Home » Marine Corps » Marine Corps Releases New Operating Concept

Marine Corps Releases New Operating Concept

The Marine Corps Operating Concepts — Third Edition, has been released and I wanted to make it available to readers. I’ll be writing much more about this document after I get some time to thoroughly read it. For now, I wanted to highlight this bit from the first chapter:

While Marine Corps forces may perform a variety of missions across the range of military operations, two stand at the forefront of what we do.

First, as part of the naval team we assure littoral access by bridging the difficult seam between operations at sea and on land. This is accomplished through a combination of activities ranging from military engagement, crisis response, and power projection (both soft and hard). This capability contributes to overcoming diplomatic, geographic and military challenges to access and assists the Nation in it strategic objectives of preventing conflict, protecting national interests, assuring access to engage partners and to defeat aggression when necessary.

Second, we fight what have historically been called “small wars,” operations that require a high degree of adaptability along with versatile, comprehensive skills. We have a long track record of success in solving; spanning recently from Al Anbar province, to the Barbary Wars and suppression of the slave trade in the early 19th century. These are complex problems in which purely military solutions will not suffice—because the fundamental causes of the conflict are often a complicated combination of security, economic, political and social issues.

– Greg Grant

Share |

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }

William C. June 29, 2010 at 5:07 pm

I await the comments from Byron and others claiming we don't need the USMC and we should disband them. If we disband the USMC, you will know for a fact that our nation is on the path to mediocrity and failure.

Reply

Marine Corps June 29, 2010 at 11:59 pm

I tell you what we better get ready for the big one down the road with China!
Cause it's gonna be a big one. While we are spinning our wheels talking about crap they are busy training, sitting back, letting us waste our time in these wars getting stronger!

Reply

SMSgt Mac June 29, 2010 at 5:26 pm

Thanks! I'll read it tonight.

Reply

JEFF June 29, 2010 at 5:46 pm

Wow that was a read. It was interesting the parts on ship garrisons and regonilization of Marine units. I see a bit of green berret in that part of their concept. There does seem to be a demphasis from amphibious assaults, but a clear assertion that it is not the only way amphibious capabilities are utilized. It justifies the need for continued amphibious capabilities to support a number of types of operations

Reply

chucklonestart June 30, 2010 at 1:02 am

Lets see, a bit of the green berret, how long have they been around? The Marine Corps has been around for over 230 years. And for those of you that say the Army can do it cheaper. You guys cant even agree on a new cammie uniform. How much have you wasted on that so far. Sure you could do the same job as the Marines if you had 190,000 troops that did the same job and you called them Marines. Why do we need to fight, we are all part of the department of defence and we all have our own missions.

Reply

Oblat June 29, 2010 at 6:30 pm

If the Marines were honest they would point out the two things they do better then anyone else. It isn't doing obsolete amphibious invasions or fighting the wars that America traditionally loses.

It's taking down small undefended island nations, and because it does everything at five times the cost of the army funneling pork to it's political constituents.

Otherwise it's 165 pages of all the usual new age nonsense about creativity, learning organization and customer centered-ness that you find in an organization that knows it's about to be downsized.

Reply

Project Thor June 29, 2010 at 9:40 pm

Hmmmm, doesn't that chip you carry on your shoulder ever get heavy ? Sure is big enough….

Reply

Bob June 30, 2010 at 12:37 am

Amen to that.

Reply

Chimp June 30, 2010 at 6:03 pm

Small undefended island nations…. heard that one before. Look up "Goose Green". Another Navy screwup.

Reply

Ian James June 30, 2010 at 6:41 pm

Small undefended islands?? I guess you've never heard of Tarawa or Okinawa or Iwo Jima then. Hell what about Belleau Wood, Khe Sahn, Inchon, or the Chosin Resevoir. Also, 5 times the cost of the Army? Really? How is that possible when we have a smaller budget than the Army but we do our job with stuff the Army doesnt use anymore.

