View Full Version : No more Army adviser brigades or amphib ships?
Saturday AM chuckle.. :D
Military Times
No more Army adviser brigades or amphib ships? This proposed report could radically change how the services fight By: Todd South 2 days ago
A Senate committee is asking for a report that could radically alter the “roles and missions” of the services — especially the Army and Marine Corps.
Senate bill 2987 calls for the services to put together this report by February. However, the bill is still in draft form and would require House agreement to become law.
The proposal for the report suggests the Marine Corps could take over all counterinsurgency missions from the Army, thereby eliminating the newly established and deployed Security Force Assistance Brigades.
The bill’s authors instead want the Army to beef up its presence in the “great power competition” against Russia and China by increasing the size and strength of its vehicle fleet. The service would also use more drones and fewer manned aircraft to support ground units in the multi-domain fight.
break.....
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s request also calls for the services to conduct or provide the following:
An assessment whether the joint force would benefit from having one service dedicated primarily to low-intensity missions, thereby enabling the others to focus more exclusively on advanced peer competitors.
A detailed description of, and accompanying justification for, the total amount of forces required to perform the security force assistance mission and the planned geographic employment of such forces.
A re-validation of the Army plan to construct six Security Force Assistance Brigades, and an assessment of the impact, if any, of such plan on the capability of the Army to perform its primary roles under the National Defense Strategy.
An assessment whether the security force assistance mission would be better performed by the Marine Corps, and an assessment of the end strength and force composition changes, if any, required for the Marine Corps to assume such a mission.
link: (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/06/13/no-more-army-adviser-brigades-or-amphib-ships-this-proposed-report-could-radically-change-how-the-services-fight/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow)
:D
Disband the US Army (active component), take the 18th Airborne Corps and move them under the US Navy. We have the Marine Corps, so why not the Airborne Corps? Take all SOF and move them under the Agency ala-OSS and now you maintain your SOF particular skill sets with one boss, your force projection is under the US Navy, and if you really want to fight “the near peer big war” with ______ country, then get a declaration of war from congress, and fight it with the National Guard / US Army. The air farce can work for the Navy as well.
While were at it, lets go ahead and get rid of the “Defense Department” completely, and stand back up the “War Department”....... Kinda funny we haven’t been at “War” since we got rid of that and started “defending” ourselves.....
But But But if we get rid of some of the services that means we will have to get rid of some of the Brass within them services.
I am all for just getting rid of duplication of the same capability.
Just make three branches.
Special Warfare Precision Strike Branch (everyone is rolled up under SOCOM but make them more cooperative with inter agencies and don't double down on the same capabilities and with all organic Aircraft under a unified Command.:eek:
Ground Branch that has Ground Attack Air/Ground Air Transport. (Army, Marines)
Naval Branch that has Naval Air Superiority Fighters/Next Gen Battle cruisers/ /Logistics's Ships/Areo Space/Nuclear arsenal. (Navy, Airforce)
WarriorDiplomat
06-16-2018, 11:25
Well it isn't a new idea the Marines started off as security for commerce on the high seas and eventually became an expeditionary force securing our commerce on land in foreign countries sugar, coffee etc....the banana wars etc....the Army always was historically for long duration warfighting let the Marines do their job as maritime infantry and let the Army stay trained, equipped and prepared for major war....no issues with me.
When I look at our Army now I see a fragmented former war machine no longer synced as a lethal million man force with carefully designed purposes like a engine built and tuned for durability and resiliency but today we have an Army divided. How do we bring all these fragments back together for a major threat?.... revise the old doctriine!....what was old will be new again...some officers will revise an old doctrine and get promoted for it as if they reinvented the wheel.
Its all a joke to have some GO stand before us and give us the sales pitch on how exciting the future is with these new fragmenting its all a f'ing joke. We have redundancy upon redundancy in every type of mission that the older I get the easier it is to see as nothing but career enhancing competition for short term gain....
