quote:

Commandant's Planning Guidance

38th Commandant of the Marine Corps

[...]

ORIENTATION AND INTENT

The Commandant’s Planning Guidance (CPG) provides the 38th Commandant’s strategic direction for the Marine Corps and mirrors the function of the Secretary of Defense’s Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). It serves as the authoritative document for Service-level planning and provides a common direction to the Marine Corps Total Force. It also serves as a road map describing where the Marine Corps is going and why; what the Marine Corps force development priorities are and are not; and, in some instances, how and when prescribed actions will be implemented. This CPG serves as my Commandant’s Intent for the next four years.

As Commandant Neller observed, “The Marine Corps is not organized, trained, equipped, or postured to meet the demands of the rapidly evolving future operating environment.” I concur with his diagnosis. Significant change is required to ensure we are aligned with the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) and DPG, and further, prepared to meet the demands of the Naval Fleet in executing current and emerging operational naval concepts. Effecting that change will be my top priority as your 38th Commandant.

This CPG outlines my five priority focus areas: force design, warfighting, education and training, core values, and command and leadership. I will use these focal areas as logical lines of effort to frame my thinking, planning, and decision-making at Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC), as well as to communicate to our civilian leadership. This document explains how we will translate those focus areas into action with measurable outcomes. The institutional changes that follow this CPG will be based on a long-term view and singular focus on where we want the Marine Corps to be in the next 5-15 years, well beyond the tenure of any one Commandant, Presidential administration, or Congress. We cannot afford to retain outdated policies, doctrine, organizations, or force development strategies.

[...]

FORCE DESIGN

We should take pride in our force and recent operational successes, but the current force is not organized, trained, or equipped to support the naval force – operating in contested maritime spaces, facilitating sea control, or executing distributed maritime operations. We must change. We must divest of legacy capabilities that do not meet our future requirements, regardless of their past operational efficacy. There is no piece of equipment or major defense acquisition program that defines us – not the AAV, ACV, LAV, M1A1, M777, AH-1, F/A-18, F-35, or any other program. Likewise, we are not defined by any particular organizing construct – the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) cannot be our only solution for all crises. Instead, we are defined by our collective character as Marines and by fulfilling our Service roles and functions prescribed by Congress.

Force design is my number one priority. I have already initiated, and am personally leading, a future force design effort. Going forward, CD&I will be the only organization authorized to publish force development guidance on my behalf. We will divest of legacy defense programs and force structure that support legacy capabilities. If provided the opportunity to secure additional modernization dollars in exchange for force structure, I am prepared to do so. Plans or programs developed in support of this planning guidance that require additional resources must include an accompanying resource offset verified by a recognized analytic body (PA&E, OAD, etc.) to be considered for implementation.

NAVAL INTEGRATION

Adversary advances in long-range precision fires make closer naval integration an imperative. The focal point of the future integrated naval force will shift from traditional power projection to meet the new challenges associated with maintaining persistent naval forward presence to enable sea control and denial operations. The Fleet Marine Force (FMF) will support the Joint Force Maritime Component Command (JFMCC) and fleet commander concept of operations, especially in close and confined seas, where enemy long-range precision fires threaten maneuver by traditional large-signature naval platforms. Future naval force development and employment will include new capabilities that will ensure that the Navy-Marine Corps team cannot be excluded from any region in advancing or protecting our national interests or those of our allies. Marines will focus on exploiting positional advantage and defending key maritime terrain that enables persistent sea control and denial operations forward. Together, the Navy-Marine Corps Team will enable the joint force to partner, persist and operate forward despite adversary employment of long-range precision fires.

[...]

quote:

Marines to Shut Down All Tank Units, Cut Infantry Battalions in Major Overhaul

23 Mar 2020
Military.com | By Gina Harkins

In the next decade, the Marine Corps will no longer operate tanks or have law enforcement battalions. It will also have three fewer infantry units and will shed about 7% of its overall force as the service prepares for a potential face-off with China.

The Marine Corps is cutting all military occupational specialties associated with tank battalions, law enforcement units and bridging companies, the service announced Monday. It's also reducing its number of infantry battalions from 24 to 21 and cutting tiltrotor, attack and heavy-lift aviation squadrons.

The changes are the result of a sweeping months-long review and war-gaming experiments that laid out the force the service will need by 2030. Commandant Gen. David Berger directed the review, which he has called his No. 1 priority as the service's top general.

