It seems to me that the USMC's problem is, what is its mission? It tries to straddle the gap between the US Army's mission and the US Navy's mission. It was less of a problem when it was part of the US Navy. As a stand alone branch, it seems to me that the USMC's main goal is to be totally incompatible with the US Army, different ranks, different uniforms, ranks, formations, equipment, everything possible. When circumstances forces it to use Army equipment, it has its own version.
The problem is when the military fights larger enemies and America's lack of enough basic infantry rears its ugly head. The military will misuse the USMC to plug the gap. The USMC will be sent into landlocked countries via the Air Force.
The Russian's problem in Ukraine might not be the demise of tanks on the battlefield. Their problem might be lousy tanks. Remember Desert Storm? American tanks ruled like gods and slaughtered Iraqi tanks like sheep.
Anyway, IMHO someone higher up in the Government hierarchy than the Marine Commandant needs to decide what is the USMC mission. The choice might mean dividing up the USMC's mission between the Army and Navy altogether. Something that the USMC will do everything in its power to avoid.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

You lost me on that last curve: what does 'bringing long range fire' to the fight against shipping have to do with making the Marines into naval infantry? I'm not arguing, I don't understand what you mean.

CORPS VIEWS NEW SHIP-KILLING SYSTEM AS KEY TO FORCE DESIGN MODERNIZATION
Its apart an area-denial strategy, particularly acute since the USN can't get around to putting cheap hulls into the water so, having some shore-based ship killers over-watching a channel is an inexpensive option.


Berger's big plan seems intent on focusing the USMC in an agile force for two specific geographic areas: the northern-areas of Norway, and island clearing/holding of the Pacific. The Norwegian mission has remained since the Cold War with prepositioned stock in-place. The Pacific island mission is more traditional, however helo-borne assault is just as important as true amphibious landings.

The two big platforms for the amphibious mission: the Osprey seems to have found its sea-legs over the last decade, and now the new ACV is soon to deploy, to replace the worn out AAV's. What's missing is a gun-fire platform. Eliminating tanks I get, the weight (and logistics) penalties for both geographic areas is crippling, however elimination of artillery is puzzling, especially since the USN has all but dropped the Naval Gun Fire Support mission; Zumwalt-class disaster . I fear the brass' fascination with tech in the form of missiles, has been too dazzling versus the 'inexpensive' pragmatism of good old artillery.

^^^^^^^^^
Did they determine the cause of the recent Osprey crash? They sure killed a lot of Marines getting it into service.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^
Did they determine the cause of the recent Osprey crash? They sure killed a lot of Marines getting it into service.

That's going to take awhile.
Early pilot-speculation/RUMINT is either the de-icing system or, navigation; considering the weather at the time, there's a lot of can go wrong.

Osprey is new tech and been in-service since '07, the early crashes were no different than other new developments in air flight. The R&D costs at the time were eye-watering and with the lengthy timeline, that spur'd the negative reactions then multiply the loss of life and we get long disproved impressions. Today, there's over 400+ in-service across 3 services. Would much rather fly in an Osprey than the ancient frogs.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^
Did they determine the cause of the recent Osprey crash? They sure killed a lot of Marines getting it into service.

CH-53 had similar numbers over the same 25 years of initial operations.

Military aviation can be a dangerous business, and not for the faint of heart.

Park bench available for those who which to sit it out.

Your post implies it is an unsafe aircraft. It is not. It is a unique aircraft, with a unorthodox takeoff and landing characteristic.

Carrier ops are similar in their uniqueness and hazards.

quote:

Your post implies it is an unsafe aircraft. It is not. It is a unique aircraft, with a unorthodox takeoff and landing characteristic.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Incorrect assumption. Just wondering if the recent crash was a new undiscovered problem. That will take time I know.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
(Psst... There's really no need to include paragraphs of triple-nested quotes...etc

boy, you're right. That post was a hot mess. I'm sure I have an excuse, I'll think of it later.

So Berger’s plan is to use small groups of Marines to seize heavily fortified islands so shore based anti-ship missile batteries can be set up and used to sink Chinese warships?

If we really want those islands we will blast everything on them to rubble using stand off weapons. There’s no reason to occupy those islands.

I doubt the US Navy needs help wiping the entire Chinese navy off the planet in short order. Certainly not from Marines shooting ASM’s from some shore battery in the middle of he South China Sea.

Nothing about this reorganization makes sense. Yes, the Corps needed to get back it’s light naval infantry roots, but that could have been accomplished by reorganizing 3rd MARDIV and the MEU’s along those lines. Leave 1st and 2nd MARDIV with their heavy, combined arms capability.

As to preparing to fight the next war; a war with China will involve very little ground combat. Or is someone thinking we’re going to invade the mainland? Ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Would much rather fly in an Osprey than the ancient frogs.

The "ancient" Phrogs were good birds and still had plenty of life in them. As a former Phrog Phixer, I'd hate to see what it takes to maintain the tilt rotor system.

Stand-in Forces: Adapt or Perish

Small, mobile, and lethal, Marine Corps stand-in forces will be ready to deploy on short notice to disrupt an adversary’s plans at every point.

By General Eric Smith, U.S. Marine Corps
April 2022 Proceedings Vol. 148/4/1,430

Change is hard, particularly for those as bound to tradition as are U.S. Marines. But change is inevitable in the business of war. In my 34 years of service I have seen significant evolutions and revolutions, all accompanied by howls of “the Old Corps is dead!” It is rumored that a private first class in 1776 lamented how much the Marine Corps had changed since he enlisted at Tun Tavern the year before. I say this in jest, but skepticism about change endures.

