CP raises the excellent principle of opportunity cost and applies it to the LSM.
That said, the far greater and more serious example of opportunity cost is the decision by the previous Commandant to buy specialized, defensive anti-ship elements for the first island chain rather than focus on the difficult but essential problem of conducting a from-the-sea counteroffensive in an era of PGMs and drones.
Consider not only the "divestment" of broadly useful, combat proven capabilities (Marines and equipment) but also the untold efforts of many diverted to develop a narrow, limited capability set.
Further, consider the untold, intangible, and ethos changing costs to engage in "cancel culture" actions against those working to build a relevant and credible "force-in-readiness" for the Nation.
Imagine if the previous Commandant had chosen to tackle the challenging issue of presence/offensive amphibious operations in the face of new technologies. Imagine, if after the "long wars" he had chosen to lead the other Services in developing amphibious counteroffensive capabilities. Imagine, if like many previous Commandants, he had sought to leverage the combat and development expertise of previous generations, if he had sought to strengthen Marine culture and ethos rather than cancel it.
Strategy 101: A Nation on the strategic defensive that seeks to maintain some semblance of global order will always need a credible, resilient, sustainable counteroffensive capability to take back what snatch and grab aggressors would seize.
Opportunity cost is opportunity lost. Tragically, many young lives may be lost trying to build such a capability in the midst of conflict.
Very little new in todays Congressional testimony. If interested and got some time here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6T2swgysLk&t=9272s I saw no indication that the Commandant was backing off the MLR and the LSM to move HIMARS (anti-ship missile equipped) around to hide on small islands. What I did learn was Congress had recommended posthumous promotions for the 11 Marines and 1 Corpman killed in the Kabul Airport bombing. The SECDEV stated that the Corpman got a promotion because he was already approved. Then both the SECDEF and the Commandant (under questioning) said the last 50 Marines awarded the Medal of Honor did not get posthumous promotions. Really! How long did it take for someone to think up that sorry excuse. We can't give 1 SSGT, 2 SGTS, 3 CPLs, and 5 LCPL's posthumous promotions for meritoriously manning their posts? Hey SECNAV and Commandant...if you take care of your Marines, they will take care of you. Semper Fi
I think what upset me most about that hearing is NO ONE asked any hard questions about what the Corps is doing. No one challenged the Commandant when he talked about the "extensive war games" that "proved" the concept. I find that interesting especially when the head of war games for HQMC has publicly called out those war games and the assumptions placed on them. Why do they not release the wargame results and the assumptions that they used to play them. I would love to see the logistics piece of it. Bu I am assuming that there were several industrial grade 55 gallon drums of fairy dust involved in that.
As far as the promotions for the 11 Marines......I cannot understand why there is such heartburn on the CMC and SECNAVs part in doing that. It is not like they are taking up a boat space or hindering other promotions. Just do it already.
I thought I remembered, from last year, the Philippines signing an agreement with China stating they would not allow the US to station a Littoral Force in the Philippines. If that's the case it seems that Force Design 2030 is dead in the water. I fear that our Marine Corps is in dire straits.
It's okay - no-one really knows what a littoral force is anyway. In any case, as I mentioned in the comments for a previous post, 3d MLR is conducting Exercises in the PI so there doesn't appear to be a limitation from that angle. Additionally, the Chinese keep telling the Philippines they can't have Marines at Second Thomas Shoal, but they are there anyway. FD (2030) is hamstrung for other reasons.
One of the reasons there is no space available to repair the USS Boxer, LHD-4, rudder is because the space that would receive the Boxer is presently occupied by a Littoral Combat Ship. Such irony!
Our ship yards are having difficulty maintaining the ships we do have. We can't get the big deck amphibs we need, and they want to compound the problem by starting a new ship class. This is totally irresponsible!
Meanwhile the US is being chased out of Africa to be replaced by Russia and China. There are problems world wide, and now we don't
have a credible combined arms expeditionary force to deal with these developments. I hope someone in the Senate is paying attention!
I have beat the drum about the Navys inability to properly schedule maintenance and their constant deferment of maintenance until it becomes a HUGE issue.
I have also beat the drum about the lack of skilled tradesmen and women. I was at one of the large shipyards here in Hampton Roads a few years back as a Superintendent. They came out and told us the average age of the workers there was 57 yrs old. 57!! Used to be a time that people were standing at the gates waiting for jobs. Now, all you have to do is watch ANY sporting event and Huntington Ingalls is pitching the "Buildsubmarines.com" website in the attempt to hire tradesmen. Guys holding brooms at HII make $22.00 per hour!!!
