The comments to the previous post, “Marines Want New Recon Vehicle”, summed up everything wrong with today’s US military. The orgy of bloat caused by the suggestions to add all manner of extra functions and equipment is exactly why almost every acquisition program over the last few decades has been an abject failure. Turning a simple recon vehicle – a vehicle whose main purpose is simply to give the trooper a ride – into a land battleship is symptomatic of the mindset our military and military observers have acquired. Frankly, I’m disappointed. I know that the so-called professional warriors at the flag level are incompetent and ignorant but I had hoped for better from commenters. We should be a cut above because we’ve been examining these issues for several years now.
We’ve seen what happens when we cram every conceivable function into every platform … we fail … badly. F-35, LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, etc. Failure. Can we not learn a lesson that keeps getting repeated?
Add to the bloat the total confusion about what recon even is (the lack of CONOPS) and it’s no wonder our military is floundering and our acquisition programs, when they produce anything, produce nearly useless equipment.
Clearly, I’ve got to keep hammering home the concepts of simplicity, single function, and CONOPS.
Murphy roams the battlefield and the only ‘shield’ we have against him is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid). We ignore K.I.S.S. at our own peril.
Very disappointing.
Look, I get it. You want the answer to be a slightly updated turtleback hummer with a 50cal in the mount. But in real life, no matter what roles Rummie tried to force them into, those are only good for logistics convoy escorts.
ReplyDeleteEveryone in the world from African warlords to China has Soviet or Chinese 12.7s in checkpoints or company strength units. So it would be nice if those didn't easy penetrate and bounce around inside killing everyone.
To be any good off road, the thing needs to ford or swim, and swimming is much more handy.
The Corps got rid of SAWs, so that chain gun in the new LAV is all there is going to be, so it had better be great.
The Corps got rid of half the tube arty, all the tanks, and 0351 assaultmen. So strapping some anti tank missiles on some or all the new LAVs is all there is going to be. And the Chinese marines have armor, still.
"You want the answer to be a slightly updated turtleback hummer with a 50cal in the mount."
DeleteYou didn't get the previous post even a little bit. What I want is for the Marines to define the role and then develop a platform that meets the absolute minimal requirements for that role instead of instantly multi-tasking and gold-plating it.
The PLA seems to develop many different platforms for their needs.... Seems complex to an outsider but they would have their reasons
DeleteReconnaissance is the most difficult role that ground forces perform.
ReplyDeleteIt's especially tough to envision how the Marines should do it and what vehicle they need because it seems that no one knows what their job is, including them.
Their recon needs fall somewhere between driving around looking at Afghani goat herders to facing an armor heavy Soviet style armored recon.
Or maybe they just need to look at remote islands to make sure there aren't any Japanese WWII bitter enders there before they deny sea access to the PLAN.
Recon is complicated, difficult, and dangerous. And it's hard to know what the Marines need until we know what it is that they do.
Lutefisk
Is there even a need for ground scouts, particularly with people in it?
ReplyDelete"Is there even a need for ground scouts, particularly with people in it?"
ReplyDeleteIt's a good question.
As a former scout helicopter pilot, I can attest that there is a lot that can't be seen from the air.
There is nothing like being on the ground, unobserved, up close and personal for getting good intel on the bad guys.
If you get rid of ground scouting, you probably just lose too much intel gathering capability.
Lutefisk
Agree with CNO with a CONOPS because I thought USMC was jumping from island to island and firing ASMs and flying UAVs,etc....why do we need recon or scouts? If you moving so fast and jumping around so much,, do you even have time to scout? What are you scouting anyways? We going to miss a Chinese ampib assault and they getting on the island first?!? If US military misses THAT, we might as well surrender now!
ReplyDeleteIt seems as if foreign countries go with a family of vehicles with some common components, instead of trying to do everything with one vehicle. Why could we not copy the Chinese Type 05 class of amphibious assault vehicles?
ReplyDeleteType 05 (ZTD-05) Amphibious Assault Tank
Type 05 (ZLD-05) Amphibious Assault Vehicle
Type 05 (ZBD-05) Amphibious Infantry Fighting Vehicle
Type 05 (ZSD-05) Amphibious Armored Personal Carrier
Type 05 Amphibious Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle
Type 05 Amphibious Armored Command Vehicle
Type 05 Amphibious Armored Recovery Vehicle
Type 05 Assault Breach Vehicle - mine clearance assault vehicle variants.
Type 05 Amphibious Armored Ambulance
@CDR Chip: “…foreign countries go with a family of vehicles with some common components, instead of trying to do everything with one vehicle.”
DeleteBravo! For most of the cold war the Germans had the 8x8 armored reconnaissance vehicle ‘Luchs,’ a reconnaissance version of the ‘Marder’ IFV, the M113 APC, the 6x6 ‘Fuchs’ APC, and the light 4x4 reconnaissance AFV ‘Fennek.’
