DoD to propose cutting Corps from 202k to 182k

[whitesoxnation]

In the 2011 Force Structure Review it was proposed to reduce fixed wing tactical squadrons by 16% and reduce total squadrons from 70 to 61. This was for a reduction to 186k, and DoD will propose 4,000 more.

Excluding training and EW squadrons, I count 20... so a rough idea is seeing three go away? That leaves six more in the 70-61 proposal. Where will the axe fall if this goes through? How will it fall on Marine aviation, what will it mean for NAs/NFOs?

 

[squorch2]

What marine NFOs?

 

[MIDNJAC]

I think the writing is on the wall for Marine NFO's, wrong or right. As for N/A's who knows.....the selection process and accessions have seemed to very rarely reflect big picture manning decisions from what I've seen in the last few years. I'm guessing the Corps will start to see something akin to ERB (which the Navy is currently struggling with), as aviators in fleet squadrons are a minority compared to the overall population.

 

[helolumpy]

What marine NFOs?

The NFO's that go in the Growler and Super Hornet, of course!

 

[jarhead]

From several legit sources, rumormill from out here on the street is that one Marine F/A-18D squadron will be cadre'd by the end of CY12. That's a lot of aircrew out of a job...

Also, it's not looking like VMFA-332 will be stood back up in Yuma by year's end either...but that's because of the delay's with the F-35B, not force restructure.

S/F

 

[phrogdriver]

We forget that the Corps started this shooting match at 172K, and had been there for quite some time. It's funny how we adjust to the new normal.

If we were serious about force structure review, this would end at 150K or below.

The Corps has no business in EA, at least as it's structured now.

We need to take serious looks at our vision of what wars the Corps is going to fight and how it needs to be structured. If only those decisions were independent of power politics and were solely based on national defense strategy. ....sigh...

 

[Brunes]

We forget that the Corps started this shooting match at 172K, and had been there for quite some time. It's funny how we adjust to the new normal.

If we were serious about force structure review, this would end at 150K or below.

The Corps has no business in EA, at least as it's structured now.

We need to take serious looks at our vision of what wars the Corps is going to fight and how it needs to be structured. If only those decisions were independent of power politics and were solely based on national defense strategy. ....sigh...

I can't talk cogently about how the Marines are set up...but those overall numbers equate to a 10% reduction. The Coast Guard rumor mill is talking about nearer to 25% - Will it be that bad...Probably not. But trying to undershoot won't save jobs and it will make the process harder down the line.

 

[Brett327]

The Corps has no business in EA, at least as it's structured now.

I'm glad someone else is finally starting to understand that logic. As long as EA is considered and employed as a National Asset, ( I.E. Marine EA isn't supporting Marines) it doesn't benefit the Corps to be "in" it.

Brett

 

[mmx1]

Well there's 2 CH-53D squadrons that will cadre in the next year for a few years before (presumptively) standing back up as a CH-53K and MV-22 squadron.

 

[usmarinemike]

We forget that the Corps started this shooting match at 172K, and had been there for quite some time. It's funny how we adjust to the new normal.

If we were serious about force structure review, this would end at 150K or below.

The Corps has no business in EA, at least as it's structured now.

We need to take serious looks at our vision of what wars the Corps is going to fight and how it needs to be structured. If only those decisions were independent of power politics and were solely based on national defense strategy. ....sigh...

Did any squadrons get added since 2000? I understand cutting back to the size we were before the war, but taking entire units off the table is drastic. I can see having 1 squadron of say 40 aircraft, 30 pilots, and 200 maintainers vice two squadrons of 20 aircraft 20 pilots and 125 maintainers (hypothetical numbers of course). That would mean some cuts at the field grade level and economies of scale for all departments. It would mean a shit ton of work for the remaining individuals though. Actually, maybe not since there won't be any money to fly or maintain anything at any meaningful level of readiness.

 

[mmx1]

I think we stood up at least skid and a shitter squadron. Can't speak for the fixed wing side, but aren't we getting less F-35's than the airframes they're replacing? Similarly for the ospreys?

 

[phrogpilot73]

I think we stood up at least skid and a shitter squadron.

That is correct. Decommissioned two reserve squadrons to get the planes.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I can see having 1 squadron of say 40 aircraft, 30 pilots, and 200 maintainers vice two squadrons of 20 aircraft 20 pilots and 125 maintainers (hypothetical numbers of course).

What on earth would be the point of having 40 aircraft with 30 pilots? 20 jets might as well be in a warehouse.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I think we stood up at least skid and a shitter squadron. Can't speak for the fixed wing side, but aren't we getting less F-35's than the airframes they're replacing? Similarly for the ospreys?

I don't know how many we will eventually wind up with, but aren't they still saying we will get something like 300+ F-35B's and 80 F-35C's? If we actually get that many, I think that will be more than the current number of harriers and hornets. The first two F-35B squadrons are cadre'd hornet squadrons.

 

[phrogpilot73]

We forget that the Corps started this shooting match at 172K, and had been there for quite some time. It's funny how we adjust to the new normal.

And was broke as a joke. There's going to be A LOT of Marines that are going to be shocked when we don't have unlimited funds for stupid shit...