We had an expeditionary force in the USMC the USMC had a direct action force called Raiders so we needed Rangers .....we needed an intelligence branch separate from the dept of war so the OSS was divided into what would become the Alphabet agency and SF then........we had military recon in Force Recon so we needed LRRP's and Recces for every unit their was an Army UW capability so the Alphabet boys created their UW boys then the Navy created SEAL's under the premise but god only knows their definition of UW...then the AF created CCT's(which ironically enough seems to be only supporting capability)...the Army created it's version of CCT's within SOF followed by everyone else then the SF blue light teams led to a CT force in one branch of course a copy of the british followed by the other branches followed by the USMC creating a black side Force Recon separate from green side and SF creating their own CT force doing the same thing then the intelligence provided by the A-boys wasn't good enough a COL led the development of the Activity which led to the CT guys developing their own within the CT specific community and th other CT force doing the same thing followed by SF doing the same the whole thing is ego and power, professional jealousy and piggybacking of ideas justified by rhetoric speaking branch salesman. At the end of the day everything they do revolves around two approaches diplomacy or warfighting everything above is for leverage the nearly forgotten infantry is the foundation of the entire thing ground pounders closing and killing.
Branches duplicating each other seems like an excellent reason to merge and eliminate the fraud waste and abuse of branches spending money developing capabilities that are already in existence but under employed. Do we not see why their is incentive to spin reality and employ units for minor inconsequential crap.....it happens in intel world with a little word smithing we can maniplulate and activate combat employment the pen & quill in action the difference between Silver Star and an Arcom w/V has always been in the skill of the author.
I know the military is worried about talent recruitment but the military is not 1 man (oooops subliminal masochism) I think it is fair to say that those who serve are attracted to service even if it is corrupted by the competitive business model implementation creating sycophantic upward focused leadership. Merge the Military into one branch and eliminate the redundancy the branch competition is not working and has led to a bunch of competitive good idea fairies brass making it top heavy....we are too cumbersome. To put it in laymans terms too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The sneeches with stars on their bellies is what it is.
Airbornelawyer
06-16-2018, 16:33
Well it isn't a new idea the Marines started off as security for commerce on the high seas and eventually became an expeditionary force securing our commerce on land in foreign countries sugar, coffee etc....the banana wars etc....the Army always was historically for long duration warfighting let the Marines do their job as maritime infantry and let the Army stay trained, equipped and prepared for major war....no issues with me.
As they say on Battlestar Galactica, all this has happened before and all this will happen again.
Before World War I, the Army really wasn't well organized for major land warfare. It was a small standing force widely dispersed in small garrisons and a large, unevenly trained militia. We had to play catch-up in organizing and deploying large-scale forces when the Mexican, Civil and Spanish-American Wars started. The Army was the primary counterinsurgency force in the Indian Wars and in the Philippines. Then, conscious of the lessons of the Spanish-American and Philippine Wars, as well as developments among European armies, on the eve of World War I, the Army moved to an active cadre/organized reserve system designed for major land warfare. So we ceded the COIN mission to the Marines in the 1910s-1930s timeframe.
Then came the USMC experience in World War II. While small wars remained a part of Marine doctrine after World War II, and they performed the role well in places like Vietnam and Lebanon, it became secondary to the larger-scale amphibious warfare doctrine. Just as the Army remained focused primarily on mechanized warfare in Central Europe, the USMC remained focused on brigade- and division-sized amphibious operations. They were/are a pocket-sized conventional armed force with tanks, AFVs/APCs, combat helicopters, fighters and ground-attack aircraft, along with their Navy taxi service. The employment of the Marines in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991 and 2003 was not much different from that of the Army. So it was left to the Army, primarily SF, to lead on FID/UW doctrine in the Cold War era.
It seems that the developments over the past few decades, especially since Goldwater-Nichols, have been driven less by doctrine and more by bureaucratism and budgets, with all the waste and duplication you all have noted. I don't mind some degree of redundancy - a military should be judged by how effective it is, not how efficient it is - but, again, it is better if it is driven by doctrinal considerations and not bureaucratic turf wars.
As a guy that started in the Navy and served on amphibs w/ Marines I respect the capabilities of having MEU(SOC)s forward deployed on a regular basis. One never knows when or where something is going to pop off. Having that capability a day or two away from a hot spot provides the US a great flexibility that cannot be found anywhere else. Even if the situation requires a Tier 1 asset, they can leverage the Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) platform as a forward staging area. Getting rid of amphibs is a stupid idea.
x/S
WarriorDiplomat
06-16-2018, 19:34
It seems that the developments over the past few decades, especially since Goldwater-Nichols, have been driven less by doctrine and more by bureaucratism and budgets, with all the waste and duplication you all have noted. I don't mind some degree of redundancy - a military should be judged by how effective it is, not how efficient it is - but, again, it is better if it is driven by doctrinal considerations and not bureaucratic turf wars.