The Russians of the same era employed 4x4 BRDM armored reconnaissance vehicles, and BMP IFVs.
More important than equipment was organization, and by the 1980s both the Germans and the Russian reconnaissance battalions incorporated MBTs into the battalions along a Mechanized Infantry. The German armored reconnaissance battalions: a HQ company (included a radar platoon), three reconnaissance companies, and a mechanized infantry company (mounted in Fuchs APCs, Marder IFVs or M113 APCs). Significantly, the reconnaissance companies mixed MBTs and the 8x8 Luchs (10 of each). The Russian reconnaissance battalion included: A HQ company, a service company, a radio/radar company, two reconnaissance companies with scouts, a BMP IFV platoon, and a tank platoon each, a reconnaissance company of motorcycles and 4x4 BRDMs, and also a long-range reconnaissance unit.
This seems an interesting subject, sadly at least in part because there seems to be even more political obfuscation than usual.
ReplyDeleteOne point I can make is the following quote from a company making a prototype for the ARV program.
“As we understand it, the intent here is that the Marines want to replace their current fleet of ... over 600 LAV-25s currently in service with up to 500 Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicles, said David Phillips, Textron's senior vice president for land systems."
Source:
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/5/4/textron-unveils-new-prototype-for-advance-reconnaissance-vehicle-program
The key words here are "As we understand it". Not "we have been informed", or "the design brief states". In the public domain at least, a major company at the prototype stage was stating they were not certain about the program's requirements, at that time. It almost reads as a desperate plea for more information.
If we are confused, then at least we are in good company.
You also noted the trend of ever decreasing numbers in the US military:
Delete" 600 LAV-25s currently in service with up to 500 Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicles"
The famous saying is, 'Quantity has a quality all its own.' Well, we're knowingly conceding quantity and our quality is suspect so we are approaching a situation where we have NEITHER quantity nor quality.
"If we are confused, then at least we are in good company."
DeleteIt didn't help that the USMC itself is confused as to what its mission is. After making itself a second US Army and a third USAF (the USN being the second, with carrier-borne aviation), it's now trying to get "Light Amphibious Warships" so it can become a third USN (the USCG being the second). This duplication of missions, and the resulting duplication of weapons programs meant to allow a service to perform a mission, has wasted a lot of resources the US Army, Navy, and Air Force could've used on a lot of things- even toilet paper will be more useful than the "all singing, all dancing" amphibious land battle-carrier (for UAVs) the USMC wants.
(FYI, I served in the US Army from 2001-2005. The barracks restrooms often lacked toilet paper, forcing us to buy our own.)
"I served in the US Army from 2001-2005. The barracks restrooms often lacked toilet paper, forcing us to buy our own."
DeleteWell at least some things never change.
I was at Fort Campbell (Clarksville base, specifically) from 1992 to 1995 and we never had toilet paper either.
Ugh.
Lutefisk
"After making itself a second US Army and a third USAF (the USN being the second, with carrier-borne aviation), . . ."
DeletePer 10 U.S. Code § 8063, "The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein."
How a division or an air wing is structured and equipped is subject to debate.
@Fighting Irish: "Per 10 U.S. Code § 8063, "The Marine Corps… shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings..."
DeleteNot to be flip, but this crap is not written in the Constitution and we are not handcuffed and collared into a particular force structure because a bunch of politicians in the 1940s said so.
No Congress is beholden to legislation that a previous Congress enacted, and all appropriations are subject to authorization – meaning we can de-fund stupid and obsolete force structure - even stuff passed by the same Congress.
Moreover, I would argue that current USMC leadership is professionally obligated to petition Congress to restructure budgets and end-strength when it no longer suits the interest of the nation.
The Corps continues to teach marines this propaganda in a bid to maintain power. Right now we need air, space, and naval power, not huge numbers of marines, that will be pushed aside by Chinese armored formations.
Since we want to keep things simple, let's go back to the Garand, the BAR, and the bazooka. And, we can bring back the P-38 as well to open our cans of C-Rations.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with what the Marines want in a modern reconnaissance vehicle.
"Since we want to keep things simple, let's go back to the Garand, the BAR, and the bazooka. And, we can bring back the P-38 (I'm going to assume you meant P-38 Lightning twin tailed fighter bomber instead of whatever you actually meant!)"
DeleteYou're being sarcastic and flip but do you realize that the equipment you listed would have served perfectly well for most/all of our recent mini-conflicts and done so at a fraction of the cost of what we actually used?
While trying to be sarcastic and flip, you actually stumbled onto wisdom.