"Developing a force that incorporates emerging technologies and a significant change to force structure within our current resource constraints will require the Marine Corps to become smaller and remove legacy capabilities," a news release announcing the changes states.

By 2030, the Marine Corps will drop down to an end strength of 170,000 personnel. That's about 16,000 fewer leathernecks than it has today.

Cost savings associated with trimming the ranks will pay for a 300% increase in rocket artillery capabilities, anti-ship missiles, unmanned systems and other high-tech equipment leaders say Marines will need to take on threats such as China or Russia.

"The Marine Corps is redesigning the 2030 force for naval expeditionary warfare in actively contested spaces," the announcement states.

Units and squadrons that will be deactivated under plan include:

3rd Battalion, 8th Marines

Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 264

Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 462

Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 469

Marine Wing Support Groups 27 and 37

8th Marine Regiment Headquarters Company.

The 8th Marine Regiment's other units -- 1/8 and 2/8 -- will be absorbed by other commands. Second Marines will take on 1/8, and 2/8 will go to the 6th Marine Regiment.

Artillery cannon batteries will fall from 21 today to five. Amphibious vehicle companies will drop from six to four.

The Hawaii-based Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 367, which flies AH-1Z and UH-1Y aircraft, will also be deactivated and relocated to Camp Pendleton, California, the release states.

And plans to reactivate 5th Battalion, 10th Marines, as a precision rocket artillery system unit are also being scrapped. That unit's assigned batteries will instead realign under 10th Marines, according to the release.

"The future Fleet Marine Force requires a transformation from a legacy force to a modernized force with new organic capabilities," it adds. "The FMF in 2030 will allow the Navy and Marine Corps to restore the strategic initiative and to define the future of maritime conflict by capitalizing on new capabilities to deter conflict and dominate inside the enemy's weapon engagement zone."

Existing infantry units are going to get smaller and lighter, according to the plan, "to support naval expeditionary warfare, and built to facilitate distributed and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations."

The Marine Corps will also create three littoral regiments that are organized, trained and equipped to handle sea denial and control missions. The news release describes the new units as a "Pacific posture." Marine expeditionary units, which deploy on Navy ships, will augment those new regiments, the release adds.

In addition to more unmanned systems and long-range fire capabilities, the Marine Corps also wants a new light amphibious warship and will invest in signature management, electronic warfare and other systems that will allow Marines to operate from "minimally developed locations."

Berger has called China's buildup in the South China Sea and Asia-Pacific region a game changer for the Navy and Marine Corps. He has pushed for closer integration between the sea services, as the fight shifts away from insurgent groups in the Middle East and to new threats at sea.

Marine officials say they will continue evaluating and war-gaming the service's force design.

“Our force design initiatives are designed to create and maintain a competitive edge against tireless and continuously changing peer adversaries,” the release states.

quote:

Short On Pilots, Marines Debate Size Of F-35 Fleet

“Our continued inability to build and sustain an adequate inventory of F-35 pilots leads me to conclude that we must be pragmatic regarding our ability to support" the program," Gen. David Berger says in a blunt new 10-year force design plan.

By Paul McLeary on March 27, 2020 at 1:50 PM

WASHINGTON: The Marine Corps’ inability to recruit enough pilots has led the commandant to question the F-35’s place in the already budget-constrained Corps’ future plans, a potentially huge shift for the service that first fielded the Joint Strike Fighter and fought harder than any other service to build it and buy it.

“Our continued inability to build and sustain an adequate inventory of F-35 pilots leads me to conclude that we must be pragmatic regarding our ability to support” the program,” Gen. David Berger says in a blunt new 10-year force design plan. He calls for an external assessment of the aircraft’s place within the service relative to what he’s being asked to do in the National Defense Strategy and the forthcoming Joint Warfighting Concept, a document the Joint Staff is expected to wrap up later this year.

Berger not only singles out pilot shortfalls, but also notes high costs of maintaining and flying the F-35B as factors he’s weighing “in reconciling the growing disparity between numbers of platforms and numbers of aircrew.”

The general has been very clear he does not expect his annual budgets to grow at any point in the near future, suggesting the best case scenario is that they remain flat as he wrestles with fleets of aging planes, helicopters and vehicles which grow increasingly costly to maintain.

The new document also makes it clear Berger has had enough of the service’s Abrams tanks, which were so effective in Iraq’s Anbar province, but offer little utility on small islands in the Pacific. A series of wargames conducted between 2018 and 2019 led the Corps to the conclusion that the tanks are “operationally unsuitable for our highest-priority challenges in the future,” the document states.