Agreed the redundancy is always needed as a P.A.C.E. plan but this is more than shoring up this is as you said bureaucracy and budgets and I would add careerism as another element that plays an important factor though it could fall under bureaucracy. I can understand the need for Infantry and Combat Engineers, Artillery etc....what I do not understand is why this can't all be brought under the same service and eliminate the branch competition which does nothing for the mission itself. Redundancy should always be in qualified trained numbers not branches under different commands disagreeing over how they are employed and trying to make their branches ability more unique than the other. If it wasn't for SOCOM forcing the Marine Corps hand in giving up Force Recon Operational control eventually leading to MARSOC. Streamline the military structure and eliminate the war for bigger budgets. How much of the budget goes into this rivalry in the way of R&D and expansion of capability instead of proficiency to a lethal level in already established abilities. General Milley great adviser brigade idea should be of no surprise given his background and also that he is a product of the same experiences as the rest of the GO's.
No Navy, USMC, Army Combat Divers just Combat Divers
No Navy no Army no JSOC just THE CT force
No Marine Corps/Army Infantry just U.S. Infantry
No AF, Navy, USMC, Army Air corps just the Air Corps
No Navy, USMC, Army Combat Divers just Combat Divers
No Navy no Army no JSOC just THE CT force
No Marine Corps/Army Infantry just U.S. Infantry
No AF, Navy, USMC, Army Air corps just the Air Corps
Agreed, The sad part is the Five-Sided-Outhouse has too many 3 & 4 star urchins that will not let it happen.
There are similarities to the fall of the Last Emporer in China. The Urchins grew to a level that stopped rational thinking and isolated the Emporer from the real world.
:munchin
miclo18d
06-17-2018, 09:11
Agreed the redundancy is always needed as a P.A.C.E. plan but this is more than shoring up this is as you said bureaucracy and budgets and I would add careerism as another element that plays an important factor though it could fall under bureaucracy. I can understand the need for Infantry and Combat Engineers, Artillery etc....what I do not understand is why this can't all be brought under the same service and eliminate the branch competition which does nothing for the mission itself. Redundancy should always be in qualified trained numbers not branches under different commands disagreeing over how they are employed and trying to make their branches ability more unique than the other. If it wasn't for SOCOM forcing the Marine Corps hand in giving up Force Recon Operational control eventually leading to MARSOC. Streamline the military structure and eliminate the war for bigger budgets. How much of the budget goes into this rivalry in the way of R&D and expansion of capability instead of proficiency to a lethal level in already established abilities. General Milley great adviser brigade idea should be of no surprise given his background and also that he is a product of the same experiences as the rest of the GO's.
No Navy, USMC, Army Combat Divers just Combat Divers
No Navy no Army no JSOC just THE CT force
No Marine Corps/Army Infantry just U.S. Infantry
No AF, Navy, USMC, Army Air corps just the Air Corps
I say Colonial Marines!!!
WarriorDiplomat
06-17-2018, 11:49
Agreed, The sad part is the Five-Sided-Outhouse has too many 3 & 4 star urchins that will not let it happen.
There are similarities to the fall of the Last Emporer in China. The Urchins grew to a level that stopped rational thinking and isolated the Emporer from the real world.
:munchin
The similarities are alarming and many of our military leaders fancy themselves historians and yet here we are...The Pentagon what a joke these a-holes are so far removed from reality in their quest for individual career gain and pea cocking.....there is not one capability the DoD possesses that we have not needed hence the creation so getting rid of capabilities is nothing I would advocate....but I do not understand the need for all the branches doing the same stuff and trying to duplicate each other its like filling a cup while it is over flowing
I say Colonial Marines!!!
Why don't we have this by now? screw a black hawk
Old Dog New Trick
06-17-2018, 13:34
Why don't we have this by now? screw a black hawk
Because we have the F-35 (in it’s three different variations to suit the needs of three different branches to use the same plane! That costs three times as much as three different panes!)
GratefulCitizen
06-17-2018, 14:51
I say Colonial Marines!!!
They might end up advocating the "back off and nuke them from orbit" approach.
(It's the only way to be sure.)
I say Colonial Marines!!!
Well, we are expeditionary by nature....:D
Redundancy should always be in qualified trained numbers not branches under different commands disagreeing over how they are employed and trying to make their branches ability more unique than the other.
Goldwater-Nichols took 'employment' away from the Services back in '86 and gave it to the Combatant Commanders. Service Title 10 authorities center on man/train/organize/equip efforts.
