I would say that Force Design and SIFs are as far fetched as rocket delivered supplies; but, they have been been taken seriously by a whole bunch of folks in the military community. Go figure!
General, like you I’m a Marine Redleg. I like to think about the use of supporting arms, specifically tubed artillery, at the battalion or battery level. The article specifically mentions resupplying an artillery unit with 500 rounds of 155mm artillery rounds. Ignoring the cost which is exorbitant, I looked for a recent example of the use of tubed artillery. The Ukrainian army is currently expending on average 2,000 round PER DAY and earlier in the war was expending on average 7,000 rounds PER DAY! Given even the lower number of rounds of 2,000 per day, that means Space Force would need to deliver 4 flights PER DAY.
That also assumes that the enemy, which always has a say, doesn’t have the capability to down a specific payload or the entire missile. This redelivery may be a possible in the future, but “it’s not ready for prime time “. I’m not hopeful that HQMC realizes the impracticability of this, given their track record.
Many years ago, a former Commandant, I believe it was General Shoup, mentioned "delivering a Marine combat unit using a rocket." What goes around, comes around!
LTG Jim Gavin wrote of many concepts, including emerging space race warfare in his "War and Peace in the Space Age". Most notable for leaning into nuclear combined arms warfare (this was written in 1958), he also wrote about space capabilities. This was a time when the assumption was that the practicalities of space launch would be overcome and common place, while aviation was barely starting the jet age (which has been a great age for all aviation). LTG Gavin was a phenomenal thinker and it is worth reading his thoughts. I expect that, were he alive today, when presented with the facts, he would agree that air delivery makes more practical sense than fancies of space delivery for surface to surface deployment of combat formations and logistics. I base this on his revision of previous held views in later books, plus his lifelong ability to assess new information and adapt.
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPPING AND MPPS cannot and should not be envisioned to BE REPLACED BY STARSHIP….POSSIBLY A Resupply. Grok:”It looks like you’re interested in SpaceX’s Starship and its potential for point-to-point cargo delivery on Earth. Based on what’s known about the Starship program, here’s a look at how this could play out in the future.
SpaceX’s Starship is designed as a fully reusable spacecraft, capable of carrying up to 150 tons of cargo (potentially more with future iterations) to orbit, the Moon, or Mars. Elon Musk has long pitched the idea of using Starship for Earth-based point-to-point transport, where it could deliver cargo—or even passengers—between two locations on the planet in under an hour. The concept involves launching Starship into a suborbital trajectory, traveling at speeds around 27,000 km/h (16,777 mph), and landing at a destination thousands of miles away. For example, a trip from New York to Shanghai, which takes 12-14 hours by plane, could theoretically be cut to 39 minutes.
For cargo delivery, this could revolutionize logistics. Imagine time-sensitive shipments—medical supplies, high-value tech, or emergency aid—moving at unprecedented speed. SpaceX envisions Starship taking off from launch pads (likely offshore platforms to avoid noise and regulatory issues near cities), carrying a cargo payload in its spacious bay, and landing at another pad or a prepared site. The U.S. military is already exploring this under its Rocket Cargo program, aiming to use Starship to transport up to 100 tons of supplies anywhere on Earth in less than 90 minutes. A $102 million contract awarded to SpaceX in 2022 is funding demonstrations, with a test slated for 2025 or 2026.
The economics hinge on reusability. Musk has claimed Starship could eventually hit a launch cost of $2 million per flight, with fuel (methane and oxygen) costing around $500,000 per trip. If that scales to point-to-point hops—which use less fuel than orbital flights—costs could drop below air freight rates ($3-7 per kg) to as low as $0.50-$2.50 per kg, assuming high launch cadence and payload maxing out at 150-250 tons. That’s a game-changer for transcontinental shipping, potentially undercutting planes in both speed and price.
