Like all fatally flawed concepts (the Maginot Line and McNamera's Line being good examples), FD will fail. Cracks in the foundation are already starting to show. You know you are in trouble when the Navy is neglecting the amphibious fleet; the "crown jewell" has lost its luster because too many are largely "compositioning" or "training to deploy" but not forward deployed; the light amphibious warship envisioned to position, reposition, and logistically support the SIFs have essentially been abandoned for an Army Logistical Support Vessel (LSV); routine training, exercises, logistics, and operations are touted as new capabilities; global response only exists on briefing slides and in talking points; and previously divested equipment is being brought back, such as almost 100 of the 200 tactical aircraft tossed aside.
The Marine Corps is not in a good place. Contrary to some, those opposed to FD are not trying to destroy the Marine Corps. They are trying to save it. Those who disagree should argue the issues. For starters, tell us why the NSM makes more sense than the LRASM or PrSM, increment 2. Or tell how the LSV can survive inside contested waters when the shooting starts.
We are seeing. The scoreboard is live. Force Design is moving forward.
Meanwhile, you’re stuck in neutral—same posts, same comments, same talking points, recycled endlessly since 2020.
If your argument, built on “hundreds of years of combined service,” is correct, then where’s the outcome? I’ve asked before, and all you offer is a stack of articles, a few Substack posts, and about $5 a day in donations since this started—$11,000 total.
If that’s your definition of effectiveness, fine. But let’s be honest about what that buys: not change, not influence—just the illusion of momentum.
And yet here we go again—someone will comment with “Hang in there, fellas” and another will say they’ve never felt more confident that things are about to turn.
The Navy has been neglecting the Amphibious Fleet since the day you first stood on the yellow footprints. The decline has been steady, predictable, and largely unchallenged.
We hit 32 ships under General Conway. And almost every Commandant since General Krulak watched the number fall—and did nothing to stop it.
Then came General Berger, who did what none of them did: he set a floor—no fewer than 31 amphibs—and secured the statutory authority for the Commandant to determine the requirement. Now General Smith is on record: he wants to get back to 3.0 MEBs.
Help him. Use your “influence,” your connections, your senior-level access—and make that a reality.
Enough of the blue-on-blue. Enough arguing like Command and Staff students replaying 2020 with lines like “if Stonewall hadn’t been killed…”
Force Design happened. The question now is: what are you doing next?
Everyone agrees we need more amphibs. But tomorrow, you’ll post something completely unrelated—because deep down, your campaign was never about ships.
So tell us: when you met with that senior member of the administration, did you press for amphibs—or just pitch “FD bad, let’s rewind to 2020?”
-So, when the USMC went along to get along quietly while Congress rubber stamped the Navy's handling of Ship Building/Maintenance/Repair....that was wrong? But you always assert how Congress has supported FD; could Congress be relying too much on the service?
-Now critics are vocal over concerns related to the USMC's Force Design plan while Congress rubber stamps the USMC handling of capabilities....and that is wrong too? Maybe Congress is supporting the Service until problems become too evident to ignore.
->I think you are contradicting yourself and your argument.
However, I will agree, the USMC should have started kicking sand at the Navy about how PEO Ships and NavSea 21 were allowing the slow eroding of amphib capabilities much sooner.
Cpl Grable. Read your two articles closely. The first lists 8500 service members which is 9O-95 % ships crews and higher Headquarters. Ground combat units listed?
The second article is a PR stunt. Merely a small addition to already existing Navy to Navy, specific interoperability between three navies.
Ready, shoot aim may best describe the events of the last six years. Of course it occurred in the dead of night with deceit and deception. Now, on reflection, perhaps we can integrate a new capability, as one of many vice the ill advised centerpiece. Now, how do we rebuild what we discarded?
Our Corps used to conduct MEU. MEB and MEF level exercises. As a few examples I landed in Spain as part of a Marine division exercise (81 ships), in Denmark in a MEB with two infantry battalions and a tank battalion, plus an AAV company (15 ships), in Korea as part of a two infantry regiment division-level exercise. Now the FD 2030 Corps deploys 15 Marines and touts it as a major exercise or 200 Marines and describes the unit as if it was a MEU. PA is working full time to make the Corps look like it once did but the stories don't fool those of us who have been around for a few years.
Good reddens of the Marine Corps Long Range NMESIS launcher development. Not our job and it is not supportive of our amphibious and MAGTF roots, especially when the US Army has developed and fielded the MDTF. The “anti-ship mission” belongs to the US Navy. The Arleigh-Burke Destroyers seems to have solved the problem of the anti-missile mission. The US Army Patriot System first got famous in Desert Shield/Storm. Israel enhanced it “with OJT” and developed their own “Iron Dome” and passed their ideas and improvements to US Army Missile Commands
.