We, the men and women on this site and many others like us, are to blame for this deficit in skilled tradesmen. Yes us. We did not want our kids to do the things we had to do so we have devalued the trades and ensured they have gone to college so that they can have better lives than us.
I fear the LSM is the Marine Corps version of the LCS. If they can’t sail with an ARG and their “mission” is to supply Marine units occupying islands in the First Chain, they’re useless, unless they’re true mission is to have the Chinese expend a good portion of their anti-ship missiles putting them on the bottom.
Ironically, the lead designer and Chief Naval Architect for Austal who oversaw the development and construction of the Independence class LCS, went to Birdon Group last year. Birdon Group has been tapped by MCWL to provide 2 H-260 Heavy Landing Craft for test and evaluation exercises that appear to be scheduled in advance of production of the 6 initial LSMs that are to be produced. The whole thing is murky...currently, as far as I can tell, the H-260 exists only as computer renderings and PR announcements (no prototype and no current military or commercial Birdon Landing Ship near the displacement / capability of the proposed H-260 currently on the water).
Here is the solution just ask a Graduate of this program! “R 011743Z MAY 24
MARADMIN 207/24
MSGID/GENADMIN/CMC WASHINGTON DC MRA MM//
SUBJ/FY25 MARINE CORPS DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMS (PHDP) SELECTION BOARD ANNOUNCEMENT//
REF/A/MSGID: MCO/MPO/YMD: 20210510//
REF/B/MSGID: DOC/DODI/YMD: 20080429//
REF/C/MSGID: WEB/U.S.C/YMD: 20110107//
REF/D/MSGID: MCO/CMC/YMD: 20210519//
NARR/REF A IS MCO 1300.8 W/CH 1, MARINE CORPS PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENT POLICY. REF B IS DOD INSTRUCTION 1322.10, POLICY ON GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR MILITARY OFFICERS. REF C IS 10 U.S.C SECTION 2013, TRAINING AT NON-GOVERNMENT FACILITIES. REF D IS MCO 1524.2, MARINE CORPS DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM POLICY//
CP raises the excellent principle of opportunity cost and applies it to the LSM.
That said, the far greater and more serious example of opportunity cost is the decision by the previous Commandant to buy specialized, defensive anti-ship elements for the first island chain rather than focus on the difficult but essential problem of conducting a from-the-sea counteroffensive in an era of PGMs and drones.
Consider not only the "divestment" of broadly useful, combat proven capabilities (Marines and equipment) but also the untold efforts of many diverted to develop a narrow, limited capability set.
Further, consider the untold, intangible, and ethos changing costs to engage in "cancel culture" actions against those working to build a relevant and credible "force-in-readiness" for the Nation.
Imagine if the previous Commandant had chosen to tackle the challenging issue of presence/offensive amphibious operations in the face of new technologies. Imagine, if after the "long wars" he had chosen to lead the other Services in developing amphibious counteroffensive capabilities. Imagine, if like many previous Commandants, he had sought to leverage the combat and development expertise of previous generations, if he had sought to strengthen Marine culture and ethos rather than cancel it.
Strategy 101: A Nation on the strategic defensive that seeks to maintain some semblance of global order will always need a credible, resilient, sustainable counteroffensive capability to take back what snatch and grab aggressors would seize.
Opportunity cost is opportunity lost. Tragically, many young lives may be lost trying to build such a capability in the midst of conflict.
Very little new in todays Congressional testimony. If interested and got some time here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6T2swgysLk&t=9272s I saw no indication that the Commandant was backing off the MLR and the LSM to move HIMARS (anti-ship missile equipped) around to hide on small islands. What I did learn was Congress had recommended posthumous promotions for the 11 Marines and 1 Corpman killed in the Kabul Airport bombing. The SECDEV stated that the Corpman got a promotion because he was already approved. Then both the SECDEF and the Commandant (under questioning) said the last 50 Marines awarded the Medal of Honor did not get posthumous promotions. Really! How long did it take for someone to think up that sorry excuse. We can't give 1 SSGT, 2 SGTS, 3 CPLs, and 5 LCPL's posthumous promotions for meritoriously manning their posts? Hey SECNAV and Commandant...if you take care of your Marines, they will take care of you. Semper Fi
I think what upset me most about that hearing is NO ONE asked any hard questions about what the Corps is doing. No one challenged the Commandant when he talked about the "extensive war games" that "proved" the concept. I find that interesting especially when the head of war games for HQMC has publicly called out those war games and the assumptions placed on them. Why do they not release the wargame results and the assumptions that they used to play them. I would love to see the logistics piece of it. Bu I am assuming that there were several industrial grade 55 gallon drums of fairy dust involved in that.