Challenges remain. Infrastructure—launch pads, landing zones, and fuel depots—needs massive investment. Regulatory hurdles, like FAA approval for frequent launches over populated areas, are steep. Noise from sonic booms and rocket engines could limit where Starship operates, likely pushing sites offshore or to remote areas. Safety’s another factor; while Starship’s test flights are progressing (sixth flight in November 2024 showed promise), it’s not yet proven reliable enough for routine cargo runs.
In the near future, say 5-10 years, Starship could start with niche applications—military logistics, disaster relief, or ultra-high-value goods—before scaling to broader commercial use. The Department of Defense’s interest suggests a first mover advantage, with SpaceX already testing landing precision (centimeter accuracy) and rapid turnaround. By the 2030s, if costs and tech align, we might see a network of Starship “spaceports” handling global cargo, turning a sci-fi idea into reality.
What’s your angle on this—military use, commercial potential, or something else? I can dig deeper if you’ve got a specific focus.”
SpaceX Starship for logistical support offers a good means for delivering multiple logistics classes to forward deployed forces. The main issue is the rocket; while it can deliver 100 Tons of supplies the counter is the footprint of the rocket and necessary support structures to allow the STARSHIP to land and be offloaded. Most of the comments against using STARSHIP is the the thought the STARSHIP is a ballistic missile planers need to understand and the environment for delivery. STARSHIP can provide a good means for logistics but requires careful planning to support operations. USMC needs to include SPACEX in wargames to understand the good and bad in using this asset and the necessary manpower and support necessary to have this capability to support the forward deployed Marines. If you examine the lift by aircraft either C5 or C17 STARSHIP beats them by payload and time for tonnage delivered. However, having a landing zone is critical to support operations and needs to be included in the planning process.
By referring to "Starship", I assume you are referring to a fictional device that is unrelated to the actual rocket. (As an aside, I will be specific in what key area. There is no Starship designed for surface to surface transport on the globe. There is no Starship, or Starship design, developed to land in unprepared or semi prepared areas. There is no Starship design developed to refuel in undeveloped or semi developed areas. There is no Starship related development to provide the necessary fuels at the temperatures required, much less any other support neccessary for expeditionary operations. We haven't even gotten to 'how to deploy cargo from the Rocket yet'. Yes, I know SpaceX offers an undeveloped concept of a crane elevator from the top of the rocket for their Lunar system. Lastly, the system, as of 8 flights, has failed to reach low earth orbit, and has not carried any cargo to low earth orbit while exhausting it's fuel. Here endeth my reasoned critical response. My uncritical response is to recommend stop watching The Martian as if it is a documentary.)
Don't believe the hype. When closely examined and compared, air delivery beats 'space delivery' in cost, speed, and flexibility 8 days out of 7 and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. The only caveats are for a) ballistic delivery of niche items like warheads that are not intended to survive the landing and b) delivery/recovery of items from the high ground of space itself. 'Space delivery' is a pop sci cash grab that sounds good provided one suspends their disbelief and doesn't think about it in practical terms. The Pelican Drop Ship from the HALO video games remains a neat concept and only a pleasant fiction. It ain't comin'.
(edit - can't help it...that DefenseXP article is terrible and I'm not just referring to the AI Rocket pictures. The author's facts and suppositions assume grossly unreal and undemonstrated capabilities that are not in evidence. Further, the comparison of Falcon9 to the Space Shuttle is way off the mark. Assuming the costs are correct (there is a lot of room for challenging those costs), the Shuttle had the ability to put 30 tons and 7 crew in low earth orbit. This is a capability that continues to be unmatched by any other system to this day. The Shuttle was the closest to real 'Space Delivery Capability' with it's ability to land the Orbiter at alternate runways independent of launch site).
