RoarkJr.
Well-Known Member
Why the Corpsâ future may sideline its ground-pounders
Is it the twilight of Marine infantry?
www.marinecorpstimes.com
Thoughts?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Article - Why the Corps’ Future May Sideline its Ground Pounders
- Thread starter RoarkJr.
- Start date
www.marinecorpstimes.com
Thoughts?
Do you have an opinion on the article or are you just waiting to see what others say.
i am personally sick and tired of hearing O-6 + saying things along the lines of “you guys need to figure this problem out and pass it up the chain
So we can implement your good ideas.”
The good ideas that are passed up are “unacceptable” because that isn’t how we do business. These old boners cere only about promotion and retirement not a lot increasing the lethality of the force. Also the Marine Times is garbage.
i am personally sick and tired of hearing O-6 + saying things along the lines of “you guys need to figure this problem out and pass it up the chain
So we can implement your good ideas.”
The good ideas that are passed up are “unacceptable” because that isn’t how we do business. These old boners cere only about promotion and retirement not a lot increasing the lethality of the force. Also the Marine Times is garbage.
Why the Corpsâ future may sideline its ground-pounders
Is it the twilight of Marine infantry?
Thoughts?
Sounds like pie-in-the-sky nonsense that will change as soon as the next commandant and SECNAV are appointed.
RoarkJr.
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure I understand, it seems like what is presented in the article is a few officers actually entertaining a radical idea about changing the philosophy of Marine employment, but you’re saying it’s the opposite. Doesn’t force resign 2030 prove that senior leaders are willing to change despite whether it’s how we’ve done business in the past or not, and despite the controversy? Sorry If I misunderstood your point if that isn’t accurate.
Yes, the Times isn’t an ideal source but the question is interesting. My thoughts are that I don’t think I know enough about EABO and long range precision fires to have a great opinion. The points raised in the article are reasonable, though. If I had to answer I’d say that we benefit from entertaining radical ideas so that we aren’t blinded by pride at expense of accomplishing the mission.
I think he thinks you are an O6+
It’s clear that the Marines don’t need to be just another small army. But I also think all of the services are struggling with the future. The Navy has been stumbling around for a few years knowing full well that the super carrier’s future is limited but not quite seeing what will come next. The Air Force is slowly bending in a “back to the future” way to a more strategic force shifting from fighters for more impactful long-range delivery systems like bombers and transports. The army is torn between traditional heavy operations and special operations and the USCG should simply be made a civilian agency. But the Corps...this is kind of a decent look. The article fails to convey that many of these future operations will be opposed so infantry has to kick open a small door and secure a small piece of land before the rocket guys can start blasting stuff. A smaller, more focused Corps is the right thing to have and EABO is a sound strategic concept.
In all of this I think the National Guard and Reserves are going to grow in some way. I imagine they will begin to hold more and more legacy units (heavy like tanks and mechanized infantry and fast like fighters and ground attack missions) that will be needed but are slower to deploy and need a ready base to head for before they can roll into the fight. Of course many of the unmanned missions are highly suited to the Guard/Reserve system as well.
In all of this I think the National Guard and Reserves are going to grow in some way. I imagine they will begin to hold more and more legacy units (heavy like tanks and mechanized infantry and fast like fighters and ground attack missions) that will be needed but are slower to deploy and need a ready base to head for before they can roll into the fight. Of course many of the unmanned missions are highly suited to the Guard/Reserve system as well.
So, probably more of an H-1 specific rant there motivated by some beverages. In the working groups I’ve attended and in restructuring WTI we’ve been trying to really figure out what EABO / distributed ops will look like for the MAGTF. Typically what happens is we get guidance from a GO and then we go to work. At the end of the working group or when it’s time to make a decision the O-6 running the group will table any decisions or changes and report up that the working group was inconclusive.
As far as what 03XX communities will be doing, many believe it’ll be the defense of Naval bases and other supporting roles. The problem here is that you’ve got leaders who come from these communities and have always been the main effort and being placed in a supporting role doesn’t sit well with many of them.
I get the peer to peer techno war thing, and somebody has to man the USS Coral Atoll.
I also think there will be no shortage of more human-level war going on as climate change and demographic upheavals create population movements and fights between the old haves and the new have-nots. We’re always going to need folks whose primary skill is getting close to and influencing other humans. That’s infantry (says the aviator).
This is a fascinating article...
www.nytimes.com
I also think there will be no shortage of more human-level war going on as climate change and demographic upheavals create population movements and fights between the old haves and the new have-nots. We’re always going to need folks whose primary skill is getting close to and influencing other humans. That’s infantry (says the aviator).
This is a fascinating article...
Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications
Fewer babies’ cries. More abandoned homes. Toward the middle of this century, as deaths start to exceed births, changes will come that are hard to fathom.
This is a pretty accurate statement, but to be fair the Infantry is taking a large hit already with the size and number of their battalions. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. The EABO pub finally got released
The Infantry isn’t going anywhere. The buzzword bonanza continues for FD2030 but the Corps will still have to maintain Title 10 requirements.
Normally I’d agree, but these changes have already started to be implemented. The Commandant will purge anyone prior to him leaving that will not carry out his vision.
More importantly EABO has a large requirement for integration with the Navy for precision fires and sensors. Specifically the surface Navy. Not to throw stones, but I don’t think our surface brethren at the task force level and higher are as engaged as they need to be to validate these concepts.
TBH, we've got our hands full validating the basic concepts of DCA and Strike Warfare in this kind of fight.
Don't forget to round it out with a good-to-go social media post captioning a Cobra doing basic FAM with some shoehorned distributed ops blurb... "Demonstrating the platform's ability to support distributed forces in a contested environment.... by getting some pizza at KIPL"
I would argue that these are inclusive and complimentary to each other in the next fight. JFARPs, shore based radars, networked kill chains and other nerd stuff. They don’t need to be practiced in a vacuum. It’s not a bunch of Marines sitting around next to a rocket battery lobbing missiles into the ether.
I don't disagree, but it's not the closest alligator to the boat for the NAE from a tactical & operational perspective.
If you could elaborate a little - It could provide some context for everyone.
Tough to get into specifics here, for obvious reasons, but the F2T2 problem at extreme standoff ranges is a tough nut to crack. So, while we do the work on that (and other) issues, integrating EABO hasn't been a priority. That's not to say work isn't being done, but it's not the main line of effort for our WDCs.