No more Army adviser brigades or amphib ships?

[JJ_BPK]

Saturday AM chuckle..

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:

[bubba]

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.....

[7624U]

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

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.

[exsquid]

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]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

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

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

• 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.

[miclo18d]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

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]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

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.

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

[7624U]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

I say Colonial Marines!!!

Why don't we have this by now? screw a black hawk

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by 7624U

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]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

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.)

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

I say Colonial Marines!!!

Well, we are expeditionary by nature....

[Razor]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

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.