Rocket Cargo: An Unnecessary Gimmick When a Restored MAGTF Can Do the Job
**Marine Corps Compass Points**
**April 9, 2025**
*Broader Thinking, Deeper Understanding, and Better Decisions, for a Stronger Marine Corps*
The *Compass Points* article “Rocket Cargo: One Hour Service Globally” (April 9, 2025) pitches a futuristic vision—Space Force rockets delivering 155mm artillery rounds and infantry platoons to Marines in under an hour. It’s a shiny idea, but let’s cut the fluff: if we had a fully resourced MAGTF like we did in Desert Storm, we wouldn’t be dreaming of Rocket Cargo. FD 2030 has gutted the Marine Corps’ combined arms, leaving us with a skeleton of what we once were. We need to restore the MAGTF to its former glory—capable, self-sufficient, and ready for any fight—rather than chasing high-tech distractions while Iran races toward nuclear weapons, the Houthis run rampant, and Hamas holds Israeli hostages, all as the U.S. fixates on China.
#### Rocket Cargo: Unnecessary When the MAGTF Is Fully Resourced
The article imagines Rocket Cargo resupplying Marine artillery batteries with 500 155mm rounds in under an hour, using SpaceX’s Starship at a projected $2-3 million per launch (down from $100 million). It even envisions delivering two infantry platoons with 50,000 lbs of cargo capacity. On paper, it sounds impressive—same-day delivery for a rapid crisis response force. But here’s the reality: a fully resourced MAGTF, as we had in Desert Storm, makes Rocket Cargo unnecessary. Back in 1991, I MEF—92,990 Marines, 452 M1A1 tanks, 21 cannon artillery batteries, and robust air and logistics—could sustain itself anywhere in the world without gimmicks. We had the organic firepower, air support, and logistics to fight and win, from breaching Iraqi minefields to liberating Kuwait in 100 hours.
Today, FD 2030 has slashed cannon artillery to 7 M777 batteries from 21, and even HIMARS units are being cut—5th Battalion, 11th Marines deactivated on March 29, 2024, leaving just two active-duty battalions and one in the reserves. The Corps has traded combined arms for a lighter, missile-heavy force focused on China, leaving us with limited artillery to even use those 155mm rounds Rocket Cargo might deliver. A restored MAGTF—fully equipped with cannon artillery, tanks, air wings, and logistics—would have the organic capacity to fight, sustain, and win without relying on Space Force rockets. Rocket Cargo is a distraction from the real need: rebuild the MAGTF to its Desert Storm strength, not chase fantasies that can’t replace what we’ve lost.
#### Strategic Chaos: Iran’s Nuclear Race, Houthis, Hostages, and a China Obsession
While we dream of rockets, the world is burning—and Iran is lighting the biggest fire. Iran has 274.8 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, just a technical step from weapons-grade 90% (Washington Post, February 26, 2025). U.S. Strategic Command warns Iran can enrich this to 90% in under a week—less than 7 days—and their stockpile could fuel 5 to 6 nuclear bombs (U.S. STRATCOM via posts on X, March 26, 2025; Iran Primer, January 13, 2025). Israel is poised to strike Fordow and Natanz by mid-2025, and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi threatens “all-out war” if attacked. The Houthis, Iran’s proxy, are entrenched—350+ drones and 200 missiles fired at Israel, 100+ merchant vessels hit in the Red Sea, and U.S. warships like the USS Harry S. Truman targeted. CENTCOM’s 44 strikes since March 27, 2025, haven’t stopped them—they’re not going anywhere. Hamas still holds 251 Israeli hostages taken on October 7, 2023, with no resolution despite talks.
Yet, the U.S. remains fixated on China, as if the Middle East isn’t a powder keg. Trump’s defense team wants to pivot to the Indo-Pacific, but China’s 84% tariffs on U.S. goods (April 9, 2025) and its role in supplying Houthi weapons parts show it’s already playing in our backyard. This China obsession while Iran races toward nukes in under a week, the Houthis disrupt global shipping, and Hamas holds hostages is a strategic disconnect.
#### Restore the MAGTF: The Real Path to a Stronger Marine Corps
The Marine Corps doesn’t need Rocket Cargo—it needs a restored MAGTF. Bring back the combined arms we had in 1991: 21 cannon batteries, tanks, full air wings, and logistics to sustain operations anywhere, not just the Pacific. A Desert Storm MAGTF could fight in Kuwait, Ukraine, or the South China Sea because it had the mass, firepower, and self-sufficiency to dominate. Today’s lighter MAGTF, optimized for EABO, lacks that versatility, leaving us vulnerable in high-intensity conflicts where close support is king—Ukraine burns through 6,000–8,000 shells daily, a rate we can’t match with 7 batteries.