Reply

Alpha July 1, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Hey, at least in the Marine Corps you can hand a gun to a mechanic, a cook, or a clerk and expect him/her to be proficient at killing the enemy….you can't say that about any of the other branches without using words like "special" or "elite" or by wearing some silly a5s beret, 4 badges, and at least 3 name tapes saying he's a qualified cool guy.
One of the many things you fail to recognize is that since its creation in 1775, the Marine Corps has been an "elite" force, by it's very nature. Air, land and sea is their domain.
When space operations begin in the next few years…guess what? The Army will have a thing or two to learn about how to fight those wars and they will look, (with the same envy), at the Marine Corps approach, change it up a little bit and call it theirs. Then, when things are good again, they'll put forward the same silly question…do we really need a Marine Corps? Round and round we go…

Reply

Travis June 29, 2010 at 11:57 pm

I think it might be fair to say that Oblat is not supporter of the US Marines. Two things they do better, besides for having a higher stanard in everything they do. They are the best infantry and especially in a type of shock troop sense. The most versitle fighting force known throughout the world. The only branch that can invade a country for 90 days by request of the President (does not need approval of Congress). Created the amphibous warfare dontrine as we know it. The only force that is constantly patroling the seas and the fastest react force this world has ever known. O, did I mension the highest marksman ship be Marine ( not just infantry) in the world. So if you think I am a little biast… well maybe, but I was in the USMC for four years and now am in the Army Reserve. I know that both are needed and both fill a very different roll.

Reply

Chimp June 30, 2010 at 6:32 am

Mostly I agree. The USMC is a fine fighting organisation. Personal marksmanship, however, goes to the other marines - the Royal ones.

Reply

STemplar June 30, 2010 at 8:05 am

You do not know the war powers act. It applies to all branches of the military equally.

"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto."

Reply

lol July 1, 2010 at 5:26 pm

The marines are not better marksman then the army, they are required to qualify at longer distances yes, but its the same principles for shooting. Each person will have there own ability, saying “he’s a better shooter than the other guy because he is a marine” is a fallacie. Want evidence? Check out the sniper competitions where the army and marines constantly trade back and forth every year or two. As far as “elite” what makes them so? In all reality the requirements for physical training is much more flexible while requiring the same level of general fitness for both services.(for instance my age group in the army requires 50 situps, 40 pushups, and 2 miles in 16:36 aka 8:18 per mile; marines require 50 situps, 3 pull ups, and three mile run in 28 mins aka 9:20 per mile.) Marines are more flexible in upper body and cardio to allow for strengths and weaknesses while army requires a higher minimum in both these areas

Reply

Bob June 30, 2010 at 12:44 am

Travis is a member of the Marine toot your own horn, school of propaganda. Basically besides pitching a good line of BS, nothing was identified that the Army cannot do just as well and that the Army does not have the capabilities of doing. The navy needs some Marines this is true. Is just doesn't need so many of them. It needs a few good men to be guards on its capital ships and a few good men to keep the sailors in line, the REAL traditional role of the Marine Corps that goes back even further than the USMC's existence. We don't need to totally disband the USMC, we just need to reduce it to about, at most, a brigade strength unit, and transfer all Marine aviation assets over to naval air.

Reply

Travis June 30, 2010 at 1:29 am

Funny you say progoganda, because my new job in the Army is psyop. The argument can go on forever on the point of who has the best infantry. But that is not what the true strength is of the Marine Corp. It is everything that goes into, their are completly a quick react force fully supported by themselves ( minus the Corpman, but they are damn near Marines any ways). They do not need to wait for the airforce for transportaion or air support. They do not need to wait for the Army for armour support or close air. They have their own air, their own army, their own transport. This is what makes them so deadly, they cut out the middle man when it comes to war fighting. And when Bob was talking about the Army can do the exact same on some things yes and on others no. Now I have been on both sides, I think the Army treats their people better overall. But the physical standards and the instant obedience to orders and many other basic things are just so relaxed and loose. Also all of the Army PC( politcal correctness is suffocating. If the US would ever disband the USMC, it would weaken the US Military on all sides. Every branch has a very important job.

