PDA

View Full Version : Can Marines be an amphibious force again?



USNAviator
06-22-10, 07:13 PM
This is I believe to be about six weeks old but I think it addresses questions and opinions many of you have had voiced in the past. Are Marines capable of being an amphibious force again?



The Marine Corps’ top officer believes the service’s overall amphibious readiness may be suffering after nearly a decade of fighting on land.

• The Corps lacks a cadre of officers with maritime expertise.
• A growing number of rank-and-file Marines have never stepped foot on a ship.
• Less money is available in the budget to focus on the future of the amphibious fleet.

“We are inherently a maritime force, and we still consider that our primary responsibility, but for all intents and purposes … we have become a second land army,” Conway said during the recent Surface Navy Association annual symposium in Arlington, Va. “Now, we’re OK with that because that’s what the nation needs right now, but that can’t be the long-term future of the Corps. We’ve got to get back to sea.”

The newest Marine Corps Campaign Plan, which outlines the service’s plans for the next five years, places a significant emphasis on amphibious operations, yet it also predicts extended operations in landlocked Afghanistan, meaning the Corps will have a tough time getting back to its maritime roots.

The Quadrennial Defense Review, is likely to echo those concerns. Conway has long argued that the Navy needs a fleet of 38 to 40 amphibious ships to carry Marines — seven to nine more than it has today. He also has warned that cutting too much could effectively mean cutting it all.

However, he said at the symposium that he is not likely to get his wish, with the amphib fleet “…that high on the [Navy’s] priority list.”
The QDR also is likely to place a heavy emphasis on counterinsurgency operations, Conway said. But the commandant argued the Corps must maintain its ability to fight in a conventional war, something it was fully capable of in 2003 when the war in Iraq broke out but maybe not so much today.

He talked about live-fire combined-arms training, in which infantry battalions and armored battalions would “roll down these desert corridors with artillery and mortars coming from over their shoulders” and aircraft dropping bombs in front of them.

In 2003, he said, the Corps did 10 of those training exercises a year. Now it does none. Instead, the desert training base at Twentynine Palms, Calif., is used mostly to prepare Marines for Afghanistan.

The extended wars also have affected some of the Corps’ more traditional roles, such as garrison training. Conway said he was surprised to learn that many junior officers don’t know how to properly run a formation because conditions downrange prevent them from doing so regularly.

AdirondackDog
06-22-10, 07:33 PM
If this is the case I still have faith within the Corps to preform exceptionally in the event we return to our amphibious roots. Ive spent 6 months on the 31st MEU and half of that time aboard ship. Everything we did went extemely smooth with mock operations. Not to mention being invloved with a turnover where a majority of the experienced Marines were swapped for first timer's. Because of our small size and strict ways, we will always be able to hastily adapt and conquer. Hoorah.

Garyius
06-22-10, 07:45 PM
Why are junior officers running the formations? That is the SNCOs job. The Os are there to salute, take the report, pass on the word, and leave.

Wrench3516
06-22-10, 09:41 PM
:evilgrin:
Corps officials say Dawn Blitz was a success

By Julie Watson
Posted : Sunday Jun 6, 2010 18:04:29 EDT

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. — Brig. Gen. Rex McMillian watched proudly Friday from a scrubby bluff as hundreds of Marines in seafaring tanks hit the Southern California beach in perfect unison with support helicopters buzzing overhead.

It had been nearly 10 years since Marines last trained in such a large-scale beach invasion exercise with the Navy.

With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq taking troops to landlocked regions, many of the Marines had never been on a ship — let alone stormed a beach — until Dawn Blitz, the largest exercise of its kind on the West Coast since the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/06/ap_marines_dawn_blitz_060410/

echo3oscar1833
06-22-10, 09:51 PM
As a Amphibian Assault Marine Veteran myself I would def say yes the Marine Corps will always remain "Seafaring". Especially with the new EFV getting closer, and closer to being the Marine Corps modern Amphibious Vehicle. Now granted I was trained on AAV's, and don't know much about the EFV except what I have read. What I learned as a AAV Crewman leads me to believe that the Marine Corps will always remain Amphibious.