FD 2030’s cuts have left the Corps a shadow of its former self, and Rocket Cargo is a shiny distraction from the real fix: rebuild the MAGTF to fight and win across all domains. We must also refocus on the Middle East—Iran’s nuclear threat, the Houthis’ Red Sea attacks, and the Israeli hostage crisis—before they spiral into a broader war. Iran could have a bomb in under a week; we don’t have time for space dreams. The Corps has always been the nation’s 9-1-1 force, but we can’t answer the call with a skeleton crew. Restore the MAGTF, face the real threats, and let’s get back to what Marines do best—fight, win, and come home.
The 'CONCEPT' works out to over $1300 per pound, and like nuclear powered cars from decades ago proposed by the same types is pure fantasy delusion. Twenty tons of explosive slurry is about the only practical use of this technology, assuming its cost does not mushroom like the bomb itself at tens of times the 'cost' quoted.
I thought this forum was about the future of the Marine Corps, not the Space Cadet Corps. Articles like this fundamentally degrade the conversation to the point that it can not be taken seriously by any one in the military community.
Someone else gets why we didn't use Saturn I's, Delta Heavy's, or procure the DCX(google it) for intraplanetary travel. Somewhere in the Dakota's..."Hey sir, no problem. We can get you to Taiwan lickety split. Just get into this missile here and cinch up your 'chute straps."
I would say that Force Design and SIFs are as far fetched as rocket delivered supplies; but, they have been been taken seriously by a whole bunch of folks in the military community. Go figure!
We are now in the realm of the Jetsons and Johnny Quest! Let's just get back to basics: a real MAGTF.
General, like you I’m a Marine Redleg. I like to think about the use of supporting arms, specifically tubed artillery, at the battalion or battery level. The article specifically mentions resupplying an artillery unit with 500 rounds of 155mm artillery rounds. Ignoring the cost which is exorbitant, I looked for a recent example of the use of tubed artillery. The Ukrainian army is currently expending on average 2,000 round PER DAY and earlier in the war was expending on average 7,000 rounds PER DAY! Given even the lower number of rounds of 2,000 per day, that means Space Force would need to deliver 4 flights PER DAY.
That also assumes that the enemy, which always has a say, doesn’t have the capability to down a specific payload or the entire missile. This redelivery may be a possible in the future, but “it’s not ready for prime time “. I’m not hopeful that HQMC realizes the impracticability of this, given their track record.
Greg, you are absolutely correct.
Well played sir, well played. ;)
Many years ago, a former Commandant, I believe it was General Shoup, mentioned "delivering a Marine combat unit using a rocket." What goes around, comes around!
LTG Jim Gavin wrote of many concepts, including emerging space race warfare in his "War and Peace in the Space Age". Most notable for leaning into nuclear combined arms warfare (this was written in 1958), he also wrote about space capabilities. This was a time when the assumption was that the practicalities of space launch would be overcome and common place, while aviation was barely starting the jet age (which has been a great age for all aviation). LTG Gavin was a phenomenal thinker and it is worth reading his thoughts. I expect that, were he alive today, when presented with the facts, he would agree that air delivery makes more practical sense than fancies of space delivery for surface to surface deployment of combat formations and logistics. I base this on his revision of previous held views in later books, plus his lifelong ability to assess new information and adapt.
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPPING AND MPPS cannot and should not be envisioned to BE REPLACED BY STARSHIP….POSSIBLY A Resupply. Grok:”It looks like you’re interested in SpaceX’s Starship and its potential for point-to-point cargo delivery on Earth. Based on what’s known about the Starship program, here’s a look at how this could play out in the future.