Why is the US Marine Developing a tactical TLAM Missile Launcher that is a step back to the 1980s? The US Air Force BGM-109G Gryphon Ground-Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) was actually a Tomahawk land based “mobile” missile in service from 1983 to 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Gryphon The “Gryphon” sported the tactical “W84 thermonuclear warhead”. Both were decommissioned by the early 1990s with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
The US Marine Corps leadership needs to get back to the history books (starting with the stacked libraries of WW2 Pacific War books) and think about what we need for distributed operations to meet global contingencies. We will need an anti-air/missile defense system to protect our airfields because air superiority is still essential for all operations. In addition, aircraft like the F35B will need the capability to carry not only precision strike weapons but also anti-missile weapons like the US Navy’s SeaRAM. https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/sea/searam-ship-defense-system
The Combatant Commander that fights the CCP will need a Command and Control System that can coordinate EVERYTHING. The Joint Force will need to execute coordinated operations using US Navy and US Army missiles; US Air Force, US Navy aircraft and US Marine MAGTFs operating in the “WEZ”. S/F
“Corporal Grable “You know how I despise FD!” Are you allowed an FD in our Corps?”
“No Sir, the senior drill instructor hates FD, Sir!”
“Well then I suggest you start walking it all back and posting new links to joint force efforts and talk about ship to shore training operations on a international level!” “Not too mention new amphibious ships and complementary MAGTF T/E and T/O!”
Pros and Cons are coming up Corporal better get the new message from the oldest standing structure in Washington DC out to the DC cocktail circuit ASAP! Further you ought to stop putting FD all over your chow tray, cause’s constipation, and when you’re already stuffed full of FD, you don’t need that problem.
First island chains and SIF’s, we doan need no stinking first island chains and SIF’s.
And stau away from the apricots in the C-rats. They are bad luck.
VERY late in the game to be trying to figure missilery out now. If a bottoms up and protype approach to Force Design was adopted missilery and logistics would have been addressed way before devesting to invest in irrelevancy to Combatanr Commanders and the Nation? More likely than not USMC will become a bill payer for the Navy and DoD if it has not already.
Suspect MCCP did not even cross the minds of the top down FD cabal who were isolated by NDAs from the get-go and input adverse. FD cabal horded info which proved to a self-inflicted gapping
At Gaudalcanal, the Navy had to leave the battle area on several occasions because it did not have the strength to dominate in this relatively remote island chain. Several major naval battles took place at Iron Bottom Sound and other locales in the area, causing the loss or major damage to battleships, cruisers, and their escorts on both sides. When the USN was not active in the area, even IJN submarines would surface and expend their deck gun ammunition on the Marines. The point being made is that the Navy should not be expected to stay and provide long range cover fires to the Marines. A Navy is mobile, and when it sheds that characteristic, it becomes vulnerable, kind of like the current resurrection of the Coast Artillery sixty years after the Army shut that obsolete organization down.
The Marines should constitute 2-3 Standard Missiles type regiments above that of the division's themselves, Common equipment and systems with the Navy would have obvious interoperability advantages. The PrSM should comprise a battalion in that fold, ideally with development of a 25" 12 caliber (7.8m, for modified VLS cells) SM-4 long range penetrating ballistic weapon. A container could hold 48 PrSM's or 4-9 of a big SSM like described.
Even when Marine infantry are not being deployed, the joint force will often benefit from additional long range missiles to bolster regional defenses as has occurred several times in recent years. The Marines would have a big advantage over the Army and Air Force in that it would not require C-17's or other high value aircraft likely to be in other higher priority uses during heightened hostilities, it could deliver by LPD's or other maritime assets.
The Marine Standard Missiles Regiment(s) would be in addition to the three mobile/armored infantry regiments, reinforced artillery regiment, combat engineers, and well armored (and airmobile by C-130) armored recce regiment that dispenses with big horizontal guns in favor of hypersonic anti-tank missiles like CKEM and a medium caliber revolver cannon that can address all the other threats.
GOOD TO SEE MORE COMMENTS, IT APPEARS THE SITE IS GAINING MORE ATTENTION FROM THE BROADER MARINE COMMUNITY.
APART FROM ONE OF US, IT APPEARS THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY ARE NOT PAID TO COMMENT EITHER.
It's time to dump the sub-standard NMESIS system. Stick with the combat proven (and already in the inventory) HIMARS. The PrSM offers more range and flexibility. For additional flexibility some of the HIMARS should be of the JLTV variant. One missile system type also eases the logistical burden.
Napoleon’s Corporal speaks the truth about Force Design and finds out ! Grok generated this upon my command! “**Napoleon’s Corporal**
Paris, 1815, reeked of ash and fading empire. Napoleon, his coat frayed, hunched in the Tuileries, obsessing over *Force Design*—his desperate bid to salvage France. He’d gutted the Grande Armée: no artillery, cavalry, engineers, snipers, bridging crews, or fording boats. No logistics either—soldiers were to forage like scavengers. Instead, he fielded small units of elite troops, fanatically loyal, armed with brass ear trumpets and vibration rods from Prussian alchemists to sense enemies. For attack, erratic Chinese single-tube black powder rockets, short-range and terrifying, were his gamble. Hot-air balloons floated above, dropping propaganda or spying. Brilliant, he insisted. Madness, his generals muttered.
