Duplication and Obsolescence: The Marine Corps’ Missile Dilemma

[rangerrebew]

Duplication and Obsolescence: The Marine Corps’ Missile Dilemma
By James Conway & Jerry McAbee
March 14, 2024
 
In 2019, the 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps began restructuring and reorganizing the Marine Corps to better assist the United States Navy in deterring and, if necessary, defeating the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in a joint naval campaign.  Central to this effort was the total divestment of some Marine Corps combat capabilities and significant reductions in others, all made to help fund the cost of new weapons and equipment.

The cornerstone of the new capabilities is ground launched anti-ship missiles. This new Marine missile force comes at the loss of substantial Marine Corps combined arms capabilities needed to fight and win against global threats other than the PLAN. The loss of tanks, assault breaching equipment, and every type of bridge in the inventory along with significant reductions in infantry, cannon artillery, and fixed, rotary, and tilt-rotor aircraft were not balanced against any new systems replacing them.  For some items like tanks and bridging, there was no plan to provide Marines with alternative capabilities. As a result, the Marine Corps is acquiring too many and the wrong types of missiles and associated systems at the expense of other necessary weapons, especially those necessary to support the requirements of combatant commanders outside the Indo-Pacific region or perform a different type of mission.   


Does a modern Marine Corps need rockets and missiles?  We believe it does.  However, this capability should be aligned with the broader roles they play on the modern battlefield and not primarily against naval targets.  This includes protection against manned and unmanned aircraft and ballistic missiles in addition to fires in support of Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs) across the range of military operations.  The number, unit cost, and types of missiles acquired must be fairly weighed against other Marine Corps requirements, and more importantly, in concert with the missile arsenals and concepts of employment of the other services.  In this regard, two questions are worth asking: how much duplication is wise and what type of missiles are needed for the future?

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/03/14/duplication_and_obsolescence_the_marine_corps_missile_dilemma_1018144.html

[rangerrebew]

Yet another glowing report of US Military readiness.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I believe the article is 100% correct.   This complete restructuring of the Marine Corps - which was initiated under the Trump Administration - was a bad idea from the jump.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Marines are a rapid-deployment, maneuverable offensive expeditionary ground force to compliment the Navy's seaborne capabilities.

When Marines landed ashore on the Barbary Coast, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Korea, South Vietnam, Beruit, Mogadishu, and Haiti, they didn't move inland to destroy ships.

The Argentinian Air Force did not use Marines with Missiles to destroy the HMS Sheffield during the Falkland Islands War.  They used an Exocet Missile launched from an aircraft.

The Ukranians are demonstrating the force equalization potential of un-manned drones.  Marines with un-manned drones makes more sense than Marines with Missiles.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Marines are a rapid-deployment, maneuverable offensive expeditionary ground force to compliment the Navy's seaborne capabilities.

When Marines landed ashore on the Barbary Coast, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Korea, South Vietnam, Beruit, Mogadishu, and Haiti, they didn't move inland to destroy ships.

The Argentinian Air Force did not use Marines with Missiles to destroy the HMS Sheffield during the Falkland Islands War.  They used an Exocet Missile launched from an aircraft.

The Ukranians are demonstrating the force equalization potential of un-manned drones.  Marines with un-manned drones makes more sense than Marines with Missiles.

If the Marine Corps doesn't have the ability to engage in large scale conflict if necessary, the country can't afford to keep it under arms.  Might as well redirect that money to fund a few more army divisions and Air Force wings.  At least they'll have the ability to contribute in multiple environments.

[rangerrebew]

Might as well redirect that money to fund a few more army divisions and Air Force wings.   

More likely it would be used to fund more illegal aliens.