Streck-Fu
06-18-2018, 07:41
Because we have the F-35 (in it’s three different variations to suit the needs of three different branches to use the same plane! That costs three times as much as three different panes!)
But Turkey is a partner to share the cost and kill Kurds with them.... :(
I think this survey is part of the initial query....
Afghanistan social support network survey
"Hi, we'd like to invite you to complete this online survey after your recent contact with our Special Forces Troops.
How did you contact us today?
Were you:
•Laying in wait to ambush us?
•Placing an IED inside a dog's carcass?
•Firing at us while surrounded by a group of school kids?
•Pretending to work with us in one of our bases?
On a scale of 1-5, how would you rate the troops you shot at on the following attributes:
•Gender balance including fluidity and expressions of individual gender identity
•Cultural diversity - did our unit members reflect the communities they serve, including yours
•Politeness while being shot at
•Adherence to OH&S and the other 1,098 policy statements designed to nail our soldiers somehow no matter what they do
•Treating you with dignity during the contact while respecting your humanity and deep-seated cultural/religious need to kill us
Please answer yes or no to the following questions
•Did our soldiers remove their boots before entering your booby-trapped hideout?
•Did we respect your 5 daily prayer times by ceasing fire at the Muezzin's call?
•Did we comply with your laws and customs about gay people?
•Did we give you sufficient opportunity to enquire about our operational plans, policies and rules of engagement?
•Were you given enough time to prepare your ambush of us?
•Have we given you an easy way to complain about our troops and to tie them up in endless bullshit paperwork while you Allah uh-Akbar away to your heart's content?
Thank you for choosing to attack us today, we hope you enjoyed the experience and look forward to serving you again when next you choose Jihad against the West.
Scimitar
06-18-2018, 09:13
I think this survey is part of the initial query....
Afghanistan social support network survey
"Hi, we'd like to invite you to complete this online survey after your recent contact with our Special Forces Troops.
How did you contact us today?
Were you:
•Laying in wait to ambush us?
•Placing an IED inside a dog's carcass?
•Firing at us while surrounded by a group of school kids?
•Pretending to work with us in one of our bases?
On a scale of 1-5, how would you rate the troops you shot at on the following attributes:
•Gender balance including fluidity and expressions of individual gender identity
•Cultural diversity - did our unit members reflect the communities they serve, including yours
•Politeness while being shot at
•Adherence to OH&S and the other 1,098 policy statements designed to nail our soldiers somehow no matter what they do
•Treating you with dignity during the contact while respecting your humanity and deep-seated cultural/religious need to kill us
Please answer yes or no to the following questions
•Did our soldiers remove their boots before entering your booby-trapped hideout?
•Did we respect your 5 daily prayer times by ceasing fire at the Muezzin's call?
•Did we comply with your laws and customs about gay people?
•Did we give you sufficient opportunity to enquire about our operational plans, policies and rules of engagement?
•Were you given enough time to prepare your ambush of us?
•Have we given you an easy way to complain about our troops and to tie them up in endless bullshit paperwork while you Allah uh-Akbar away to your heart's content?
Thank you for choosing to attack us today, we hope you enjoyed the experience and look forward to serving you again when next you choose Jihad against the West.
Shit that's painful to read :(
S
PRB, that questionnaire looks like it could have been part of a CONOP slide deck
...right after the checklist for "Karzai's 12 Rules" slide
sfshooter
06-18-2018, 10:32
Unfortunately the basics are lost in this so-called modern world of lets never offend anyone or hurt anyone's feelings. Wars are started by politicians or mad men in power. The objective of the soldier of any given country, throughout history, is to kill and destroy the enemy and all that helps him operate. Our GO's today are politicians more so than they ever were and damn sure don't want to make themselves look bad in any way. So, lets not slaughter the enemy because the pukes that report news would make us look bad for doing so. If a small SOF unit gets ambushed and they kill a dozen bad guys lets let the politicians of that country tell us that that unit can no longer operate in the province they are in.
With the current President trying to rebuild our military, every Field Grade officer up is coming up with something to add a bullet point to their OER, when all it boils down to is going out and let the soldiers fight with all the power and support you can give them. As someone stated above: careerism, in an industry that is top heavy with brass. Everyone officer wants to revamp the system because it looks like they are doing something. LET THE SOLDIERS DESTROY THE ENEMY AND DON'T CALL AN INVESTIGATION ON THEM EVERY TIME THEY DO!!!