Reply

Lane June 30, 2010 at 11:55 am

Very well put.

Reply

Denny004 June 30, 2010 at 1:29 am

So how can you tell the Marines are doing better in Iraq/Afghan than the Army.

Reply

Greg June 30, 2010 at 5:02 pm

"The Army (including the Army National Guard and Reserves) comprises 48.8% of the total DOD force, but sustained 73.2% (2,716) of the combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marine Corps (including the Reserves) makes up only 10.8% of the total DOD force, but experienced 23.3% (867) of the combat related deaths."

Marines are better trained. And there's many instances when the Marines have had to come to the rescue when the Army couldn't accomplish their mission.

Reply

Travis June 30, 2010 at 1:42 am

I am not saying one is doing better than the other. The standards that I am talking about may not have to do with the infantry units in the army, but it does apply to many of the support units and other things along those lines. My main point is this, each branch is crucial to the military capabilities in the US. Without one each would be weakened. It just takes so long for the Army to mobilze. The Army is an occupation force, Marine Corp is mainly a shock infantry, they establish a beach head or exploit a hole in the lines. The USMC cannot hold territory like the Army can, simply because that is what the Army focuses on. Just like how USMC or Army cannot compete with the air suppiorority of the Air Force, or transportain and sea defense like the Navy. Or the brown water defense of our nation like the Coast Gurad.

Reply

Byron Skinner June 29, 2010 at 11:05 pm

Good Evening Folks,

To Oblat. I wasn’t going to bother to comment on this post we did it a forthnight ago on the buzz and had a rather good discussion. There are other issues more interesting to me the the future of the Marines. One of the posters then, I’m sure was on the inside of the decision loop on the future of the Marines and his suggestion of a 75,000 man Naval Infantry seem to be gaining popularity among those deciding this issue.

I agree with you on the, you say 165 page justification of why this 200 plus year old institution should be into the future rather says it all. When I was out there in the race I saw many of these types of documents, as a rule of thumb the longer they were the weaker the case.

Just glancing through this monster I would think that if there was anything to say in support of the Marines case it could have been bone in two or three pages and be far more elegant then this rambling dissertation that is nothing more then some smoke and mirrors wrapped in boiler plate. The Marines should demand their money back from the contractor who wrote it for them.

The Marines as an institution are in trouble, thats for sure. The recent stumbling by the CMC and at least four members of his staff in going to the wingers tanks to put political pressure on Sec. Gates to save the EFV was a very bad move. Not only did it force the retirement of General Conway and the other general officers it showed how desperate the Marines are.

Ironic of course is that one of those peculiar institutions of winder tanks that outed the Generals. What this has done of course is bring attention to recent Marine procurement nightmares, the AV-8, MV-22, San Antonio Class LPD’s and of course the F-35B that has driven up the costs of the entire F-35 program.

The realists in the Navy know that they will be lucky to have a 200 ship Navy by 2030. The Admirals don’t want 30-40 of those ships to be dedicated to the legacy mission of amphibious warfare. As discussed in the other post the amphibious historically been just another common Infantry skill that the Army has done often, and with a lot of success. Since the Battle of Trention in the American Revolution the Army has been doing wet arrivals as a matter of routine, no big deal.

The Marines after WW II were desperate for a reason to be, the Rosenthal picture was their salvation. The Marine self proclaimed that: “We are the Amphibious Warfare Experts”. The public bought it.