Corporal Étienne Dubois, a gaunt veteran of Leipzig, stood before the Emperor, summoned to report. He’d staggered back from a catastrophic clash in Flanders, where *Force Design* unraveled. His elite unit, starving from foraging scraps, could barely stand. The listening devices failed in mud and wind; rockets misfired, scorching their own ranks. Balloons drifted uselessly, shot down or lost, their pamphlets littering fields. Dubois, hollow-eyed from hunger and loss, met Napoleon’s fierce glare.
“Corporal,” Napoleon barked, “is *Force Design* not a triumph?”
Dubois’s stomach growled, his voice raw. “Sire, it’s a gigantic cockup.”
Generals froze, their medals glinting. Napoleon’s face twisted, a Corsican squall rising.
“Speak,” he snarled.
“The men are starving,” Dubois said. “Foraging finds nothing—villages are bare. The elite units are too small, too weak to fight. Listening devices are junk in the chaos. Chinese rockets burn our own men. Balloons? A joke, scattering paper or crashing. We’re dying, Sire, for a plan that’s starving us.”
“Treason!” Napoleon roared, kicking a table. “Guards!”
Grenadiers seized Dubois, his frame brittle from hunger. His eyes held Napoleon’s—honest, unafraid.
Dawn cloaked the courtyard in gray. Dubois faced the firing squad, swaying but defiant. No blindfold. “Vive la France,” he rasped.
Muskets cracked. Dubois collapsed, blood mingling with dirt. Napoleon, watching from above, muttered, “It will work.”
The U.S. Marines successfully integrated into anti-submarine warfare operations for the first time during the Atlantic Alliance 2025 exercise, using MV-22B Ospreys to deliver sonobuoys and support undersea capabilities alongside traditional Navy platforms.
This represents a significant shift in naval doctrine, expanding the Marine Corps' role beyond surface operations to include distributed sensing and command-and-control capabilities in undersea warfare.
//
I can already imagine your collective responses. “What sorcery is this? The Corps did no such thing back in 2003 during the March Up.”
According to some, these are not real Marines, right, General Van Riper?
“I suspect my friend that you are not really a Marine because real Marines don't think and write like this. They didn't sign on to this gun club to "sense and target;" they came aboard to close with and destroy the enemy.” - General Van Riper 24 June 2024
Please tell me why the United States Marine Corps is conducting ASW ops?? The Marine Corps always had a place in the Joint Force. It was as a combined-arms, naval expeditionary force. No other service in the US Military (or the world) did what the Marine Corps did. CMCs Berger and Smith did not appreciate what the Marine Corps did. They apparently not see the value of crisis response in today's world. The Army is contributing in a big way to the China threat with their MDTF, and obviously the Navy and Air Force are also. So, why duplicate what they are doing, when no one else does naval expeditionary warfare? So why destroy it??? If you want an anti-ship capability, just add HIMARS PrSM, some sensor/forward observer types and you're ready to go.
Exactly. Everyone and everything China. But, the world continues to rotate and we see a need for naval expeditionary warfare capability has not gone away. The Marine Corps has done so almost as soon as the hangovers from the beers at Tun Tavern began to wear off. It is a unique design, it doesn't take a lot to make it work. Logistics. logistics and logistics, for the longest time no one was better at it, and that may still be the case. It has been said America doesn't need a Marine Corps, but wants one. Yes, and it wants one, when it needs one. Ergo you need to be ready. In the podcasts Controversy and Clarity, hosted by Damian O'Connell, he has a series of interviews with Marines that were part of 1/8 24th MEU, which conducted the NEO at HKIA in August of 2021. Nobody "needed" a Marine Corps until it bloody well did, and those Marines on short notice with little logistical support (shame on CentCom and General McKenzie for placing them into harms way with no plan) pulled off a miracle of sorts, if you consider what they accomplished and just how bad it could have gone. No one thinks of the long term effects of decisions made in a petri dish. FD2030 is a petri dish, maybe some good bacteria maybe not, but it sure as Hell isn't the penicillin that a global seaborne fighting force is, one that can sail over the horizon and either instill great fear or great hope, or some of each, depending on which side you are taking.
So now the Corps thinks that conducting sonobouy drops, an anti submarine warfare mission assigned to the U.S. NAVY is a way of staying relevant? I can hear the ice cracking under your feet Cpl.
Where are the MEUs? You last spewed some PAO pablum about MEUs deployed worldwide. Only one was, the one in Australia, and that’s on a PR mission halfway around the world from where it’s needed.