SpaceX’s Starship is designed as a fully reusable spacecraft, capable of carrying up to 150 tons of cargo (potentially more with future iterations) to orbit, the Moon, or Mars. Elon Musk has long pitched the idea of using Starship for Earth-based point-to-point transport, where it could deliver cargo—or even passengers—between two locations on the planet in under an hour. The concept involves launching Starship into a suborbital trajectory, traveling at speeds around 27,000 km/h (16,777 mph), and landing at a destination thousands of miles away. For example, a trip from New York to Shanghai, which takes 12-14 hours by plane, could theoretically be cut to 39 minutes.
For cargo delivery, this could revolutionize logistics. Imagine time-sensitive shipments—medical supplies, high-value tech, or emergency aid—moving at unprecedented speed. SpaceX envisions Starship taking off from launch pads (likely offshore platforms to avoid noise and regulatory issues near cities), carrying a cargo payload in its spacious bay, and landing at another pad or a prepared site. The U.S. military is already exploring this under its Rocket Cargo program, aiming to use Starship to transport up to 100 tons of supplies anywhere on Earth in less than 90 minutes. A $102 million contract awarded to SpaceX in 2022 is funding demonstrations, with a test slated for 2025 or 2026.
The economics hinge on reusability. Musk has claimed Starship could eventually hit a launch cost of $2 million per flight, with fuel (methane and oxygen) costing around $500,000 per trip. If that scales to point-to-point hops—which use less fuel than orbital flights—costs could drop below air freight rates ($3-7 per kg) to as low as $0.50-$2.50 per kg, assuming high launch cadence and payload maxing out at 150-250 tons. That’s a game-changer for transcontinental shipping, potentially undercutting planes in both speed and price.
Challenges remain. Infrastructure—launch pads, landing zones, and fuel depots—needs massive investment. Regulatory hurdles, like FAA approval for frequent launches over populated areas, are steep. Noise from sonic booms and rocket engines could limit where Starship operates, likely pushing sites offshore or to remote areas. Safety’s another factor; while Starship’s test flights are progressing (sixth flight in November 2024 showed promise), it’s not yet proven reliable enough for routine cargo runs.
In the near future, say 5-10 years, Starship could start with niche applications—military logistics, disaster relief, or ultra-high-value goods—before scaling to broader commercial use. The Department of Defense’s interest suggests a first mover advantage, with SpaceX already testing landing precision (centimeter accuracy) and rapid turnaround. By the 2030s, if costs and tech align, we might see a network of Starship “spaceports” handling global cargo, turning a sci-fi idea into reality.
What’s your angle on this—military use, commercial potential, or something else? I can dig deeper if you’ve got a specific focus.”
SpaceX Starship for logistical support offers a good means for delivering multiple logistics classes to forward deployed forces. The main issue is the rocket; while it can deliver 100 Tons of supplies the counter is the footprint of the rocket and necessary support structures to allow the STARSHIP to land and be offloaded. Most of the comments against using STARSHIP is the the thought the STARSHIP is a ballistic missile planers need to understand and the environment for delivery. STARSHIP can provide a good means for logistics but requires careful planning to support operations. USMC needs to include SPACEX in wargames to understand the good and bad in using this asset and the necessary manpower and support necessary to have this capability to support the forward deployed Marines. If you examine the lift by aircraft either C5 or C17 STARSHIP beats them by payload and time for tonnage delivered. However, having a landing zone is critical to support operations and needs to be included in the planning process.
By referring to "Starship", I assume you are referring to a fictional device that is unrelated to the actual rocket. (As an aside, I will be specific in what key area. There is no Starship designed for surface to surface transport on the globe. There is no Starship, or Starship design, developed to land in unprepared or semi prepared areas. There is no Starship design developed to refuel in undeveloped or semi developed areas. There is no Starship related development to provide the necessary fuels at the temperatures required, much less any other support neccessary for expeditionary operations. We haven't even gotten to 'how to deploy cargo from the Rocket yet'. Yes, I know SpaceX offers an undeveloped concept of a crane elevator from the top of the rocket for their Lunar system. Lastly, the system, as of 8 flights, has failed to reach low earth orbit, and has not carried any cargo to low earth orbit while exhausting it's fuel. Here endeth my reasoned critical response. My uncritical response is to recommend stop watching The Martian as if it is a documentary.)