Well that legacy skill has pretty much gone the way of the Horse Calvary. An example of how little the Marines think of this uber expensive capacity, that when a couple of weeks ago, an obviously irritated CO of the 1/7 Marines who was trying to get his battalion ready for deployment for Afghanistan at 29 Palms, had to pull some of his Marines out and use them for an amphibious photo opp. at Camp Pendleton. When asked how by a member of the press just important is this exercise, was said: “…85% of my Marines have never even been on a boat before.”

That Lt. Colonel said it better then any of us, the low value that the Marines put on this capacity. That 75,000 man force that can do routine Naval Infantry tasks, take back US property that has been seized, save American Medical students, raid a drug cartel hide out, save a banana plantation from being taken over by a dictator etc. sound about right, and what the American can afford to pay for.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Reply

Chimp June 30, 2010 at 6:42 am

The other Marines don't spend all that much time on boats, either. They do train in the Arctic circle, in mountainous terrain, in some really horrible jungle (Malaysia is nice as a tourist, but you try doing it on foot) and just about anywhere else you can imagine.
The other Marines are a highly adaptable light infantry force with an amphibious option. They're trained hard (longest basic training on the planet, and it's very tough) and they are very disciplined.
The US seems to have a surfeit of elite light infantry at the moment. Perhaps it's because in low intensity warfare a well trained squad of guys who don't need armour is just more relevant.
You need an airborne, and you need marines. They're highly complementary. I say scrap the navy. They're more interested in a nice clean deck than combat (perhaps the USN is different).

Reply

evan June 30, 2010 at 6:49 am

travis speaks of quick react. forces and such. wonder if he's ever heard of the 82nd airborne. you know boots on the ground within 18 hrs. the whole jumping in behind enemy lines and such. now i do agree with the him in that every branch has its own job and we'd be weaker with out one or the other.

Reply

STemplar June 30, 2010 at 8:08 am

The Marines do not need to be as big, and they do not need the ability to launch corps sized amphibious assaults. The ability for forced entry on a small scale still serves a purpose, but there will not be a need for anymore Iwo Jimas. We simply have the ability technologically to not have to wage war like that. We didn't used to do it that way because it was what we wanted, we did it that way because we had to. It was innovative for its time, and it used cutting edge technology for the time, but those times have passed. For the same reason horses and sabres are not line items in the defense budget any longer.

Reply

William C. June 30, 2010 at 8:20 am

Byron, I will tear apart the rest of your nonsensical ranting about "winger tanks" and why we should destroy the USMC and 300 ship Navy later. But for now let me remind you that the F-35B is the core of the JSF program, the very design is built around STOVL. You don't want the F-35B, you should start with a clean sheet of paper.

And what sort of twisted logic do you use to claim we can't afford the Marine Corp which has played an important role in defending country for over 200 years now, while supporting Obamacare and Greek style job benefits (for government workers).

Reply

H. E. Shuman June 30, 2010 at 9:47 am

Are the Marines trying to emulate the 101st Airborne?

Reply

D. Dalton June 30, 2010 at 11:42 am

When the 82nd or 101st land in 18 hours with tanks, artillary, close air support from fixed wing Army aircraft, and off shore naval gun support , and train consistently and proficently in all these areas please let me know,,,,,A reporter in Desert Storm described it properly by saying (paraphrased) although the 82nd was on the ground first they were nothing but a token force in show and a speed bump if Iraq would of invaded, when the Marines landed they brought alot of fighting power with them the Iraq's did not want to go up against! I think the proper question is are the 101 & 82 trying to emulate the Marines?

Reply

Lane June 30, 2010 at 12:35 pm

You guys just don't understand the military at all.. I'm sick of reading most of these posts. I come here to try and learn and these debates take me back to my years in elemntary school.
Im a Marine, was a squad leader in an Infantry batallion before coming out to be a Marine Security Guard at US Embassies. Look every part of the military has its strengths and weaknesses. Saying one can do the same thing as the other is just stupid. That's common sense. You can say that about anything. Now saying one can do the job of all the other ones but better or equivalent.. I'd like to know what schools you people have gone to.
(cont.)