I know, I know. You and a certain distinguished gentleman on this site will insist this is just a routine exercise — nothing more — and that the Marine Corps and Joint Force shouldn’t treat it as an OAI or a signal of deterrence.
* A military exercise, Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025, with opening ceremony on board Canberra-class Landing Helicopter Dock, HMAS Adelaide.
* In addition to the United States, forces from Canada, Fiji, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, and the United Kingdom will join as partners. Malaysia and Vietnam will also attend as observers.
* Talisman Sabre 2025 is a powerful demonstration of our combined strength, trust, interoperability, and readiness across the Indo-Pacific
I remember when we started supporting Talisman Sabre in 2005. The articles explaining how TS '05 validated Force Design 2030 were so prophetic...come on...to quote John McEnroe (an old tennis player) "you cannot be serious".
On a serious note, yes, it's good the Marine Corps is still doing some important exercises. That addresses zero concerns with the implementation of Force Design.
In a first-of-its-kind move, the United States, Australia, and Japan have signed a trilateral agreement aimed at boosting logistics interoperability between their naval forces. The pact marks a significant step in aligning support frameworks among the three allies.
The agreement was formally signed aboard the USS America (LHA-6) while the ship was docked in Brisbane, Australia, during a scheduled port visit.
USS America is currently participating in Exercise Talisman Sabre, a major multinational and multidomain training event involving forces from 19 nations.
You are conflating concerns regarding EABO (as it is outlined in the FD (2030) concept), and ship related "...Reloading missile systems and flexible refueling...". Your source had the link to the announcement, which clearly states that the agreement formalizes existing working concepts related to bilateral and trilateral rearm/refuel of ships at sea. Swing and a miss...strike 3!
From the announcement: “Sustainment in depth is a primary objective,” said Vice Adm. Jablon. “We have robust logistics partnerships with Japan and Australia to ensure we can provide the right material and services at the right place, at the right time to mutually support our maritime forces, from day-to-day training during peacetime through contingencies. This arrangement strengthens those commitments and allows us to more easily share information, technologies and processes for greater logistics resiliency.”...."AN and U.S. Navy forces have supported missile reloading for each other’s warships in the Indo-Pacific region since 2019. To enhance the capability to reload rapidly at sea, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) is developing prototype systems that are compatible with both existing U.S. and partner nation warships’ MK-41 missile launchers and can be utilized to transfer missile canisters between ships in elevated sea states. These systems were demonstrated in 2024, with demonstrations planned in 2025 and 2026 to showcase additional capability and interoperability.
Refueling naval vessels at sea is fundamental to the ability to maintain presence and respond to contingency situations. U.S., Australian and Japanese military oilers routinely refuel partner nation vessels while participating in combined joint exercises and other cooperative engagements. To augment oiler capability, since 2011 the Military Sealift Command (MSC) has been outfitting leased commercial tanker ships with consolidated tanking, or CONSOL, connections that enable them to refuel a U.S. or partner nation military oiler at sea. This allows the oiler to remain on station for longer periods and continue refueling operational forces, rather than returning to a port to refuel. Since 2022, MSC has ramped up CONSOL operations and related training with Australia, Japan, and other partners. The U.S. Navy is currently exploring how partner nation tankers could incorporate CONSOL capabilities." - https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4237713/trilateral-naval-logistics-arrangement-for-further-cooperation-signed/
U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Marine Corps Forces Command recently conducted Atlantic Alliance 2025, joined by allied partners from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The large-scale exercise involved more than 8,500 personnel, including sailors, Marines, and allied forces, operating across over 25 units.
Spanning the U.S. East Coast from North Carolina to Maine, the training focused on sharpening amphibious operations and strengthening naval-marine integration across the force.
Atlantic Alliance 2025 marked the largest amphibious exercise held in the Western Atlantic in more than ten years.
Yeah, huge amphibious exercise that included two entire amphibs, one of which was a USN ship while the other was from the Netherlands. Slightly more Amphibious shipping than my BASCOLEX. I don't want to poo-poo the exercise, but I think it's bit rich to talk it up like the next invasion of Normandy. You should read your own citations. For some local color, we thought we were hallucinating when we saw the USS New York off New River inlet...it's been so long.
Like all fatally flawed concepts (the Maginot Line and McNamera's Line being good examples), FD will fail. Cracks in the foundation are already starting to show. You know you are in trouble when the Navy is neglecting the amphibious fleet; the "crown jewell" has lost its luster because too many are largely "compositioning" or "training to deploy" but not forward deployed; the light amphibious warship envisioned to position, reposition, and logistically support the SIFs have essentially been abandoned for an Army Logistical Support Vessel (LSV); routine training, exercises, logistics, and operations are touted as new capabilities; global response only exists on briefing slides and in talking points; and previously divested equipment is being brought back, such as almost 100 of the 200 tactical aircraft tossed aside.