On a side not the one thing in my possession from the Marine Corps that I value more than anything else. Is my MOS Certificate that I received when I graduated Assault Amphibian School. It is def a tight nit MOS community, and we are proud to hold the title of "The First Wave" when it comes to Amphibious Operations. YAT-YAS Semper Fi:D

http://www.marineparents.com/units/logos/41.jpg

USNAviator
06-22-10, 10:03 PM
:evilgrin:
Corps officials say Dawn Blitz was a success

By Julie Watson
Posted : Sunday Jun 6, 2010 18:04:29 EDT

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. — Brig. Gen. Rex McMillian watched proudly Friday from a scrubby bluff as hundreds of Marines in seafaring tanks hit the Southern California beach in perfect unison with support helicopters buzzing overhead.

It had been nearly 10 years since Marines last trained in such a large-scale beach invasion exercise with the Navy.

With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq taking troops to landlocked regions, many of the Marines had never been on a ship — let alone stormed a beach — until Dawn Blitz, the largest exercise of its kind on the West Coast since the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/06/ap_marines_dawn_blitz_060410/


Thank you for posting, I was looking for that article!!!

micarr57
06-22-10, 10:27 PM
20 miles out 45 minutes in don't add up to me

echo3oscar1833
06-22-10, 10:51 PM
20 miles out 45 minutes in don't add up to me

The Modern AAV-7A1, is faster, and has major improvements over the old LVT-7 which is what I'm assuming you drove? It was a total engine change, transmission, etc, etc

AdirondackDog
06-22-10, 10:58 PM
When we came back from our winter patrol, we took an AAV inland from the USS Essex. we were about 10 miles off the coast and it took about an hour to get in

echo3oscar1833
06-22-10, 11:14 PM
When we came back from our winter patrol, we took an AAV inland from the USS Essex. we were about 10 miles off the coast and it took about an hour to get in

Yeah maybe I'm off on my timing I havn't drove an AAV since 03, and actual Beach landing since 02. I seem to recall it took about 30 min to go from about 10 miles out. Depends on how the driver is driving to, formations, etc. Like I said its been a bit lol :nerd:

micarr57
06-23-10, 07:12 AM
The Modern AAV-7A1, is faster, and has major improvements over the old LVT-7 which is what I'm assuming you drove? It was a total engine change, transmission, etc, etc
yes i operated with the LVT-P7 top water speed about 5 mph they could put a new engine, trans and cd player with surround sound. still could not top 20 mph. put lipstick on this pig i'd still kiss it but it can't go that fast in the water:beer::beer:

Lynn2
06-23-10, 07:22 AM
The question I would have is-----has the technology changed so much as to make a hostile beach landing impossible?

I spent some time yacking with one who was a Navy SWO for some years. He said if the flag was dropped for real and we went to war in Asia in a significant way the Fleet we have in that area would be toast. It would be good for a holding action only.

The technology being so deadly the US Fleet would take an initial beating for sure.

If he is correct.....what does that mean for a landing force?

Its one thing to have an emphasis on this sort of thing. Its quite another to have the ability to get the job done under contested conditions.

Wrench3516
06-23-10, 02:12 PM
Navy/Marine Corps Differences
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 1.5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1.5pt; WIDTH: 100%; PADDING-RIGHT: 1.5pt; PADDING-TOP: 1.5pt" width="100%">




Interesting read

Next Marine Commandant Must Resolve Frictions With Navy Over Missions And Money

Author: Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Initial reaction to the selection of aviator James Amos as the next Commandant of the Marine Corps has been almost entirely positive. There is also much support for the apparent decision to make the charismatic Joe Dunford Assistant Commandant. Some insiders suspect that Amos will serve for two years and then the younger Dunford will move up to the top job, although a lot can happen in two years. Perhaps, though, people should be paying more attention to the role Navy Secretary Ray Mabus played in blocking the more forceful and outspoken Gen. James Mattis from being named to the Commandant's position. Mattis, as Greg Jaffe noted in the Washington Post yesterday, "is widely considered one of the military's best minds when it comes to waging war on insurgents."

So why wasn't Mattis chosen, given the fact that defense secretary Robert Gates believes counterinsurgency warfare is the wave of the future? The main reason probably was that political appointees didn't think they could control him at a time when they are trying to redefine the role of the Marine Corps. Policymakers are openly questioning the relevance of amphibious warfare to future strategy, and trying to water down the requirements of "forcible entry" -- capabilities that are at the core of the modern Marine identity. The cover story for these changes is that Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the joint force lessons that the Marine Corps must assimilate, but the real story is that the Navy doesn't want to spend all the money needed to field a robust expeditionary warfare capability. Among other things, the Corps wants about 38 amphibious warships, more robust surface fire support, greatly enhanced vertical agility in its air wings, and a more versatile landing vehicle.

