For my entire career up to 911 We had a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) or MEUSOC (Spec Operations Capable) deployed out of the East, and West Coast at all times Usually relieving each other somewhere in the Med, Caribbean Middle East, or off of Africa for the East Coast MEU's. West Coast MEU's usually handle the Pacific and into the Middle East. Japan 31st MEU was mostly just for INDOPACOM, Australia, and Middle East.
When 911 happened traditional deployment cycles got blurred for 20 yrs.
Now enter the concept of the Littoral Combat Teams and such (never mind the ships and all the issues involved)
which throw in a new requirement.
One of the great things about the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) is that it is scaleable. Similar to the civilian Incident Command System. On the big end the entire Marine Corps is a MAGTF, on the smaller end you have the traditional MEU. But it can go smaller in scale down to an extreme.
An example of this would be 1 Infantry Company, with a weapons detachment (mortars, machine guns, etc) and a Sniper. A couple UH-1Y Venoms, 1-2 Ospreys, and maybe an F-35 or 2. Along with supply, maint, and support folks.
But it can go extremely smaller. Say down to. 1 Infantry Plt with a Machine Gunner and a Designated Marksmen or a Sniper, 1-2 Helicopters to insert.
Technically a 3 man recon team is a MAGTF.
My point is that it may require an adjustment of the current MEU size/scale to make the Commandants "Req" a reality under current readiness and budget restraints.
When I deployed to Iraq in Jan 2003 on USS Boxer there was already a MEU out on Deployment from the West Coast, East Coast, and Japan. We formed what was called a Special MAGTF (SPMGTF).
Probably 1/3 Smaller in scale than a conventional MEU.
Ex. We had a couple CH53's, CH46's, Hueys and Cobras, A Regimental Combat Team which was like a scaled down Division, and about half of a Harrier Squadron along with supply, intel, maint, and support on the Boxer. We had a few F-18's and EA6B's on the USS Constellation which was supposed have been decommissioned but she did one last float.
Changing the size of the MEUs that are going to be part of the 3.0 req will have to be looked at.
We wasted about $28 billion to develop and acquire the Littoral Combat Ship. A ship so useless that it has yet to be deployed to the Red Sea where we are actually engaged in littoral combat!
That $28 billion could've instead bought about 18 LPD-17s ($1.6B each). Or more realistically 10 LPDs and 6 DDGs ($2B each). There's your 3.0 ARG.
But why should Congress bottom line an increased shipbuilding budget? NAVSEA doesn't seem capable of managing the money it is given. LCS, DDG-1000 and the FFG-62 are all complete clusters.
I really, really like making clear LSM is a connector, not a ship. To me LCACs are very useful, but also exquisite, expensive, and fragile. LCUs are too slow and I would also say too deep in draft.
-Textron offers there big SES ship - this is again, too fragile, exquisite and expensive.
-Army/Vigor (and BMT) have MSV-L which if proven successful get some speed and hauling ability on a low draft without being exquisite and fragile.
- France just made a good move by adopting the EDA-S to complement the EDA-R. Basically 2 LCMs that fully occupy the space of 1 EDA-R with similar payload, good speed. We could swap these in 2 for one with an LCAC and they could get around on their own a bit. This barely squeezing 2 LCU in an LHD (not LHA) deck only, along with abysmal build pace and contract issues, needs to stop.
So for LSM - BMT offers scaled up versions of the MSV-L. We also know they are looking a lot at stern landing OSVs. I'd contend they might want to look at a stern landing FSV and work real hard at figuring out how to get a bridge layer type set up for the stern ramp rather than what they are working on. Cheap and speedy. Key is it will push the boundaries in order to come close to hauling what the Marines want to haul. My guess is they will adopt the Birdon concept where the bow of the boat opens, yet the hull is configured more like an OSV for speed and seakeeping.
Time to make at least a third of the Active Duty Army Guard and Reserve, and the savings go to Coast Guard, Navy, and Marines.
Somewhat OT: If we're going to be a while building up shipyards, let's increase land-based Naval Air. Put some P-8s, C-130s, Super Hornets, and possibly F-15EX on some of the Pacific Islands. They'd work for deterrence,.and scatter out our forces in case of attack. Put them.in say, Alaska, Australia, Philippines, Solomons, and possibly a few more places.
I really don't know why we don't buy into the MQ-9B. Marines use the A model hand me down, Navy gets serious about a cheap plane that can get serious about sub hunting.
