Results 1 to 12 of 12
Thread: Downsizing Questions
05-19-13, 05:45 PM #1
Hello all, I have read the Post about the Marine Corps downsizing and heard it said, but Rocky C said something in a recent post (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/sh...teresting-jobs) and it got me wondering exactly what areas were being downsized, and what MOS's would be the most affected and well, there is more questions I could ask but until I know exactly what the downsizing means I would like to just ask what I just did. Thanks Marines!
05-19-13, 05:51 PM #2
While this is the Ask A Marine forum and we are here to answer poolees and wannabes questions, have you tried searching the internet for any of your answers?
Here's one article that I found.......
The Marine Corps and the Coming Fiscal Reality
05-19-13, 06:09 PM #3
Thank you. I just read it but I still am not sure where they will be most likely cutting jobs; will it be Aviation, Combat Arms, Logistics, etc?
05-20-13, 07:57 AM #4
05-20-13, 11:23 AM #5
You might start another thread,
and ask 10 or so of us "OlderMarines" ,
who aren't doing "Anything Special"
to GOOGLE it for you......
And just perhaps give you a two page report
on our Considered Opinions....
***Put the effort into it yourself please...
05-20-13, 05:24 PM #6
The Marine Corps is in the process of examining the future force structure requirements of a post-Afghanistan Corps. According to Undersecretary of the Navy Bob Work, a Force Structure Review Group (FSRG) at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, supported by the Marine Corps staffs as well as the outgoing and incoming Marine Corps Commandants, will spearhead the study.
The Corps’ future requirements study, Undersecretary Work said, will be informed by the conclusions of this year’s primary U.S. defense policy reviews, such as the Quadrennial Defense Review, and distill the Corps’ major lessons-learned over several years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Initial changes to the Corps’ force structure could come into sharper focus as early as next year when the Pentagon issues its Program Objective Memorandum (POM) for 2013. Specifically, Undersecretary Work and his team at the Pentagon are looking at six areas that will come to define the force structure of the future Marine Corps:
First, a renewed emphasis will be put on the Corps’ “naval character.” First created in 1775 as a naval infantry force, Iraq and Afghanistan have compelled the Corps to perfect the art of continuous land warfare with the unintended consequence of temporarily disconnecting the Marines from their sea-borne heritage. Therefore, the FSRG, pursuant to the expressed desire spelled out in the guidance documents of three successive Marine Corps commandants to return the Corps to its maritime roots, will likely result in a “tighter linkage” with the U.S. Navy.
This mission to return the Corps to its roots will be aided by the commissioning of several new maritime platforms over the coming years, namely Lockheed Martin’s Littoral Combat Ship and the Joint High Speed Vessel. In addition to a review of its tactical aviation plans – the arrival of the vertical take-off and landing variant of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be one critical component in this planned review – the Corps will be reconfigured to deploy and operate in smaller force packages equipped with a broader array of fighting capabilities.
Moreover, this reconfiguration will result in a higher Equipment Density List than the pre-Iraq and Afghanistan one with a greater focus on providing added firepower and communications equipment to Marines on deployment.
Planned and executed in close cooperation with the Navy, an increased reliance on unmanned aircraft for greater battlefield surveillance as well as targeted air strikes will become a staple of the post-Afghanistan Marine Corps.
As modern platforms become more dependent on a steady stream of reliable energy, the increased use of alternative sources of energy, such as solar power, will decrease the Corps’ dependence on fossil fuels.
Developing and fielding platforms that can operate on sources other than oil and gas will also remove the risks associated with ensuring reliable resupply and shorten the military logistics trail. Feeding into this element of future force planning is the professed goal to devise a future force structure that is lighter than the existing one. Presumably, this will impact the Corps’ ground vehicle strategy.
Finally, the FSRG will analyze the Corps’ future force structure requirements with an eye toward amphibious assaults and forcible entry operations. Although the Corps has not conducted an opposed amphibious landing since Korea, recent amphibious landing exercises and the service’s drive behind the development of its new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle – a program that has, in the past, never been far from the chopping block and whose future remains uncertain – could indicate that the Marines will retain this specific capability in some way.
The Corps’ future force structure, which will become clearer after the submission of the 2013 POM, will likely be built around an amphibious fleet comprised of 33 vessels, down from the original 38. The high-end requirement of an additional five vessels was deemed unaffordable based on current budgets.
These 33 ships will be capable of carrying two Marine Expeditionary Brigades, including most of their equipment. Although important questions, such as the timing and sequence as well as the distance from the shore at which the Marines might conduct a forcible entry operation, are still unanswered, Undersecretary Work indicated that the current planning assumption of about 25 nautical miles from the shore may need to be adjusted based on initial shaping operations conducted by U.S. Air Forces.
Early efforts to develop a new joint operating concept indicate that considerable change lies in store for the Marines. Whereas the Air-Land battle concept that emerged in the early 1980s emphasized close coordination between ground and air forces, the emerging Air-Sea battle, largely centered on the Asia-Pacific area of operations, emphasizes the joint deployment and application of air and maritime forces across a vast sea-air-centric theater.
Emerging threats, such as China’s efforts at developing a long-range anti-ship ballistic missile capability, will be important considerations as the Corps works to come up with its future force structure requirements.
The Marines’ drive to rejuvenate their naval heritage might also be inspired by a desire to remain relevant and secure a seat at the table in the emerging Air-Sea battle debate in recognition of a future operating environment that might differ from today’s land-centric conflicts.