Reply

Lane June 30, 2010 at 12:36 pm

(Cont.)
Yes the Marine Corps is currently fighting a ground war, but that is because we are needed to, and no im not saying because we are better but because we are simply asked to. I can list plenty of references as to why the Marines are better, but there is just as many references as to why the other branches could be better. Simple fact is each branch speciales in something. For the Marines it's different, we are an evolving force, we havent always stormed beaches but when it was needed we did it and we did it well and for awhile that was the best solution for some conflicts.

Reply

Lane June 30, 2010 at 12:37 pm

(cont.)
Now things are changing again and the Marine Corps will need to adapt, and by no means does that mean disband. Ive come across every branch of service in my tour, I've been to iraq not afghan yet, simple fact is that America needs a Marine Corps, from my perspective throughout my career that fact remains that the Marine Corps is a pure warfighting force and that changes things for the enemy.
To clear things up, yes the Army paratroopers are on the ground first, since when can ships move faster then planes? I'm not discounting the paratroopers because they have their own things they do well, their priority is to secure assets ahead of the invasion force, its been that way since they first started. The Marines objective is to punch holes in enemy defenses by being that shock force.

Reply

Lane June 30, 2010 at 12:37 pm

(cont.)
We come with everything we need to sustain ourselves for roughly a month. While we're fighting keeping the enemy thinking thats when the occupational forces come into play and thats what makes the U.S. so menacing. And for gods sake yes we use army spec ops, thats their damn job. No the Marines didnt want to be a part of MARSOC for the longest time because that takes Marines away from Marines when we already have a small force, but the fact is we need to have our own specialized force besides recon and force recon.
That's my 2 cents, I'm interested if Byrons has been in the military at all. If anything it sounds like you've been boasting the Army like theirs gods gift to America, get over yourself.

Reply

Hardcase June 30, 2010 at 12:46 pm

Does anyone notices how this post has suddenly pitted the branches against one another? Is this what the author was aiming at?

Reply

Eric June 30, 2010 at 12:57 pm

Lane and D. Dalton, best posts yet on this subject. The rest of you, please learn to spell Marine Corps. Its "Corps", not "Corp".

Reply

Bob June 30, 2010 at 1:32 pm

For those of you who claim that "there is nothing that the Marines can do that the Army can do just as well", I suggest that a little history lesion is in order. First in the interest of full disclosure, I am a Navy Vet, not a Marine.

Following the end of WW2 there was a movement led by President Truman to disband the USMC. He made all of the same arguments that are being repeated today, funny isn't it. Then came Korea, which was occupied by the US Army. The Army was shoved down into the Pusan peninsula where the First Marine Division was sent to reinforce them. Now mind you, after WW2 the USMC went from having 5 Divisions to just over 1 in the 5 years before Korea, and in order to get that Division they had to call up their reserves and strip their East Coast forces. The First Marine Division around Pusan was used as 'firefighters' being rushed from spot to spot wherever the pressure from the North Koreans was the greatest and the Army looked like they couldn't hold. In fact it was the Marines that stablized the lines until the Army could get its act together and send reinforcements. They were replaced by 2 Army divisions. Then can the landings at Inchon, which the Army said was impossible. They cut the supply lines to the North Koreans at Pusan and forced a major route upon them. Even President Truman acknowledged that with out the Marines we would have lost Korea and was heard to say that he regretted ever considered their demise.

During the Gulf wars just how long did it take for the Army to build up their forces to the point where they felt they could conduct ground operations? And at what numerical odds over their foes did they deem they needed? Was 3:1 or was 4:1 over the enemy? Rarely have the Marines ever have had to have over 1:1 odds except when commanded by an Army General.

That the Marines are not being properly utilized is not the fault of the Marine Corp, that belongs to the Joint Cheifs of Staff and our CIVILIAN (lack of) Leadership.

