bones of destroyed civilizations are written the pathetic words: too late, too late.” I cannot recall the author. We simply do not have 30 years. The OODA loop applies.
In other news:
The 12 May 2026 House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on the Navy and Marine Corps budget offered a clear picture of where things actually stand on Force Design.
Rather than criticism or retreat, the hearing showed continued alignment between the Marine Corps, Congress, Combatant Commanders, and the Administration.
Key takeaways:
• Full Budget Alignment: Gen. Smith reported that the Marine Corps submitted no Unfunded Priority List items, stating plainly that if the submitted budget is approved, the Corps’ requirements are addressed. That is a remarkable statement from a Service Chief and a strong indicator of institutional alignment and support.
• Force Design Capabilities Are Advancing: Gen. Smith highlighted the Corps’ drone task force (led by Col. Scotty Cuomo) rapidly fielding low-cost, 3D-printable systems informed by real-world lessons. On NMESIS and ROGUE Fires, he noted the software and autonomous capability are “rock solid” — the limiting factor now is missile depth, not concept viability.
• Balance, Not Trade-off: The hearing repeatedly reinforced that the Corps is restoring amphibious readiness and ARG/MEU presence while modernizing for the pacing threat. Acting SECNAV Hung Cao and multiple members highlighted ongoing SOUTHCOM operations and global crisis response requirements alongside distributed maritime capabilities.
• Institutional Credibility: Members from both parties highlighted the Marine Corps’ three consecutive clean audits — unmatched in the Department — as evidence of responsible stewardship while pursuing modernization and transformation.
This was not the hearing of a Corps in retreat or abandoning Force Design. It was the hearing of a Service refining, resourcing, and operationalizing its modernization path while sustaining its traditional role as the Nation’s expeditionary force-in-readiness.
The direction remains clear: both crisis response and high-end warfighting capability — integrated, balanced, and resourced. Congress and the Administration continue to support that approach.
Full hearing:
https://appropriations.house.gov/schedule/hearings/budget-hearing-united-states-navy-and-marine-corps
Solved the logistics problem yet?
Could the Marine Corps of today contribute much in a land conflict as it did during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom? With the Marine Corps' divestment of tanks and field artillery, why are the Chinese, Russians, Israelis, and Ukrainians, not eliminating their tanks?? Why are the NATO nations not dumping their tanks? A traditional Marine Corps could have accomplished the anti-shipping mission, but can the current Marine Corps conduct a robust forcible-entry operation, or mech operation??
If the Marine Corps' mission as a crisis intervention force was so important, why has the CMC not come up with these solutions?? The Marine Corps' main mission is expeditionary warfare and crisis response and yet no solution has been made. There has been justifiable finger pointing at the Navy for lack of readiness, but the expeditionary fast transport ships are the answer until we get more big decks afloat. But this proves that the last and current CMC still do not get it. Are they really serious about the Marine Corps being an expeditionary force? We have had a couple of world disasters where Marines could not respond, because the shipping was not available. They should have come up with this plan years ago! This class of ship has the perfect name for its mission: expeditionary fast transport. These ships need to be brought back online now, with Marines aboard!
Concur.
LtGen van Riper, without an actual plan to build 21st Century Amphibious Warfare, Marines have severely limited capability to do our main mission--amphibious warfare. ACV needs to be immediately replaced with high-speed, long-range assault amphibian. LCAC needs to be replaced with high-speed, long-range combat logistics vehicle that is truly amphibious.
We see the institutional contempt for "technology" writ large written into the MCDPs, that is, any technology not in existence at the time any given officer pinned-on gold oak leaves.
Which is more challenging: Stealth aircraft or high-speed amphib? USAF did stealth but USMC can't do amphibious tech, certainly not urgently.
Anything else is just playing with words.
ACV and ARV do seem to hinder movement ashore. ACVs can only be placed 2 abreast in a well deck vs 3 for the AAV.
I think our challenge is the LCAC costs too much and in the end is fragile and hard to defend. At least it allows for dry offloading. The best alternate is EDA-R which I suspect ahs its own issues as it too is a complex solution. We need an MSVL that can be well deck compatible. That is how I ended up with a high speed catamaran instead. It would allow 2 lanes of vehicle in most circumstances and center on the narrower ramps we now have at the end of well decks which make loading nested landing craft more challenging than in the past.