The Marine Corps is not in a good place. Contrary to some, those opposed to FD are not trying to destroy the Marine Corps. They are trying to save it. Those who disagree should argue the issues. For starters, tell us why the NSM makes more sense than the LRASM or PrSM, increment 2. Or tell how the LSV can survive inside contested waters when the shooting starts.
“We’ll see” about Force Design?
We are seeing. The scoreboard is live. Force Design is moving forward.
Meanwhile, you’re stuck in neutral—same posts, same comments, same talking points, recycled endlessly since 2020.
If your argument, built on “hundreds of years of combined service,” is correct, then where’s the outcome? I’ve asked before, and all you offer is a stack of articles, a few Substack posts, and about $5 a day in donations since this started—$11,000 total.
If that’s your definition of effectiveness, fine. But let’s be honest about what that buys: not change, not influence—just the illusion of momentum.
And yet here we go again—someone will comment with “Hang in there, fellas” and another will say they’ve never felt more confident that things are about to turn.
Sure. Any day now.
The Navy has been neglecting the Amphibious Fleet since the day you first stood on the yellow footprints. The decline has been steady, predictable, and largely unchallenged.
We hit 32 ships under General Conway. And almost every Commandant since General Krulak watched the number fall—and did nothing to stop it.
Then came General Berger, who did what none of them did: he set a floor—no fewer than 31 amphibs—and secured the statutory authority for the Commandant to determine the requirement. Now General Smith is on record: he wants to get back to 3.0 MEBs.
Help him. Use your “influence,” your connections, your senior-level access—and make that a reality.
Enough of the blue-on-blue. Enough arguing like Command and Staff students replaying 2020 with lines like “if Stonewall hadn’t been killed…”
Force Design happened. The question now is: what are you doing next?
Everyone agrees we need more amphibs. But tomorrow, you’ll post something completely unrelated—because deep down, your campaign was never about ships.
So tell us: when you met with that senior member of the administration, did you press for amphibs—or just pitch “FD bad, let’s rewind to 2020?”
-So, when the USMC went along to get along quietly while Congress rubber stamped the Navy's handling of Ship Building/Maintenance/Repair....that was wrong? But you always assert how Congress has supported FD; could Congress be relying too much on the service?
-Now critics are vocal over concerns related to the USMC's Force Design plan while Congress rubber stamps the USMC handling of capabilities....and that is wrong too? Maybe Congress is supporting the Service until problems become too evident to ignore.
->I think you are contradicting yourself and your argument.
However, I will agree, the USMC should have started kicking sand at the Navy about how PEO Ships and NavSea 21 were allowing the slow eroding of amphib capabilities much sooner.
Cpl Grable. Read your two articles closely. The first lists 8500 service members which is 9O-95 % ships crews and higher Headquarters. Ground combat units listed?
The second article is a PR stunt. Merely a small addition to already existing Navy to Navy, specific interoperability between three navies.
Ready, shoot aim may best describe the events of the last six years. Of course it occurred in the dead of night with deceit and deception. Now, on reflection, perhaps we can integrate a new capability, as one of many vice the ill advised centerpiece. Now, how do we rebuild what we discarded?
Our Corps used to conduct MEU. MEB and MEF level exercises. As a few examples I landed in Spain as part of a Marine division exercise (81 ships), in Denmark in a MEB with two infantry battalions and a tank battalion, plus an AAV company (15 ships), in Korea as part of a two infantry regiment division-level exercise. Now the FD 2030 Corps deploys 15 Marines and touts it as a major exercise or 200 Marines and describes the unit as if it was a MEU. PA is working full time to make the Corps look like it once did but the stories don't fool those of us who have been around for a few years.
Good reddens of the Marine Corps Long Range NMESIS launcher development. Not our job and it is not supportive of our amphibious and MAGTF roots, especially when the US Army has developed and fielded the MDTF. The “anti-ship mission” belongs to the US Navy. The Arleigh-Burke Destroyers seems to have solved the problem of the anti-missile mission. The US Army Patriot System first got famous in Desert Shield/Storm. Israel enhanced it “with OJT” and developed their own “Iron Dome” and passed their ideas and improvements to US Army Missile Commands
.
Why is the US Marine Developing a tactical TLAM Missile Launcher that is a step back to the 1980s? The US Air Force BGM-109G Gryphon Ground-Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) was actually a Tomahawk land based “mobile” missile in service from 1983 to 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Gryphon The “Gryphon” sported the tactical “W84 thermonuclear warhead”. Both were decommissioned by the early 1990s with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
The US Marine Corps leadership needs to get back to the history books (starting with the stacked libraries of WW2 Pacific War books) and think about what we need for distributed operations to meet global contingencies. We will need an anti-air/missile defense system to protect our airfields because air superiority is still essential for all operations. In addition, aircraft like the F35B will need the capability to carry not only precision strike weapons but also anti-missile weapons like the US Navy’s SeaRAM. https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/sea/searam-ship-defense-system
The Combatant Commander that fights the CCP will need a Command and Control System that can coordinate EVERYTHING. The Joint Force will need to execute coordinated operations using US Navy and US Army missiles; US Air Force, US Navy aircraft and US Marine MAGTFs operating in the “WEZ”. S/F
“Well well what have we here?”
