I know most of you folks (see how I didn't use "guys") are aviation centric, but no armor, no bridging.......... does the Corps expect Army support in the expeditionary mission?
In short, it doesn't sound like it. The whole premise is based off of expeditionary advanced base operations (EABO) and LOCE. CMC wants to make short-lived multifunctional bases that support naval surface forces then collapse and move with in a 48-72 hour or less period. I've seen a few different COAs on this subject, and I'm skeptical we've seen the final version. I wouldn't take this as a solid product by any stretch of the imagination. Some of these concepts are based on R&D and acquisitions, and we're all aware of how that can be a total goat-rope. I think it's big risk, and may make us relevant in a very very unlikely conflict with the PLAN, but will also diminish are ability to react to more likely scenarios in various GCCs. Several commenters in the WSJ highlighted these issues.I know most of you folks (see how I didn't use "guys") are aviation centric, but no armor, no bridging.......... does the Corps expect Army support in the expeditionary mission?
Good question - maybe the new Precision Strike Missile. Perhaps some of the guys with arty backgrounds can chime in.Is this all HIMARS? Sounds like a great way to transition old-school artillery into the future fight.