WarriorDiplomat
06-18-2018, 11:17
Goldwater-Nichols took 'employment' away from the Services back in '86 and gave it to the Combatant Commanders. Service Title 10 authorities center on man/train/organize/equip efforts.
Goldwater Nichols was a good start but the point seems to missed that the branches individually train their individual Infantries, individual air wings, etc.....each branch has its uniforms, training philosphy, boot camps, training requirements etc why must the Marine Corps have an Infantry if the Army also has one....why does the Navy, USMC, Army have Air capability when we have an Air Force.....The Navy has ships so why does the Army, Marine Corps, Coast Guard have its own maritime capability.....and when these units deploy/employ who has TACON/OPCON if the branches can influence it they will have Marines OPCON to Marines etc if possible....Army to Army and so on
This is one of the few things where academics can ask legitimately why? Why are Why are their 7 Joint Chiefs who are supposed to reduce the conflict of capabilities and unify effort, 10 Commands?, a secretary for every branch a SECDEF over the SEC's.....but each branch has its own training, doctrine, equipping programs that overlap or contradict.....You see normal people would be curious to know why the waste of duplication instead of merging and synchronizing......at the end of the day the Goldwater-Nichols act and the reason it exists is because of some of these questions. Kind of makes you wonder why the Chiefs aren't thinking the same thing in a way but then again if they merged efforts they would lose their place at the table without a branch....The SECDEF should be the one asking the questions why confusion.
To wipe out the immense command structures is an extreme proposition and would require navigation of prideful leaders being willing to give up their positions as they are today and we know power is intoxicating. The intent of the act was to eliminate the complete disconnect of branches the result is atom splitting of capabilities and redundancy upon redundancy......in reality it is lawnmower companies all owned by one big company offering the same basic service with different equipment brands, uniforms but still offering the same services...
The DoD has
40 - 4 star Officers and I think a total of 302 1-4 stars in the services total
And, then there’s this.
Trump Calls for ‘Space Force’ in Major Military Revamp
Proposed new entity intended to be ‘separate but equal’ to Air Force
By Andy Pasztor
WSJ
Updated June 18, 2018 4:59 p.m. ET
President Donald Trump on Monday directed Pentagon officials to move toward creating a “space force” that would become a sixth branch of the military, with congressional blessing, and portends the most sweeping revamp of the U.S. armed forces in more than 70 years.
<snip>
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/trump-calls-for-space-force-in-major-military-revamp-1529351726
bblhead672
06-18-2018, 16:20
And, then there’s this.
Trump Calls for ‘Space Force’ in Major Military Revamp
Proposed new entity intended to be ‘separate but equal’ to Air Force
By Andy Pasztor
WSJ
Updated June 18, 2018 4:59 p.m. ET
President Donald Trump on Monday directed Pentagon officials to move toward creating a “space force” that would become a sixth branch of the military, with congressional blessing, and portends the most sweeping revamp of the U.S. armed forces in more than 70 years.
<snip>
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/trump-calls-for-space-force-in-major-military-revamp-1529351726
Trump shouldn't be watching Battlestar Galactica reruns! We can afford another sweeping revamp of the military that adds space forces like we need 200 years of Obama as president.
RCummings
06-18-2018, 16:27
Maybe the President is looking for a place for all the redundant brass in the military that has been mentioned in this thread...win win.
bblhead672
06-18-2018, 17:02
Maybe the President is looking for a place for all the redundant brass in the military that has been mentioned in this thread...win win.
Yeah, send them to establish a FOB on Mars. :D
Establish Space Force then have Alien Disclosure. Hilary is a reptilian bent on eating small children that enter her gingerbread house.:p
Badger52
06-18-2018, 19:16
Establish Space Force then have Alien Disclosure. Hilary is a reptilian bent on eating small children that enter her gingerbread house.:pOk, I know that "...Elvis ain't dead he just went home" but this needs studying. We need a new JTF! :lifter
Remington Raidr
06-19-2018, 02:02
and make the Air Force space command. Win-win.;);)
M. A. R. S.
...Mars bitches
That's where we are going.
RED ROCKS !!
Before things get out of hand, what color berets will be worn by the Space Force?
Old Dog New Trick
06-19-2018, 06:33
M. A. R. S.
...Mars bitches
That's where we are going.
RED ROCKS !!
Before things get out of hand, what color berets will be worn by the Space Force?
I’m just curious what they will call their trainees and officers?
Space Cadets?