Corporal Grable “What is this!”
“What the “F” IS THIS!”
“An FD sir!”
“Corporal Grable “You know how I despise FD!” Are you allowed an FD in our Corps?”
“No Sir, the senior drill instructor hates FD, Sir!”
“Well then I suggest you start walking it all back and posting new links to joint force efforts and talk about ship to shore training operations on a international level!” “Not too mention new amphibious ships and complementary MAGTF T/E and T/O!”
Pros and Cons are coming up Corporal better get the new message from the oldest standing structure in Washington DC out to the DC cocktail circuit ASAP! Further you ought to stop putting FD all over your chow tray, cause’s constipation, and when you’re already stuffed full of FD, you don’t need that problem.
First island chains and SIF’s, we doan need no stinking first island chains and SIF’s.
And stau away from the apricots in the C-rats. They are bad luck.
When testing these missiles, force the people who forced them on the Marine Corps to ride them.
VERY late in the game to be trying to figure missilery out now. If a bottoms up and protype approach to Force Design was adopted missilery and logistics would have been addressed way before devesting to invest in irrelevancy to Combatanr Commanders and the Nation? More likely than not USMC will become a bill payer for the Navy and DoD if it has not already.
MCCP ‘s purpose is to see that this does not happen.
Suspect MCCP did not even cross the minds of the top down FD cabal who were isolated by NDAs from the get-go and input adverse. FD cabal horded info which proved to a self-inflicted gapping
head wound.
At Gaudalcanal, the Navy had to leave the battle area on several occasions because it did not have the strength to dominate in this relatively remote island chain. Several major naval battles took place at Iron Bottom Sound and other locales in the area, causing the loss or major damage to battleships, cruisers, and their escorts on both sides. When the USN was not active in the area, even IJN submarines would surface and expend their deck gun ammunition on the Marines. The point being made is that the Navy should not be expected to stay and provide long range cover fires to the Marines. A Navy is mobile, and when it sheds that characteristic, it becomes vulnerable, kind of like the current resurrection of the Coast Artillery sixty years after the Army shut that obsolete organization down.
The Marines should constitute 2-3 Standard Missiles type regiments above that of the division's themselves, Common equipment and systems with the Navy would have obvious interoperability advantages. The PrSM should comprise a battalion in that fold, ideally with development of a 25" 12 caliber (7.8m, for modified VLS cells) SM-4 long range penetrating ballistic weapon. A container could hold 48 PrSM's or 4-9 of a big SSM like described.
Even when Marine infantry are not being deployed, the joint force will often benefit from additional long range missiles to bolster regional defenses as has occurred several times in recent years. The Marines would have a big advantage over the Army and Air Force in that it would not require C-17's or other high value aircraft likely to be in other higher priority uses during heightened hostilities, it could deliver by LPD's or other maritime assets.
The Marine Standard Missiles Regiment(s) would be in addition to the three mobile/armored infantry regiments, reinforced artillery regiment, combat engineers, and well armored (and airmobile by C-130) armored recce regiment that dispenses with big horizontal guns in favor of hypersonic anti-tank missiles like CKEM and a medium caliber revolver cannon that can address all the other threats.
GOOD TO SEE MORE COMMENTS, IT APPEARS THE SITE IS GAINING MORE ATTENTION FROM THE BROADER MARINE COMMUNITY.
APART FROM ONE OF US, IT APPEARS THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY ARE NOT PAID TO COMMENT EITHER.
It's time to dump the sub-standard NMESIS system. Stick with the combat proven (and already in the inventory) HIMARS. The PrSM offers more range and flexibility. For additional flexibility some of the HIMARS should be of the JLTV variant. One missile system type also eases the logistical burden.
Napoleon’s Corporal speaks the truth about Force Design and finds out ! Grok generated this upon my command! “**Napoleon’s Corporal**
Paris, 1815, reeked of ash and fading empire. Napoleon, his coat frayed, hunched in the Tuileries, obsessing over *Force Design*—his desperate bid to salvage France. He’d gutted the Grande Armée: no artillery, cavalry, engineers, snipers, bridging crews, or fording boats. No logistics either—soldiers were to forage like scavengers. Instead, he fielded small units of elite troops, fanatically loyal, armed with brass ear trumpets and vibration rods from Prussian alchemists to sense enemies. For attack, erratic Chinese single-tube black powder rockets, short-range and terrifying, were his gamble. Hot-air balloons floated above, dropping propaganda or spying. Brilliant, he insisted. Madness, his generals muttered.