As far as the promotions for the 11 Marines......I cannot understand why there is such heartburn on the CMC and SECNAVs part in doing that. It is not like they are taking up a boat space or hindering other promotions. Just do it already.
The initial LSM-RFP is for only 6 LSMs; is that glass half empty or half full?
I thought I remembered, from last year, the Philippines signing an agreement with China stating they would not allow the US to station a Littoral Force in the Philippines. If that's the case it seems that Force Design 2030 is dead in the water. I fear that our Marine Corps is in dire straits.
It's okay - no-one really knows what a littoral force is anyway. In any case, as I mentioned in the comments for a previous post, 3d MLR is conducting Exercises in the PI so there doesn't appear to be a limitation from that angle. Additionally, the Chinese keep telling the Philippines they can't have Marines at Second Thomas Shoal, but they are there anyway. FD (2030) is hamstrung for other reasons.
Despicable failed billet holders….
One of the reasons there is no space available to repair the USS Boxer, LHD-4, rudder is because the space that would receive the Boxer is presently occupied by a Littoral Combat Ship. Such irony!
Our ship yards are having difficulty maintaining the ships we do have. We can't get the big deck amphibs we need, and they want to compound the problem by starting a new ship class. This is totally irresponsible!
Meanwhile the US is being chased out of Africa to be replaced by Russia and China. There are problems world wide, and now we don't
have a credible combined arms expeditionary force to deal with these developments. I hope someone in the Senate is paying attention!
I have beat the drum about the Navys inability to properly schedule maintenance and their constant deferment of maintenance until it becomes a HUGE issue.
I have also beat the drum about the lack of skilled tradesmen and women. I was at one of the large shipyards here in Hampton Roads a few years back as a Superintendent. They came out and told us the average age of the workers there was 57 yrs old. 57!! Used to be a time that people were standing at the gates waiting for jobs. Now, all you have to do is watch ANY sporting event and Huntington Ingalls is pitching the "Buildsubmarines.com" website in the attempt to hire tradesmen. Guys holding brooms at HII make $22.00 per hour!!!
We, the men and women on this site and many others like us, are to blame for this deficit in skilled tradesmen. Yes us. We did not want our kids to do the things we had to do so we have devalued the trades and ensured they have gone to college so that they can have better lives than us.
I fear the LSM is the Marine Corps version of the LCS. If they can’t sail with an ARG and their “mission” is to supply Marine units occupying islands in the First Chain, they’re useless, unless they’re true mission is to have the Chinese expend a good portion of their anti-ship missiles putting them on the bottom.
Ironically, the lead designer and Chief Naval Architect for Austal who oversaw the development and construction of the Independence class LCS, went to Birdon Group last year. Birdon Group has been tapped by MCWL to provide 2 H-260 Heavy Landing Craft for test and evaluation exercises that appear to be scheduled in advance of production of the 6 initial LSMs that are to be produced. The whole thing is murky...currently, as far as I can tell, the H-260 exists only as computer renderings and PR announcements (no prototype and no current military or commercial Birdon Landing Ship near the displacement / capability of the proposed H-260 currently on the water).
Here is the solution just ask a Graduate of this program! “R 011743Z MAY 24
MARADMIN 207/24
MSGID/GENADMIN/CMC WASHINGTON DC MRA MM//
SUBJ/FY25 MARINE CORPS DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMS (PHDP) SELECTION BOARD ANNOUNCEMENT//
REF/A/MSGID: MCO/MPO/YMD: 20210510//
REF/B/MSGID: DOC/DODI/YMD: 20080429//
REF/C/MSGID: WEB/U.S.C/YMD: 20110107//
REF/D/MSGID: MCO/CMC/YMD: 20210519//
NARR/REF A IS MCO 1300.8 W/CH 1, MARINE CORPS PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENT POLICY. REF B IS DOD INSTRUCTION 1322.10, POLICY ON GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR MILITARY OFFICERS. REF C IS 10 U.S.C SECTION 2013, TRAINING AT NON-GOVERNMENT FACILITIES. REF D IS MCO 1524.2, MARINE CORPS DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM POLICY//
POC/A. N. “…