Seems to me what the services are missing is people in them that have a vision(s) of what will work in the next war. We need people like Guderian, Boyd, Fuller, the carrier vs battleship proponents, the USMC Amphibious proponents, Rickover, etc. Other than Cebrowski (Streetfighter), Van Riper (Millenium Challenge), and maybe this Commandant (I am not sure I agree with him, but at least he has a new vision) I don't see any great thinkers proposing and debating what will work in the next war. Where have the thinkers gone, where are the visions? We are like the French in 1940, and that did not turn out good.
ReplyDeleteActually, we're like the French in the 19th century- specifically, when they formulated th Jeune École- having grand visions of a future war that will NOT be fulfilled for a century, due to technological limitations.
DeleteWorse, we lost sight of WHAT war is. Our civilian and military leaders keep having the delusion we can ALWAYS win war quickly and cheaply in terms of human, material, and financial costs. When we abolished the draft, we should've also abolished all thought of war that would've required so much manpower, i.e., stayed out of the Middle East and the endless wars there; avenging 9/11 would've either required humbling ourselves before the Taliban and letting bin Landen live longer, or reinstating the draft (and rationing, and war bonds) so we'd have what was needed to win a prolonged war.
"so we'd have what was needed to win a prolonged war."
DeleteThere is another, better option that you haven't mentioned and that is to win a war quickly with overwhelming force, correctly applied. This is the preferred option and, unfortunately, the option we haven't applied since WWII (we almost did in Desert Storm but stopped short of total victory).
"Seems to me what the services are missing is people in them that have a vision(s) of what will work in the next war."
DeleteOh we have lots of people with a vision … just not a correct vision. The military is packed with people whose vision is one of networks and data instead of firepower. Having a vision is only half the issue. It's got to be correct. The battleship admirals had a vision but it wasn't correct. The current Commandant has a vision but it's not correct.
"There is another, better option that you haven't mentioned and that is to win a war quickly with overwhelming force, correctly applied."
DeleteIt'll take time to build up the overwhelming force you described- moving combat aircraft, warships, combat vehicles and personnel to bases (including floating ones, i.e., carriers and amphibious assault ships) that would put the enemy within striking distance, as well as defenses so the enemy doesn't hit them before they can do their job, as well as the food, fuel, munitions, and other things these forces need. If we don't plan ahead to get those things, then we must either do so now, or abandon all thought of fighting a war.
Too many of our leaders think a stealth fighter to drop a guided bomb, and a Special Forces A-Team to designate a target for that bomb, are enough to win. You and I both know it's not.
We also need to plan for when things don't go as planned- when the enemy refuses to surrender in the face of the overwhelming force you described, forcing us to keep them in theater longer, i.e., fight a prolonged war.
Delete"It'll take time to build up the overwhelming force you described"
DeleteI thought you were talking about the mini-wars that we've been jumping into in the Middle East. We don't need much in the way of buildup for those. We already have plenty of force. We just need to apply it correctly.
"when the enemy refuses to surrender in the face of the overwhelming force"
Surrender??? Kill them and be done with it. It's exactly that kind of half-measure instead of a overwhelming killing force that gets us into protracted conflicts.
"Surrender??? Kill them and be done with it."
DeleteAfter you kill the enemy leader who instigated this war, you'll have to deal with his successor. Ideally, killing the former will cow the latter into submission, i.e., surrender- but if he doesn't? If he continues the war, thinking the alternative will result in his own countrymen lynching him, i.e., what the French Government of National Defense faced during the Franco-Prussian War? Will you continue killing until you effectively committed genocide?
"Will you continue killing until you effectively committed genocide?"
DeleteOh good grief. Seriously?
"Seriously?"
DeleteIf you don't have an "exit strategy" for getting out of the war after you get into one- mistakes made during Operation Iraqi Freedom- then it should seriously be asked. What price are we willing to pay to win a war? What opportunity cost will we incur if we do so, e.g., if we go "all in" to prevent China from conquering Taiwan, we might not have any forces available to stop Russia from conquering Ukraine, so who will we abandon to protect the other?
I seriously doubt the wars we fought in the last 20+ years could be won by simply killing the enemy. As was the case in Korea and Vietnam, we needed a political solution, or the war would drag on beyond one side's ability to sustain it- in Korea, it was China and the USSR, while in Vietnam, it was us.
ReplyDelete"As was the case in Korea and Vietnam, we needed a political solution, or the war would drag on"
DeleteThis view of war is exactly why we failed. In both cases we refused to apply our full military power and achieve victory. This kind of half-assed approach is symptomatic of our loss of resolve and fortitude as a nation and a military.
"I seriously doubt the wars we fought in the last 20+ years could be won by simply killing the enemy."
You need to study world military history. Victory is achieved by destroying the enemy to the point of total conquest. See, "True Victory"
In it to win it or don't get in it.
"In it to win it or don't get in it."
DeleteThis is the ONE thing we both agree on.