Corporal Étienne Dubois, a gaunt veteran of Leipzig, stood before the Emperor, summoned to report. He’d staggered back from a catastrophic clash in Flanders, where *Force Design* unraveled. His elite unit, starving from foraging scraps, could barely stand. The listening devices failed in mud and wind; rockets misfired, scorching their own ranks. Balloons drifted uselessly, shot down or lost, their pamphlets littering fields. Dubois, hollow-eyed from hunger and loss, met Napoleon’s fierce glare.
“Corporal,” Napoleon barked, “is *Force Design* not a triumph?”
Dubois’s stomach growled, his voice raw. “Sire, it’s a gigantic cockup.”
Generals froze, their medals glinting. Napoleon’s face twisted, a Corsican squall rising.
“Speak,” he snarled.
“The men are starving,” Dubois said. “Foraging finds nothing—villages are bare. The elite units are too small, too weak to fight. Listening devices are junk in the chaos. Chinese rockets burn our own men. Balloons? A joke, scattering paper or crashing. We’re dying, Sire, for a plan that’s starving us.”
“Treason!” Napoleon roared, kicking a table. “Guards!”
Grenadiers seized Dubois, his frame brittle from hunger. His eyes held Napoleon’s—honest, unafraid.
Dawn cloaked the courtyard in gray. Dubois faced the firing squad, swaying but defiant. No blindfold. “Vive la France,” he rasped.
Muskets cracked. Dubois collapsed, blood mingling with dirt. Napoleon, watching from above, muttered, “It will work.”
Waterloo loomed, hungry for his empire’s end.”!
Just another day of the Corps adding value to the Joint Force as we compete and prepare to fight a near pear competitor. . .
https://sldinfo.com/2025/07/marines-break-new-ground-in-anti-submarine-warfare-during-atlantic-alliance-2025-exercise/
The U.S. Marines successfully integrated into anti-submarine warfare operations for the first time during the Atlantic Alliance 2025 exercise, using MV-22B Ospreys to deliver sonobuoys and support undersea capabilities alongside traditional Navy platforms.
This represents a significant shift in naval doctrine, expanding the Marine Corps' role beyond surface operations to include distributed sensing and command-and-control capabilities in undersea warfare.
//
I can already imagine your collective responses. “What sorcery is this? The Corps did no such thing back in 2003 during the March Up.”
According to some, these are not real Marines, right, General Van Riper?
“I suspect my friend that you are not really a Marine because real Marines don't think and write like this. They didn't sign on to this gun club to "sense and target;" they came aboard to close with and destroy the enemy.” - General Van Riper 24 June 2024
//
Please note this was in the Atlantic. . .
Please tell me why the United States Marine Corps is conducting ASW ops?? The Marine Corps always had a place in the Joint Force. It was as a combined-arms, naval expeditionary force. No other service in the US Military (or the world) did what the Marine Corps did. CMCs Berger and Smith did not appreciate what the Marine Corps did. They apparently not see the value of crisis response in today's world. The Army is contributing in a big way to the China threat with their MDTF, and obviously the Navy and Air Force are also. So, why duplicate what they are doing, when no one else does naval expeditionary warfare? So why destroy it??? If you want an anti-ship capability, just add HIMARS PrSM, some sensor/forward observer types and you're ready to go.
Exactly. Everyone and everything China. But, the world continues to rotate and we see a need for naval expeditionary warfare capability has not gone away. The Marine Corps has done so almost as soon as the hangovers from the beers at Tun Tavern began to wear off. It is a unique design, it doesn't take a lot to make it work. Logistics. logistics and logistics, for the longest time no one was better at it, and that may still be the case. It has been said America doesn't need a Marine Corps, but wants one. Yes, and it wants one, when it needs one. Ergo you need to be ready. In the podcasts Controversy and Clarity, hosted by Damian O'Connell, he has a series of interviews with Marines that were part of 1/8 24th MEU, which conducted the NEO at HKIA in August of 2021. Nobody "needed" a Marine Corps until it bloody well did, and those Marines on short notice with little logistical support (shame on CentCom and General McKenzie for placing them into harms way with no plan) pulled off a miracle of sorts, if you consider what they accomplished and just how bad it could have gone. No one thinks of the long term effects of decisions made in a petri dish. FD2030 is a petri dish, maybe some good bacteria maybe not, but it sure as Hell isn't the penicillin that a global seaborne fighting force is, one that can sail over the horizon and either instill great fear or great hope, or some of each, depending on which side you are taking.
So now the Corps thinks that conducting sonobouy drops, an anti submarine warfare mission assigned to the U.S. NAVY is a way of staying relevant? I can hear the ice cracking under your feet Cpl.
Where are the MEUs? You last spewed some PAO pablum about MEUs deployed worldwide. Only one was, the one in Australia, and that’s on a PR mission halfway around the world from where it’s needed.
Talisman Sabre a PR stunt?