For my entire career up to 911 We had a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) or MEUSOC (Spec Operations Capable) deployed out of the East, and West Coast at all times Usually relieving each other somewhere in the Med, Caribbean Middle East, or off of Africa for the East Coast MEU's. West Coast MEU's usually handle the Pacific and into the Middle East. Japan 31st MEU was mostly just for INDOPACOM, Australia, and Middle East.
When 911 happened traditional deployment cycles got blurred for 20 yrs.
Now enter the concept of the Littoral Combat Teams and such (never mind the ships and all the issues involved)
which throw in a new requirement.
One of the great things about the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) is that it is scaleable. Similar to the civilian Incident Command System. On the big end the entire Marine Corps is a MAGTF, on the smaller end you have the traditional MEU. But it can go smaller in scale down to an extreme.
An example of this would be 1 Infantry Company, with a weapons detachment (mortars, machine guns, etc) and a Sniper. A couple UH-1Y Venoms, 1-2 Ospreys, and maybe an F-35 or 2. Along with supply, maint, and support folks.
But it can go extremely smaller. Say down to. 1 Infantry Plt with a Machine Gunner and a Designated Marksmen or a Sniper, 1-2 Helicopters to insert.
Technically a 3 man recon team is a MAGTF.
My point is that it may require an adjustment of the current MEU size/scale to make the Commandants "Req" a reality under current readiness and budget restraints.
When I deployed to Iraq in Jan 2003 on USS Boxer there was already a MEU out on Deployment from the West Coast, East Coast, and Japan. We formed what was called a Special MAGTF (SPMGTF).
Probably 1/3 Smaller in scale than a conventional MEU.
Ex. We had a couple CH53's, CH46's, Hueys and Cobras, A Regimental Combat Team which was like a scaled down Division, and about half of a Harrier Squadron along with supply, intel, maint, and support on the Boxer. We had a few F-18's and EA6B's on the USS Constellation which was supposed have been decommissioned but she did one last float.
Changing the size of the MEUs that are going to be part of the 3.0 req will have to be looked at.
Semper Fi!
Gunny Reed
We wasted about $28 billion to develop and acquire the Littoral Combat Ship. A ship so useless that it has yet to be deployed to the Red Sea where we are actually engaged in littoral combat!
That $28 billion could've instead bought about 18 LPD-17s ($1.6B each). Or more realistically 10 LPDs and 6 DDGs ($2B each). There's your 3.0 ARG.
But why should Congress bottom line an increased shipbuilding budget? NAVSEA doesn't seem capable of managing the money it is given. LCS, DDG-1000 and the FFG-62 are all complete clusters.
I really, really like making clear LSM is a connector, not a ship. To me LCACs are very useful, but also exquisite, expensive, and fragile. LCUs are too slow and I would also say too deep in draft.
-Textron offers there big SES ship - this is again, too fragile, exquisite and expensive.
-Army/Vigor (and BMT) have MSV-L which if proven successful get some speed and hauling ability on a low draft without being exquisite and fragile.
- France just made a good move by adopting the EDA-S to complement the EDA-R. Basically 2 LCMs that fully occupy the space of 1 EDA-R with similar payload, good speed. We could swap these in 2 for one with an LCAC and they could get around on their own a bit. This barely squeezing 2 LCU in an LHD (not LHA) deck only, along with abysmal build pace and contract issues, needs to stop.
So for LSM - BMT offers scaled up versions of the MSV-L. We also know they are looking a lot at stern landing OSVs. I'd contend they might want to look at a stern landing FSV and work real hard at figuring out how to get a bridge layer type set up for the stern ramp rather than what they are working on. Cheap and speedy. Key is it will push the boundaries in order to come close to hauling what the Marines want to haul. My guess is they will adopt the Birdon concept where the bow of the boat opens, yet the hull is configured more like an OSV for speed and seakeeping.
Time to make at least a third of the Active Duty Army Guard and Reserve, and the savings go to Coast Guard, Navy, and Marines.
Somewhat OT: If we're going to be a while building up shipyards, let's increase land-based Naval Air. Put some P-8s, C-130s, Super Hornets, and possibly F-15EX on some of the Pacific Islands. They'd work for deterrence,.and scatter out our forces in case of attack. Put them.in say, Alaska, Australia, Philippines, Solomons, and possibly a few more places.
I really don't know why we don't buy into the MQ-9B. Marines use the A model hand me down, Navy gets serious about a cheap plane that can get serious about sub hunting.