While questioning time-tested and iconic weapons like Abrams tanks, and the massive capabilities that the F-35 can bring, “they’re looking at the totality of the force” said Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at The Heritage Foundation. “Berger has been very bold in saying we just can’t afford to have small batches of everything,” so he has set out on a path to bear down on what is most critical to fighting a war in the Pacific against a modern Chinese military.

The new force design is slated to phase in over the next decade, but the changes will be seen as early as the fiscal year 2022 budget, slated to drop next February.

That gives the Marines months to build their case for reimagining the force, which includes buying new capabilities like mobile rocket artillery and long-range fires while scrapping legacy platforms like heavy- and medium-helicopter squadrons and towed artillery. The plan also calls for eliminating law enforcement units, bridging companies, three infantry battalions, and anti-aircraft units.

[...]

quote:

The Marine Corps' 1st New Littoral Regiment Will Be Headquartered in Japan

2 Apr 2020
Military.com | By Gina Harkins

The first of three new units the Marine Corps will design to fight in hotly contested maritime spaces will operate in the Asia-Pacific region, the service's top leader said this week.

Leaders are working through plans this year to stand up a new Marine littoral regiment, Commandant Gen. David Berger told reporters Wednesday. The MLR, as Berger calls it, will be a new naval expeditionary force formation based in Hawaii and will fall under the Japan-based III Marine Expeditionary Force.

"We are already convinced, based on war games and modeling so far, that we have a fairly good idea of what an MLR with [III Marine Expeditionary Force] ... could look like," Berger said.

The commandant's plan for the new regiment is part of a months-long force design, which was unveiled last month. The Marine Corps will not only stand up the new units, which will be organized, trained and equipped to accomplish sea denial and control, according to planning documents, but will also pivot away from longstanding missions.

[...]

quote:

Marine Commandant: Less A Second Land Army, More Light Amphib Ships

"You'll see some significant changes” in the Navy report “regarding the portion of the fleet that supports maneuver of Marines and the expeditionary elements of that," Gen. David Berger says.

By Paul McLeary on April 03, 2020 at 4:38 PM

WASHINGTON: Defense Secretary Mark Esper has been “very supportive” of bold new Marine Corps plans to jettison its tanks, cut artillery units, slash the number of helicopter squadrons, and rethink the role F-35s might play, Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger told reporters this week, suggesting he’s just getting started in remaking the Corps.

“We’re more at the beginning than we are at the end” of carving out deep changes in the force structure of the Corps to meet the challenges of Chinese and Russian military modernization, Berger said.

It’s important to note that while Esper said no to the Navy’s shipbuilding and force structure plans, a decision he received significant grief from lawmakers over, he gave the green light tot Berger’s force structure plan released last month.

The approval of Berger’s vision, at least in its early form, could be a signal of Esper’s thinking about the wider shift for the Navy as well. Berger plans to lop off a significant portion of the Corps’ traditional strength — artillery, armor, and rotary wing lift — in favor of a leaner, more precise and much faster force. The Navy, conversely, while pledging to move forward with some unmanned ship plans, generally wants to retain its hulking aircraft carriers, dozens of big deck amphibs, and an aging destroyer fleet while introducing a new frigate to the mix.

It’s not clear that is the direction Esper wants to go. One thing the combined Marine/Navy team is working on is a new class of small amphibious ships that could set sail as early as 2023 that would be smaller and faster than the current gator fleet, a major shift in how Marines are transported to the fight.

“I laid out in detail the areas where we would be reducing or getting rid of certain capabilities,” Berger told me during the roundtable, “and the areas where we’re going to build up, and he was very supportive. His sense of the National Defense Strategy is clear and, until that that scenario changes, this is the vector we need to be on.”

Berger’s reference to the Pacific-focused NDS underscores his intent to make the force lighter, faster, and more responsive to the threats in the Pacific, while also pulling away from the grinding land wars of the past two decades.

“We need to do less duplication of a second sort of land army and more to provide the nation unique capabilities that an amphibious and maritime and expeditionary crisis response force provides,” he said, meaning the Marines seven companies’ worth of M1 Abrams tanks are going to go away. “What we do not want to do was replicate what the Army is already very, very good at.”