I know, I know. You and a certain distinguished gentleman on this site will insist this is just a routine exercise — nothing more — and that the Marine Corps and Joint Force shouldn’t treat it as an OAI or a signal of deterrence.
* A military exercise, Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025, with opening ceremony on board Canberra-class Landing Helicopter Dock, HMAS Adelaide.
* In addition to the United States, forces from Canada, Fiji, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, and the United Kingdom will join as partners. Malaysia and Vietnam will also attend as observers.
* Talisman Sabre 2025 is a powerful demonstration of our combined strength, trust, interoperability, and readiness across the Indo-Pacific
https://australianaviation.com.au/2025/07/defence-officially-launches-exercise-talisman-sabre-2025/
The PLA doesn’t see it that way. You can count on that.
I remember when we started supporting Talisman Sabre in 2005. The articles explaining how TS '05 validated Force Design 2030 were so prophetic...come on...to quote John McEnroe (an old tennis player) "you cannot be serious".
On a serious note, yes, it's good the Marine Corps is still doing some important exercises. That addresses zero concerns with the implementation of Force Design.
But, but I read here USMC forces in the Pacific won’t have access to host nation / allied and partnered logistical support?
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/07/us-australia-and-japan-sign-trilateral-naval-logistics-agreement/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
By Mike Yeo – Breaking Defense
In a first-of-its-kind move, the United States, Australia, and Japan have signed a trilateral agreement aimed at boosting logistics interoperability between their naval forces. The pact marks a significant step in aligning support frameworks among the three allies.
The agreement was formally signed aboard the USS America (LHA-6) while the ship was docked in Brisbane, Australia, during a scheduled port visit.
USS America is currently participating in Exercise Talisman Sabre, a major multinational and multidomain training event involving forces from 19 nations.
You are conflating concerns regarding EABO (as it is outlined in the FD (2030) concept), and ship related "...Reloading missile systems and flexible refueling...". Your source had the link to the announcement, which clearly states that the agreement formalizes existing working concepts related to bilateral and trilateral rearm/refuel of ships at sea. Swing and a miss...strike 3!
From the announcement: “Sustainment in depth is a primary objective,” said Vice Adm. Jablon. “We have robust logistics partnerships with Japan and Australia to ensure we can provide the right material and services at the right place, at the right time to mutually support our maritime forces, from day-to-day training during peacetime through contingencies. This arrangement strengthens those commitments and allows us to more easily share information, technologies and processes for greater logistics resiliency.”...."AN and U.S. Navy forces have supported missile reloading for each other’s warships in the Indo-Pacific region since 2019. To enhance the capability to reload rapidly at sea, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) is developing prototype systems that are compatible with both existing U.S. and partner nation warships’ MK-41 missile launchers and can be utilized to transfer missile canisters between ships in elevated sea states. These systems were demonstrated in 2024, with demonstrations planned in 2025 and 2026 to showcase additional capability and interoperability.
Refueling naval vessels at sea is fundamental to the ability to maintain presence and respond to contingency situations. U.S., Australian and Japanese military oilers routinely refuel partner nation vessels while participating in combined joint exercises and other cooperative engagements. To augment oiler capability, since 2011 the Military Sealift Command (MSC) has been outfitting leased commercial tanker ships with consolidated tanking, or CONSOL, connections that enable them to refuel a U.S. or partner nation military oiler at sea. This allows the oiler to remain on station for longer periods and continue refueling operational forces, rather than returning to a port to refuel. Since 2022, MSC has ramped up CONSOL operations and related training with Australia, Japan, and other partners. The U.S. Navy is currently exploring how partner nation tankers could incorporate CONSOL capabilities." - https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4237713/trilateral-naval-logistics-arrangement-for-further-cooperation-signed/
But, but the USMC is only narrowly focused on the Pacific, right?
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/national/military-news/atlantic-alliance-2025-military-exercise-warships-virginia-beach-east-coast/291-989fe8b1-04f8-46a4-bd6a-e64f70a58d70?utm_source=chatgpt.com
By Hannah Amado – 13NewsNow
U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Marine Corps Forces Command recently conducted Atlantic Alliance 2025, joined by allied partners from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The large-scale exercise involved more than 8,500 personnel, including sailors, Marines, and allied forces, operating across over 25 units.
Spanning the U.S. East Coast from North Carolina to Maine, the training focused on sharpening amphibious operations and strengthening naval-marine integration across the force.
Atlantic Alliance 2025 marked the largest amphibious exercise held in the Western Atlantic in more than ten years.
Yeah, huge amphibious exercise that included two entire amphibs, one of which was a USN ship while the other was from the Netherlands. Slightly more Amphibious shipping than my BASCOLEX. I don't want to poo-poo the exercise, but I think it's bit rich to talk it up like the next invasion of Normandy. You should read your own citations. For some local color, we thought we were hallucinating when we saw the USS New York off New River inlet...it's been so long.