Joesph is spot on, as per normal. I have been to Starbase ,Texas and have not missed a test launch via streaming on smart tv.
Don't believe the hype. When closely examined and compared, air delivery beats 'space delivery' in cost, speed, and flexibility 8 days out of 7 and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. The only caveats are for a) ballistic delivery of niche items like warheads that are not intended to survive the landing and b) delivery/recovery of items from the high ground of space itself. 'Space delivery' is a pop sci cash grab that sounds good provided one suspends their disbelief and doesn't think about it in practical terms. The Pelican Drop Ship from the HALO video games remains a neat concept and only a pleasant fiction. It ain't comin'.
(edit - can't help it...that DefenseXP article is terrible and I'm not just referring to the AI Rocket pictures. The author's facts and suppositions assume grossly unreal and undemonstrated capabilities that are not in evidence. Further, the comparison of Falcon9 to the Space Shuttle is way off the mark. Assuming the costs are correct (there is a lot of room for challenging those costs), the Shuttle had the ability to put 30 tons and 7 crew in low earth orbit. This is a capability that continues to be unmatched by any other system to this day. The Shuttle was the closest to real 'Space Delivery Capability' with it's ability to land the Orbiter at alternate runways independent of launch site).
Let's get back to basics and get our combined arms MAGTF back! We can do rockets later!
Rocket Cargo: An Unnecessary Gimmick When a Restored MAGTF Can Do the Job
**Marine Corps Compass Points**
**April 9, 2025**
*Broader Thinking, Deeper Understanding, and Better Decisions, for a Stronger Marine Corps*
The *Compass Points* article “Rocket Cargo: One Hour Service Globally” (April 9, 2025) pitches a futuristic vision—Space Force rockets delivering 155mm artillery rounds and infantry platoons to Marines in under an hour. It’s a shiny idea, but let’s cut the fluff: if we had a fully resourced MAGTF like we did in Desert Storm, we wouldn’t be dreaming of Rocket Cargo. FD 2030 has gutted the Marine Corps’ combined arms, leaving us with a skeleton of what we once were. We need to restore the MAGTF to its former glory—capable, self-sufficient, and ready for any fight—rather than chasing high-tech distractions while Iran races toward nuclear weapons, the Houthis run rampant, and Hamas holds Israeli hostages, all as the U.S. fixates on China.
#### Rocket Cargo: Unnecessary When the MAGTF Is Fully Resourced
The article imagines Rocket Cargo resupplying Marine artillery batteries with 500 155mm rounds in under an hour, using SpaceX’s Starship at a projected $2-3 million per launch (down from $100 million). It even envisions delivering two infantry platoons with 50,000 lbs of cargo capacity. On paper, it sounds impressive—same-day delivery for a rapid crisis response force. But here’s the reality: a fully resourced MAGTF, as we had in Desert Storm, makes Rocket Cargo unnecessary. Back in 1991, I MEF—92,990 Marines, 452 M1A1 tanks, 21 cannon artillery batteries, and robust air and logistics—could sustain itself anywhere in the world without gimmicks. We had the organic firepower, air support, and logistics to fight and win, from breaching Iraqi minefields to liberating Kuwait in 100 hours.
Today, FD 2030 has slashed cannon artillery to 7 M777 batteries from 21, and even HIMARS units are being cut—5th Battalion, 11th Marines deactivated on March 29, 2024, leaving just two active-duty battalions and one in the reserves. The Corps has traded combined arms for a lighter, missile-heavy force focused on China, leaving us with limited artillery to even use those 155mm rounds Rocket Cargo might deliver. A restored MAGTF—fully equipped with cannon artillery, tanks, air wings, and logistics—would have the organic capacity to fight, sustain, and win without relying on Space Force rockets. Rocket Cargo is a distraction from the real need: rebuild the MAGTF to its Desert Storm strength, not chase fantasies that can’t replace what we’ve lost.