Early signals indicate that the Corps’ active duty end strength, currently at about 202,000 Marines, could be reduced starting as early as next year after combat operations in Afghanistan have ended to around 150,000.
.... . / ..-. . .-- --..-- / - .... . / .--. .-. --- ..- -.. --..-- / - .... . / -- .- .-. .. -. . ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-
05-20-13, 06:31 PM #7
There's that moving target. After reading that, I can't pinpoint any specific MOS's which will be most affected negatively. AAV crewmembers will be in high demand still. Added firepower means we shouldn't be losing any air support, heavy artillary batteries, or even tank battalions. Didn't see mention of the Maritime Prepositioning system where we have tanks, vehicles, and heavy artillary stored away in large container ships around the globe but I'm sure we'll continue to use that plan (it just may be repositioned/concentrated in the Pacific region).
05-20-13, 07:05 PM #8
First, I want to say that next time I will do more research online on my own before asking. @Rocky C, thank you for posting that article and now I know a little bit more what they mean in downsizing. I will just keep my ears open and if I find out any specifics I will put them on here as TheWookie said.
05-21-13, 02:47 AM #9
WE don't mind helping out once in a while if you get stuck
with one or two tricky questions....BUT. The burden is on
you to get to the point to ask an Inteligent question...NOT
to just give us a BLANK stare into the headlights............
Good Luck in your endevors...(sp)
05-21-13, 08:47 AM #10
May 13th, 2013.
As the Marine Corps draws down its active-duty force, much of the focus has fallen on the manpower reductions required to reach the service’s target end strength of 182,100.
But as part of this process, dozens of units are being deactivated and reorganized. In June, 3rd Battalion, 10th Marines, will complete its 20-month deactivation.
Lt. Col. Todd Perry, commanding officer of the artillery unit, said it has been uncharted territory: How do you lead the battalion during training and operations, while also preparing for its disolution?
“Deactivating units is not something the Marine Corps does too often,” he said. “There is no Marine Corps order or definitive, explicit guidance on how to do these actions.”
He quickly realized it would require a detailed plan of attack. So Perry and other Marine leaders developed an operations planning tool in which they established an action plan and and a timeline for the deactivation, including all the milestones that they would need to reach, and when they would need to reach them.
Now in his last months as CO of 3/10, Perry is preparing an after-action report that he hopes will help other units that are set to deactivate or reorganize within the next two fiscal years. And there are many.
The unit has a particularly close relationship with Lejeune’s 8th Marine Regiment, which is slated for a massive deactivation and reorganization of tenant elements in fiscal 2014.
Still ahead, the Marine Corps plans to deactivate all of 9th Marines, which was reactivated at Lejeune in 2007 after a 13-year dormancy to help swell the force to 202,000 during the height of the Iraq campaign. Later this fiscal year, the Corps also will undertake reorganization of its Marine Expeditionary Force headquarters groups, including a shift that will transition II MEF from a three-star to a two-star command at Lejeune.
The restructure also includes a plus-up of Marine Corps Forces Special Operation Command and Marine Corps Cyberspace Command, among other elements.
Despite all its moving parts, the force restructuring remains on schedule, said Col. Sean Gibson, a spokesman for Marine Corps Combat Development Command.
A 'phased approach'
Perry, who took command of the battalion in June 2011, had only been there a short time before the results of the Force Structure Review were announced. Of the five tenant units within the battalion, two — Headquarters Battery and Fox Battery — would be dissolved altogether, while India and Kilo batteries would be absorbed by 1st Battalion, 10th Marines, and Lima Battery would be attached to 2nd Battalion, 10th Marines.
The realignment of Kilo Battery to 1/10 was accomplished in January, just prior to its deployment with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is now providing a forward-deployed, crisis-response force in the 5th Fleet area of operations.
India Battery transitioned to its new parent unit in April, while Lima Battery will make the move in mid-May. It has been a “phased approach,” Perry said.
Despite all the movement, training has proceeded. In fact, elements of 3/10 participated in direct-fire training in early March. It gave them a chance to refresh their skills with the 155mm M777A2 howitzers before moving on to other units.
While no Marines were forced out of the Corps to accomplish the attrition necessary to close down a unit, some were given orders to different stations after only a year with the unit, while more were pushed to different artillery elements.
“We did a whole bunch of internal moves,” Perry said. “A lot of the Marines got realigned to India and Lima batteries.”
Throughout the process, there was the normal attrition of Marines due to their end of active service, he added.
With nearly 800 Marines serving in five batteries when the battalion was at full strength, Perry expects the process of guided attrition and personnel moves to continue right up to the final deactivation in June.
It was while contemplating the large amount of gear and equipment that 3/10 had to ship out to other units that Perry said he was hit with the emotion of closing down a battalion rich in tradition and history, including a part in key World War II campaigns in the Pacific, including Tarawa, Saipan and Guadalcanal.
To help bring closure , Perry took a trip up to the Marine Corps History Division at Quantico, Va., learning all he could about 3/10 legend and lore.
“It definitely puts into perspective our history,” he said. “You have a different perspective on what your unit has done.”
.... . / ..-. . .-- --..-- / - .... . / .--. .-. --- ..- -.. --..-- / - .... . / -- .- .-. .. -. . ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-
05-26-13, 09:28 PM #11
well if it helps, they got rid of a bunch of grunt battalions.
05-27-13, 07:41 AM #12
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)