The Corps must remain a globally deployable, conventional combat force that is focused on the world’s maritime choke points. It could be via Amphibious assault, administrative off load working with allies or by other means such as a mix of amphibious, fly in etc. If the Corps can do this the myriad of other missions are executable. Master the tough stuff first. The rest are secondary missions.
How this escaped the leadership of the last seven years is a puzzle that reveals unexplainable shortfalls in education, history, budgeting and influence.
As the Official Spokesman for FD(2030) and GCE 2040...I'll remind CP that FD and GCE 2040 concepts are "threat informed" which means they are precisely what is needed to target the threat(s), regardless of execution or lack thereof. Moreso, these are data driven concepts, which means that they cannot be wrong or err in anyway. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I agree with the threat but don't comprehend how 2 deployed MEUs can address 11 space facilities and 132 port facilities, especially when there will be competing tasks in a full on food fight with the Chines and the host country wants a vote. It would seem to me that each case would have to be analyzed from both a military and political standpoint and then prioritized. How much help can we expect from host countries in neutralizing this infrastructure? Sound like a good project for some folks on the joint staff to contemplate a plan for the contingency.
Chinese interests now control almost every maritime choke point around the globe. The idea that we could deter them in any way by occupying a few meaningless islands near China with non existing missiles, would be laughable, if the consequences weren’t so serious. To remove or, in anyway, hinder our ability to counter this threat, almost, seems traitorous. Without personally knowing the individuals who promoted FD, it’s impossible to understand their motives or intelligence levels. Perhaps, someone who does, could explain. Semper Fi
Generals Berger and Smith must not have understood the mission of the Marine Corps, or understood the threat facing the United States in the name of China. In their rush to be a player in the "Joint Force" they abandoned a traditional tried and true Marine Corps for a weak at best "poorly thought out plan." They forgot that the Marine Corps' contribution to the Joint Force was its robust expeditionary capabilities. This unique expeditionary capability should be a thorn in the side to China's overseas locations. Instead of being targets in the First Island Chain, the Marine Corps could threaten these Chinese locations. By being deployed world-wide, ARG/MEUs could deter Chinese threats against Taiwan. The deterence is if China attacks Taiwan, then they'll lose their trade or mineral locations around the world. The Chinese can't protect everywhere, and with a robust combined-arms naval expeditionary force, we can be just about anywhere. If you look at the Seven Year's War, this is how Britain defeated the French on the High Seas.
Here is an idea I was working that someone must also be envisioning. I was shooting for a 12 foot beam so you could potentially move it around the vehicle deck of an amphib, but that beam was always going to be a stretch on stability and necessary minimum space to get around or secure a vehicle. At 14k lbs payload you could move a full size pickup. I'd love to see a 13 man full size pickup based Marine infantry squad vehicle. 12-15 of these connectors in a well deck getting to the beach at 20 knots with vehicles that can keep moving the squad forward upon landing. https://www.workboat.com/marine-corps-receives-first-autonomous-sharc-prototype
The Corps must remain a globally deployable, conventional combat force that is focused on the world’s maritime choke points. It could be via Amphibious assault, administrative off load working with allies or by other means such as a mix of amphibious, fly in etc. If the Corps can do this the myriad of other missions are executable. Master the tough stuff first. The rest are secondary missions.
How this escaped the leadership of the last seven years is a puzzle that reveals unexplainable shortfalls in education, history, budgeting and influence.
As the Official Spokesman for FD(2030) and GCE 2040...I'll remind CP that FD and GCE 2040 concepts are "threat informed" which means they are precisely what is needed to target the threat(s), regardless of execution or lack thereof. Moreso, these are data driven concepts, which means that they cannot be wrong or err in anyway. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I agree with the threat but don't comprehend how 2 deployed MEUs can address 11 space facilities and 132 port facilities, especially when there will be competing tasks in a full on food fight with the Chines and the host country wants a vote. It would seem to me that each case would have to be analyzed from both a military and political standpoint and then prioritized. How much help can we expect from host countries in neutralizing this infrastructure? Sound like a good project for some folks on the joint staff to contemplate a plan for the contingency.
Chinese interests now control almost every maritime choke point around the globe. The idea that we could deter them in any way by occupying a few meaningless islands near China with non existing missiles, would be laughable, if the consequences weren’t so serious. To remove or, in anyway, hinder our ability to counter this threat, almost, seems traitorous. Without personally knowing the individuals who promoted FD, it’s impossible to understand their motives or intelligence levels. Perhaps, someone who does, could explain. Semper Fi
Generals Berger and Smith must not have understood the mission of the Marine Corps, or understood the threat facing the United States in the name of China. In their rush to be a player in the "Joint Force" they abandoned a traditional tried and true Marine Corps for a weak at best "poorly thought out plan." They forgot that the Marine Corps' contribution to the Joint Force was its robust expeditionary capabilities. This unique expeditionary capability should be a thorn in the side to China's overseas locations. Instead of being targets in the First Island Chain, the Marine Corps could threaten these Chinese locations. By being deployed world-wide, ARG/MEUs could deter Chinese threats against Taiwan. The deterence is if China attacks Taiwan, then they'll lose their trade or mineral locations around the world. The Chinese can't protect everywhere, and with a robust combined-arms naval expeditionary force, we can be just about anywhere. If you look at the Seven Year's War, this is how Britain defeated the French on the High Seas.
Here is an idea I was working that someone must also be envisioning. I was shooting for a 12 foot beam so you could potentially move it around the vehicle deck of an amphib, but that beam was always going to be a stretch on stability and necessary minimum space to get around or secure a vehicle. At 14k lbs payload you could move a full size pickup. I'd love to see a 13 man full size pickup based Marine infantry squad vehicle. 12-15 of these connectors in a well deck getting to the beach at 20 knots with vehicles that can keep moving the squad forward upon landing. https://www.workboat.com/marine-corps-receives-first-autonomous-sharc-prototype