#### Strategic Chaos: Iran’s Nuclear Race, Houthis, Hostages, and a China Obsession
While we dream of rockets, the world is burning—and Iran is lighting the biggest fire. Iran has 274.8 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, just a technical step from weapons-grade 90% (Washington Post, February 26, 2025). U.S. Strategic Command warns Iran can enrich this to 90% in under a week—less than 7 days—and their stockpile could fuel 5 to 6 nuclear bombs (U.S. STRATCOM via posts on X, March 26, 2025; Iran Primer, January 13, 2025). Israel is poised to strike Fordow and Natanz by mid-2025, and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi threatens “all-out war” if attacked. The Houthis, Iran’s proxy, are entrenched—350+ drones and 200 missiles fired at Israel, 100+ merchant vessels hit in the Red Sea, and U.S. warships like the USS Harry S. Truman targeted. CENTCOM’s 44 strikes since March 27, 2025, haven’t stopped them—they’re not going anywhere. Hamas still holds 251 Israeli hostages taken on October 7, 2023, with no resolution despite talks.
Yet, the U.S. remains fixated on China, as if the Middle East isn’t a powder keg. Trump’s defense team wants to pivot to the Indo-Pacific, but China’s 84% tariffs on U.S. goods (April 9, 2025) and its role in supplying Houthi weapons parts show it’s already playing in our backyard. This China obsession while Iran races toward nukes in under a week, the Houthis disrupt global shipping, and Hamas holds hostages is a strategic disconnect.
#### Restore the MAGTF: The Real Path to a Stronger Marine Corps
The Marine Corps doesn’t need Rocket Cargo—it needs a restored MAGTF. Bring back the combined arms we had in 1991: 21 cannon batteries, tanks, full air wings, and logistics to sustain operations anywhere, not just the Pacific. A Desert Storm MAGTF could fight in Kuwait, Ukraine, or the South China Sea because it had the mass, firepower, and self-sufficiency to dominate. Today’s lighter MAGTF, optimized for EABO, lacks that versatility, leaving us vulnerable in high-intensity conflicts where close support is king—Ukraine burns through 6,000–8,000 shells daily, a rate we can’t match with 7 batteries.
FD 2030’s cuts have left the Corps a shadow of its former self, and Rocket Cargo is a shiny distraction from the real fix: rebuild the MAGTF to fight and win across all domains. We must also refocus on the Middle East—Iran’s nuclear threat, the Houthis’ Red Sea attacks, and the Israeli hostage crisis—before they spiral into a broader war. Iran could have a bomb in under a week; we don’t have time for space dreams. The Corps has always been the nation’s 9-1-1 force, but we can’t answer the call with a skeleton crew. Restore the MAGTF, face the real threats, and let’s get back to what Marines do best—fight, win, and come home.
Well said, Cpl Dan!
Today CMC SMITH WAS DECISIVE….HE CHANGED THE NUMBER OF MARINES IN A SQUAD…..TOMORROW ANGELS ON THE HEAD OF A PIN WOW!
"I always get the shakes before a drop..."
The 'CONCEPT' works out to over $1300 per pound, and like nuclear powered cars from decades ago proposed by the same types is pure fantasy delusion. Twenty tons of explosive slurry is about the only practical use of this technology, assuming its cost does not mushroom like the bomb itself at tens of times the 'cost' quoted.
I thought this forum was about the future of the Marine Corps, not the Space Cadet Corps. Articles like this fundamentally degrade the conversation to the point that it can not be taken seriously by any one in the military community.
Someone else gets why we didn't use Saturn I's, Delta Heavy's, or procure the DCX(google it) for intraplanetary travel. Somewhere in the Dakota's..."Hey sir, no problem. We can get you to Taiwan lickety split. Just get into this missile here and cinch up your 'chute straps."