It’s not only immensely heavy tanks that will disappear. Other legacy platforms like heavy- and medium-helicopter squadrons and towed artillery are also on the chopping block. In addition, the plan calls for eliminating law enforcement units, bridging companies, three infantry battalions, and anti-aircraft units.

While he has previously questioned the need for the Navy’s requirement of 38 amphibious ships to haul Marines across the globe, Berger has promoted the idea of a new class of light amphibious warships, lightly crewed, to get smaller groups of Marines to the fight ashore without being such large targets.

The Navy’s fleet assessment, on hold until Esper’s office finishes its own review this summer, should include that new ship.

Berger offered a bit of a preview, telling me during the roundtable, “you’ll see some significant changes” in the Navy report “regarding the portion of the fleet that supports maneuver of Marines and the expeditionary elements of that. They also see a pretty significant shift towards unmanned platforms, and where we need to go in that regard. There is a linkage between the two.”

While he didn’t elaborate, his comments suggest unmanned platforms could team with the new ships to screen approaches to beaches and provide surveillance and fire support if needed.

In briefing slides presented to the defense industry last month, the Navy said it plans to begin buying the 200- 400 ft. Light Amphibious Warships ships in 2023, and it is looking for mature commercial designs that can carry a crew of 30 and travel 3,500 nautical miles.

One of the biggest surprises in the 10-year force assessment the Marines issued was the open questioning of the role the F-35 might play in the Corps’ future. It called for a change in how many planes are contained in each F-35 squad, from 16 to 10. Current plans call for the Marines to buy 353 of the F-35B and 67 of the F-35C carrier variants. It’s unclear whether this is the beginning of a smaller official plan to buy F-35Bs.

Berger affirmed this week that “there’s nothing like” the F-35 anywhere in the world, but he needs more information about the long-term costs of the plane’s readiness and maintainability.

“If the maintenance readiness of the F-35 proves to be very, very strong, then of course, like any other system you need less of them because more of them are up all the time,” he said, but, “on the other hand, if it turns out not to be so, then you’re going to need more of them, to account for the ones that are in repair, that are down right now.”

He tried to assuage some concerns that he was looking to walk away from the Joint Strike Fighter program. “Right now, the program of record plows ahead as it is,” the general said. “But I’m signaling to the industry, we have to be prepared to adjust as the operating environment adjusts. Right now, the program of record stays the same, but we will, we must, adapt to the adversary and we must adapt to the operating environment that we’re challenged with being in.”

quote:

Originally posted by apprentice:
Just as a taxpayer totally on the sidelines, I've wondered about why there always seems to be so much overlap in duties between the branches of service.

Does it all come down to chasing a yearly budget?

quote:

Originally posted by apprentice:
Just as a taxpayer totally on the sidelines, I've wondered about why there always seems to be so much overlap in duties between the branches of service.

Does it all come down to chasing a yearly budget?

quote:

"The future Fleet Marine Force requires a transformation from a legacy force to a modernized force with new organic capabilities," it adds. "The FMF in 2030 will allow the Navy and Marine Corps to restore the strategic initiative and to define the future of maritime conflict by capitalizing on new capabilities to deter conflict and dominate inside the enemy's weapon engagement zone."

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
I’m not a military man, but as a business man what I read makes sense...

quote:

Originally posted by brywards:...
From a defined mission capability standpoint, the reduction in heavy equipment and enduring land-based mission-oriented units makes sense...on paper. But history has taught us that what makes sense on papers drafted at HHQ by careerists far removed from the front line is rarely cleanly executed on the battlefield....

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
I’m not a military man, but as a business man what I read makes sense...

Seems to me there might be two business aspects to consider. It is quite common for competing firms to merge, doing so can be more efficient as they can eliminate redundant overhead. On the other hand, if a business has a defacto monopoly, it is easy to become lazy, less competent and less able to serve the needs of your "customers".

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I really can't comment on the revision plans other than to make a comment on the above mention of China.

I would say China better remember what happened when the sent 100,ooo soldiers up against just 12,000 marines....

When marines are completely surrounded it just makes deciding which way to attack easier.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:....

Some of this "duplication" though, is only on paper. Yes, Marine air and Army air have similar "duplication". But, there are only so many air ships to go around. I remember Operation Red Wings (while a Navy operation) lost air support because they were tasked with Army Apaches who were called away on another mission. This loss of air support led to lost lives.

Marine Air has always been tasked with covering Marine assets first. That is the thing I think about other than the "on paper" aspect.