The Navy doesn't want to buy hardly any of this. Its future force posture supplies about 20 percent fewer amphibious warships than Marine planners say they need. The DDG-1000 destroyer, which was designed around long-range guns that could deliver sustained rates of precision fire, will be terminated at a mere three hulls. Navy aviators have been bad-mouthing the Marine vertical-takeoff version of the F-35 joint strike fighter since it was first conceived. And the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that would revolutionize ship-to-shore landings has been targeted for termination by the Navy secretary. In sum, the Navy leadership is opposed to much of what Marine leaders say they need for the future.

In fairness to those Navy leaders, there are legitimate questions about how successful future amphibious landings can be against well-armed adversaries. The advent of precision munitions and networked warfare has made opposed landings a tougher mission than they used to be. But the larger story is that there is chronic disagreement between the Navy and the Marine Corps about budget priorities, with the Navy preferring to fund what used to be called capital ships over amphibious systems. It's handy to have the Marines around when politicians question the relevance of the Fleet to future warfare, but that doesn't mean that admirals are willing to give up a couple of aircraft carriers to keep them happy. So General Amos will have his hands full trying to defend Marine Corps priorities against a Navy Department leadership that would prefer to spend increasingly scarce budget dollars in other ways.











</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Lynn2
06-23-10, 02:47 PM
"In fairness to those Navy leaders, there are legitimate questions about how successful future amphibious landings can be against well-armed adversaries. The advent of precision munitions and networked warfare has made opposed landings a tougher mission than they used to be. But the larger story is that there is chronic disagreement between the Navy and the Marine Corps about budget priorities"




If the Navy is more and more convinced they cannot land a USMC on a beach against significant opposition then how much should be spent on this?

Its less a budget issue if the original mission cannot be done. If it cannot be done its just pizzing the money away you do spend on it.

Sooner or later though all decisions become budget decisions in some way.

Wrench3516
06-27-10, 01:16 PM
:evilgrin:
Corps to take delivery of first EFV prototype


Staff report
Posted : Saturday Jun 26, 2010 9:00:54 EDT

OCEANSIDE, Calif. — With a busy testing schedule ahead, the Marines at Camp Pendleton, Calif., will accept delivery of their first Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle on Monday.
The prototype amphibious vehicle, manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems, along with several other prototypes, will enter developmental testing later this year, Camp Pendleton officials said in a news release. More than 500 hours of testing are planned to begin this summer.
The Corps is to test seven different prototypes, which are being built at the contractor’s Lima, Ohio, manufacturing plant.
Testing will occur at Pendleton as the Corps maintains its amphibious vehicle test branch there at the base’s Camp Del Mar. The waterfront facility, which sits along a boat basin, is located near Assault Amphibian School Battalion, the Corps’ schoolhouse for Amphibious Assault Vehicle crews and maintainers.
The Corps plans to buy 573 EFVs to replace its aging AAV force, transforming the older, lumbering amtracs with armored vehicles sporting a 30mm cannon and the ability to carry 17 combat Marines traveling 25 mph in the water and onto land.
But the program, which suffered technical problems during its earlier phases that required a costly restart and redesign, remains contentious. Recent criticisms came from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who questioned the likelihood of amphibious assaults against enemy fire and the need for large numbers of expeditionary vehicles.

Lynn2
06-27-10, 01:29 PM
"Secretary Robert Gates, who questioned the likelihood of amphibious assaults against enemy fire and the need for large numbers of expeditionary vehicles."



Large scale USMC amphibious assaults against significant enemy fire is no more likely to go away than say Navy Battleships are.

USNAviator
06-27-10, 04:42 PM
"Large scale USMC amphibious assaults against significant enemy fire is no more likely to go away than say Navy Battleships are.

Good analogy. I read a paper by your friend Col. Casey on this very subject a few years ago. He came to the same conclusions

Lynn2
06-28-10, 09:23 AM
Dan, Jiggs was always a man ahead of his time. Or at least not so firmly rooted in the past.