Reply

joe June 30, 2010 at 4:43 pm

"During the Gulf wars just how long did it take for the Army to build up their forces to the point where they felt they could conduct ground operations? "

During Desert Shield/Storm, the wait was not for the build up to 500,000 forces, the wait was to give the AF 6 months to pound the "Elite Republican Guard". During OIF 1, what was the USMC doing while 3ID drove to and captured Baghdad?

"That the Marines are not being properly utilized is not the fault of the Marine Corp…" I agree

Reply

THE CORPORAL June 30, 2010 at 1:32 pm

Been there and done that. Marine Force Recon and Army SF.Big difference…….IT`S WHO WE ARE,IT`S WHAT WE DO! HERE WE STAND AND HERE WE WILL FIGHT! THE UNITED STATES MARIME CORPS. SIEMPRE CON FIDELIDAD-SEMPER FI ONCE A MARINE GRUNT ALWAYS A MARINE GRUNT.

Reply

Bob June 30, 2010 at 2:17 pm

I recall that as a member of the 502d Infrantry, 101st Airborn, my Bn. trained in the Artic, the jungles of Panama, and the desert. We also trained in the woods and hills of Kentucky and the hill country of Texas. We did Air Assault and some small boat insertions. I think you could say that at that time the infrantrymen of the 502d were as well trained and well rounded as any Marine infrantry Bn.

Reply

reddog June 30, 2010 at 1:53 pm

Well why don't we just merge all the 5 branches and call it the Army. It will be the "Walmart" of all the military.

Reply

Bob June 30, 2010 at 2:18 pm

I think the Canadians did that. It seems to work for them.

Reply

Socar37 July 1, 2010 at 11:57 am

I know, we can call it the People's Liberation Army (Navy), and People's Liberation Army (Air Force), and… Oh wait, that's been taken already.

Reply

Steve June 30, 2010 at 2:39 pm

Well, reddog. If we went the way your suggesting of having a "Walmart" military (everything found in one place), then I hope you are refering to the Sam Walton years when he was alive and took pride in having as much US made stuff in there. If you are referring to the post Sam Walton years, then I guess we need to get our military from China! Yuck.

Reply

Maelus June 30, 2010 at 2:51 pm

The U.S. govmt. NEEDS TO STOP spending LARGE sums of $ on developing a merc force called Blackwater (Xe), and focus on giving the Corps what it needs to be the best well equipped lite strike force. Leave the Navy to take care of the delivery vehicles, just get us there and support us.
Semper Fi !

Reply

reddog June 30, 2010 at 4:09 pm

My Walmart comment was sacasm. As a Marine, of course I will defend keeping the USMC. I don't understand the motivation to reduce or eliminate the Marines. I don't buy savng money as the Corps is very efficient with the money allocated to them. Only Marines know what I'm talking about here.
I never hear talk about getting rid of the Army Rangers or Coast Guard. Certainly other branches could do what they do. I think the motivation is jealousy along with ignorance.

Reply

randall June 30, 2010 at 6:40 pm

couldn't agree more.

Reply

Bob July 1, 2010 at 3:45 pm

You could not be more wrong about the Coast Guard. By law the navy could not do their law enforcement mission, furthermore, the navy is not equiped to do their safety and maintenance of aids to navigation mission for coastal and inland waterways. The Coasties do it better and cheaper.

Reply

bob whiley June 30, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Amphib ops are expensive, possibly "legacy", but remember the large percentage of cities within 150 miles of a coastline (more than 50%, can't remember the exact figure). As stated previously, the USMC MAGTF brings a combined-arms package to bear with sustainment; airborne forces are not designed for that. Maritime prepositioned forces and Marine Expeditionary Units provide forward-deployed readiness for a wide range of contingencies and ALWAYS find work.