Recently, the Marine Corps published A Concept for Stand-in Forces, which lays out a new vision for the employment of Marines in support of naval campaigns and joint operations.1 Like all new concepts, it has caused much discussion and some amount of concern.

To be clear, A Concept for Stand-in Forces does not change the things about the Marine Corps that are tried and true, but rather how we prepare for the next fight. That is a subtle but important distinction. The Marine Corps is the United States’ crisis response force. It has been for decades, and it will remain so. We continue to train and deploy Marine air-ground task forces (MAGTFs) and recognize that the whole of a MAGTF is greater than the sum of its parts. We remain an amphibious force that, partnered with amphibious ships, provides our naval and joint force commanders the ready and capable forces they need. And finally, the ethos of Marines has not and will not change. We will continue to attract, recruit, and train warriors who are proud to be the “first to fight”—and to do so with honor...

Complete article:

https://www.usni.org/magazines...rces-adapt-or-perish

How two dozen retired generals are trying to stop an overhaul of the Marines

Current plans call for shedding troops and equipment in preparation to take on China.

By PAUL MCLEARY and LEE HUDSON
04/01/2022 04:17 PM EDT

An influential group of over two dozen retired generals has launched a counteroffensive against plans to transform the Marine Corps, and is using their clout in a high-power pressure campaign to get Congress to slam on the brakes.

The roster of personalities includes every living former commandant, along with a slew of other retired four-star generals revered within the Corps. And all of them are bristling at different aspects of foundational changes introduced by Commandant Gen. David Berger, who aims to make the Corps lighter, faster and more capable of doing everything from electronic warfare to sinking ships at sea...

Complete article:

https://www.politico.com/news/...the-marines-00022446

quote:

Originally posted by houndawg:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Would much rather fly in an Osprey than the ancient frogs.

The "ancient" Phrogs were good birds and still had plenty of life in them. As a former Phrog Phixer, I'd hate to see what it takes to maintain the tilt rotor system.

As long as the supply chain for parts continues to flow (and the hydraulic fluid), most anything can be kept up and running. Unfortunately, the phrogs parts chain had ceased, they were also slow and limited in its lift capability compared to other vertical platforms. They were also technologically out of date as lighting for NVG use was limited, as were the comms and nav systems; sure things can be updated and made to fit but, its always a compromise. There's always trade-offs when giving up simplicity for technology, I was a detractor of the Osprey until I got to ride in one and talked to both USMC & SOF guys, its progression that was needed for the force.

in a brief statement -- what exactly does it do that a large helo 'can't do'?

(not a detractor -- was Army so no Osprey experience)

is it longer range / faster?

------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
in a brief statement -- what exactly does it do that a large helo 'can't do'?

(not a detractor -- was Army so no Osprey experience)

is it longer range / faster?


------------------------------------

Both. The Osprey can do 300 MPH and has a significantly longer range

Drones (lots and lots of them)(with missiles) and man portable shoulder fired missiles are the future of warfare.

The timing of troop reductions is suspect with Russia going nuts right now.

You wouldn't catch me in an Osprey. Of course, I said the same thing about Blackhawks (crash hawks) back in the day. I always felt safe in a UH-1 but the crash hawks were dropping like flies.

The Osprey, it seems to me, has a piss poor safety record. I image the concept was dreamed up by a couple of engineers out drinking one night. "So, we've got airplanes and we've got helicopters...why don't we make a hybrid and sell it to the military?" "Hell yeah!"

No thanks. A unsafe solution in search of a problem. We were able to move troops just fine without them. While helos don't move as far or as fast, they work just fine.

Of course...that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
You wouldn't catch me in an Osprey. Of course, I said the same thing about Blackhawks (crash hawks) back in the day. I always felt safe in a UH-1 but the crash hawks were dropping like flies.

The Osprey, it seems to me, has a piss poor safety record. I image the concept was dreamed up by a couple of engineers out drinking one night. "So, we've got airplanes and we've got helicopters...why don't we make a hybrid and sell it to the military?" "Hell yeah!"

No thanks. A unsafe solution in search of a problem. We were able to move troops just fine without them. While helos don't move as far or as fast, they work just fine.

Of course...that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

In the Osprey's defense, pretty much all aircraft have had teething pains in their early days. I don't think the Osprey's record is any worse than other military aircraft over the years.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
You wouldn't catch me in an Osprey. Of course, I said the same thing about Blackhawks (crash hawks) back in the day. I always felt safe in a UH-1 but the crash hawks were dropping like flies...

You know, right before you, there was some dude in his green sateenes just getting out of a Sikorsky looking at a Huey saying the same thing.
Before him, there was a Fixed Winger and some dude with Jump Boots on saying "Fuck That!" to anything that didn't have wings.

There's some E-1/O-1 just starting next month... Probably gonna look at a Blackhawk when he's ready to retire in about 30 years and scratch his head, wondering how we ever did shit with them.

You're probably right.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
in a brief statement -- what exactly does it do that a large helo 'can't do'?

(not a detractor -- was Army so no Osprey experience)

is it longer range / faster?

------------------------------------

Longer legs and faster than a Chinook.

Doesn't need a lengthy prepared surface that a C-130 or, C-17 would need.

Army Aviation is able to establish enough forward re-fuel/re-arm locations to not require the range/cargo compromises of the Osprey. Keep in mind, Osprey is 1st gen of tilt-rotor technology, lots and lots of issues were worked out and unfortunately lives lost. The Army will be buying into the 2nd gen tilt-rotors to replace existing helicopters through the Future Vertical Lift program; Bell's V-280 is an example of the technological & design improvement over the Osprey.