Reply

bob whiley June 30, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Remember, key word is "expeditionary".
Read up on your history: in 2003-4, SecDef wanted more troops on the ground when he realized his idiocy in the stability plan - so the USMC did "as the President directs" and became a second ground force. Seriously, volunteering for al-Anbar, and then volunteering to move to Afghanistan (and front the initial "surge" within days of the order in December) - who else does this/could do this?

Reply

bob whiley June 30, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Spend a year or so around Marines - of all types and MOS's - and it is true that the Marines tell everyone they are the best, believe it themselves, and so set out to prove it whenever they can.
Marines "cost less" than do members of the other services (at least according to Gen Conway) - A fact that I think is intriguing and worth vetting: The Marine Corps accounts for around six percent of the military budget of the United States. The cost per Marine is $20,000 less than the cost of a serviceman from the other services, and the entire force can be used for both hybrid and major combat operations,[18]
The services have overlapping, complementary missions but no one can do the others'. The USMC takes pride in its uniqueness and (in its pride) will tailor itself to whatever missions are needed of it "as the President may direct".

Reply

Byron Skinner June 30, 2010 at 2:58 pm

Good Morning Folks,

Clear up some misconceptions here. First off nowhere do I suggest disbanding the Marines, this is just a winger mouthing off.

On the Army’s Airborne. It’s an organization that could use some deep cuts also. Depending who and how you counts the Army supports 5-8 Airborne Brigades, with in the frame work of the 82nd, 101st. Airborne, Air Assault Divisions and the 173ed. Airborne Brigade that is Deployed to NATO. The problem is that currently the USAF doesn’t have the ride to drop an battalion. As we saw in Haiti a battalion size unit of the 73 Cav. too 72 hours to deploy and that included redeploying C-17’s out of the war zones.

I know that in the near future the 96 C-5C’s will go back on line and the the US is buying from The Russian Federation an as yet determined number of An-124’s for strategic lift but it is unlikely that even with the planned increased lift that the ability to move a Airborne formation into a drop zone will significantly increase. The Airborne as is the Marine Amphibious Assault Battalion for the marines is a proud
part of the Army but they are very expensive to maintain and Airborne future use in the role of a combat force is at best speculative.

To head of the wingers, I’m not saying to getting rid of the US Airborne force, just seeing where it fits in the total Army and adjusting is footprint to that role.

A note of interest is that The Russian Federation is currently making decisions of what their “Marines” should look like, and how many. China has declares it Naval Infantry to be about 30K men, but it current formation seem to include on about 15k with the highest rank being Colonel and the force is subordinate to the PLAN. All of China’s Naval Infantry are based on Hainan Island.

A US Marine Corp of 75k would be significantly larger then the Chinese forces and from the numbers being considered for a Russian Federation the US Marines would be larger also.

The subject is on the table and rational decision making seems to talking place. The ideologs are outside the room.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Reply

Ian James June 30, 2010 at 7:08 pm

Heres my take on the whole who does it better…..when I was deployed to Iraq, I was on a 13 man PTT team that worked with people from the FBI, DEA, State Police Agencies, etc. to train Iraqi police in and around the city of Ramadi. Now my point is, if the Army can do the same thing as the Marines, then how come my 13 man team, a basic Marine squad, got replaced by a COMPANY from the 82nd? Anyone please feel free to throw in your two sense.

Reply

H.E. Shuman June 30, 2010 at 7:33 pm

If we do not get our economic house in order, our future military will consist of PC Generals and bands who play ruffles and flourishes all day long.

Reply

William C. June 30, 2010 at 11:48 pm

To the leftist here who refuses to stand by his words, suggesting deep cuts to Army airborne units might as well be removing that capability. Our airborne units have already seen more than enough cuts, besides for a significant decrease in manpower, they lost their organic light armor support (in the form of the M551 Sheridan, which was due to be replaced by the M8 AGS. (canceled under Clinton) Cut our airborne forces anymore and using them in their intended role may be impossible outside of some humanitarian operations.

I have heard no intent of actually buying Russian An-124s (although sometimes they are rented out for use by NATO forces) and it would definitely be an unsound decision at least until production is resumed of the aircraft. That said, the USAF should upgrade all of the C-5s they can to full C-5M standard. And when it comes to actually dropping paratroopers, don't forget the C-130J.

Despite the noise the chances of the USMC being cut back to 75k troops and losing all of their important equipment is extremely unlikely. The Marine Corp knows they have the public on their side, they have leaders willing to stand up and say what needs to be said, and they know that we aren't going to stay in Afghanistan and try to make it a functional country forever, sooner or later there we be conflicts elsewhere.

Reply

@Earlydawn July 1, 2010 at 5:22 am

I think this report would have gone over better if the Marines had picked their focus as "immediate forced entry offense" instead of "amphibious operations" plus nebulously defined "small wars". If anything, the current Iraqistan situation shows that "small wars" tend to tie up more people and equipment in the long run then most conventional wars. Example: Gulf 1 vs post-Invasion Iraq.

Reply

Byron Skinner July 1, 2010 at 3:11 pm

Good Morning Folks,

I won’t even bother to comment on the wingers knowledge of Army Airborne Forces. He is, as always is out of the know. I would like to just keep them that way, don’t anybody tell him Clinton is no longer President, just let it rest.

On the USAF and the purchase on An-124’s from the Russian Federation. I will only go into what is in open literature. there is more but I have only a single source on it so will hold back, but what is known does outlines what the deal could look like. For anyone who wants to see the verifications they are on the net. Including wingers who don’t bother with doing any research on an issue before commenting.

Currently the USAF, through a third party, is in negotiations to lease to buy of 6 An-124’s. If the deal can be worked the six An-124′ will come out of nine that The Russian Federation has in it’s air force. The aircraft will be taken to Boeing to be Americanized and tested before be sent to the USAF.

The bigger deal that is still in its very early stages is for the USAF to buy anywhere from 100-150 An-124’s from The Russian Federation. The hold ups are as follow: The An-124 is no longer in production and a new plant would have to be opened up by the cash strapped Russian Federation to fill the Us order. The Ukrainians want in on the deal because the former plant that produced the An-124 was in what is now the Ukraine. (both side still talking. Black Sea politics have entered into the dialog). The Russians need a big cash payment up front, they also are asking for follow on (progress payments) payments to be paid at production milestones. (US and Russian Federation still talking on this point but its not called a deal breaker by either side). The Russians want a firm up front first order for the first 100 aircraft. (the US like to stretch orders, this point could create some problems). The price of about 250 million Euros seems not to be in any dispute.

The program as it now stands would be for the An-124’s to be built and assembles in either the Ukraine or The Russian Federation and the taken to Boeing, most likely taken to Boeing-Wichita for final outfitting for the USAF. The final point being made is that the USAF wants delivery to start in 2014.

The Russian Federation wants this deal really bad at 100 to 250 billion Euros it would give a real boost to the Russian defense industry. Events in recent weeks where defense technology sales have been made between US allies and the Russian Federation without US opposition is an indicator that this program is moving on. The current Russian Spy Story is views more as amusement then anything else, this is a deal of need on both sides.

The irony here of course is Boeing, that Red, White and Blue, all American Company that is ranking that foreign company EADS over the coals on the tanker deal is more then ready to do business when it means profits for Boeing equity holder.

The US needs this deal because even when the C-5’s come back into service they will not be big enough or be enough of them to move an Army Heavy Battalion or to do a Battalion Airborne assault. The terrorists have gotten the idea that it best to make trouble in inland Republics where the US can us port facilities to move personal and equipment. The terrorists have watched and taken note in Afghanistan the US has to charter Russian air lift to move even there Stryker Combat Brigades.

Also becoming a customer of The Russian Federation, their biggest and best, might make it easier in the future to use their territory for basing.

Those peculiar institutions of American winger tanks just don’t have a clue.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: