Marine Corps Long-Range Lethality and Force Design 2030
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- LtCol Scott Cuomo, US Marine Corps infantry officer, talks about the development of Force Design 2030 and ongoing changes in the Marine Corps that are making Marines more lethal at longer range for the peer fight.
Excellent interview. Thank you for have a person on that actually understands Force Design 2030 and it's purpose properly, and is NOT all emotional about it. Just the facts with the correct context...I love it.
Outstanding discussion. FD 2030 critics should listen to this excellent overview.
They want to divert funding from sniper scouting, tanks, and heavy artillery to increase naval integration capabilities to specialize for specific maritime operations. The Marine Corps has a tight budget and it just makes more sense to do this since we are a maritime force not the army...
Exactly!
Outstanding podcast episode. From SOI to MLB and all the capabilities being fielded in between, Force Design 2030 is a clear-eyed, can-do approach to fielding a Marine Corps that keeps our "pacing threats" up at night.
Haha, your comment made me laugh only because it's better than crying. Yea, I'm sure the PLA is just terrified of the MLR - a unit that has almost no capacity for offensive operations.
I understand the goal of FD 2030: focus on ISR, LRPF, and A2AD. All those things are great, the problem is that with one UAV or F35 and one submarine you can accomplish the same effect against the PLAN that FD2030 wants to achieve, and the USAF and USN already had that on lock.
The USMC's main value proposition to the Joint Force should be to provide amphibious shock infantry to seize key terrain. I think advocates of FD 2030 would even agree with that statement. The problem is that the main way to do that is to have a well balanced combined arms force, that includes tanks and cannon artillery, not axing or reducing some the world's most proven systems and emasculating III MEF into an island defense force. FD 2030 advocates and critics want the same thing the only difference is that advocates' operational approach is not decisive or offensive in nature.
@DanDaly762 I agree. FD 2030 is good for the DEFENSIVE fight, but NOT the OFFENSIVE fight. Even if we nail this new Hunter- Killer concept and make a bunch of mini-CAAT teams with ULTV's, DM's, Drones, and robot resupply, we still don't have much offensive firepower to punch through an enemy's armored or mechanized forces or strongpoints, let alone defend against tanks, ifvs, or apcs. A wheeled, amphibious, airmobile, airdroppable tank destroyer would be a great addition to our force and without the drawbacks of the M1 Abrams. Super ACV's only have a 30mm Cannon, the APKWS isn't perfected enough to mount it on a JLTV or ACV, and the ACV barely has any armor so it can't take return fire- especially with 12 Marines inside plus crew. It's also super slow in water, so if you ever needed them to go anywhere at sea, expect to move slower than PLA forces can. We have no Assaultmen to supplement CAAT with cheap anti-armor fire from a weapon system more capable than the SMAW, or to provide an extra rifle squad to the Battalion, or to provide extra breaching and demolitions capability that will be valuable in urban battles. I'm glad engineers are attached to infantry, but we should have both them and Assaultmen. Regarding Artillery, we should look at replacing whatever tubed artillery we have left with 105mm self propelled guns like the Hawkeye Howitzer. Even an ERA program like the Army has for the M777 would increase the range while still being cheaper than the 155, lighter than the 155, faster to move than the 155, and smaller than the 155. This would probably be a huge help to our infantry while they are hopefully working on lightening the 81 mm mortar and increasing it's range to at least the same distance the EFSS 120mm mortar could fire. Regarding the air threat, what about attaching LAAD to infantry battalions to strike enemy drones and aircraft? What about making JTAC a primary MOS and increasing the size of ANGLICO from a Company to a Battalion to better provide CAS and surface fire support to the infantry? What about supplementing MEUs with FAST platoons so that the entire infantry battalion is available for the amphibious assault? What about bringing back the Paramarines to have a airborne and airmobile strike capability in the enemy's WEZ? What about a Small Craft Company in every Division for riverine operations and limited amphibious assault support? Why isn't every MEU SOC like the 26th, and boat raid capable like the 31st? That would totally increase their offensive capability.
I understand the old structure was slow, hot, and heavy on resources, however, we now have no all weather fire support and mobile protected firepower capabilities. Drones have their own limitations. Having the capability to conduct offensive operations in addition to EABO/ DO is still a good idea, as you would always have that tool available. For example, I would argue that bare minimum, each MEU(SOC) should have the capability to form 1 Combat Assault Battalion as needed to penetrate an enemy held beach through sensing and striking, shock firepower, amphibious assault support, and engineering support (in addition to the infantry battalions' organic assault and engineer sections).
@@cm-pr2ys Preach, love your analysis. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the FD2030 groupies are so stuck in their ways that nothing will stop them now. They wont listen to Gen Mattis or Van Riper I doubt they'll listen to anyone.
Let's be optimistic though, we've overcome adversity before we will again. Even if this time it's self-imposed.
@@cm-pr2ys If you're conducting breakthroughs against heavy forces, you're using the Army. You're not getting a decisive breakthrough against armor and IFVs with amphibious light and motorized infantry. It will almost never happen, ever, unless there's some kind of hilariously lopsided training and discipline differences or the tanks and IFVs are cut off from resupply or you have some other insane advantage otherwise. The terrain in the Indo-Pacific mostly isn't conducive to using heavier forces, meaning the enemy probably isn't bringing it either, and that's not the Marine Corp's job. You're saying to add more artillery, tanks, engineers, and to stand up a paratrooper capability, you want to bring tank destroyers to jungles and islands, and to make the vehicles heavier and have more of them ( the ACV is already 35 tons, if you want it to be more survivable - which you said - it's going to be heavier. Self propelled 105 will be more logistically burdensome and harder to deploy than if it was towed. In the terrain the Marine Corps thinks it's going to go there probably isn't enough road infrastructure and flat open ground to use the self propelled capability anyways). Congratulations, you just reinvented the Army. The Marine Corps with FD2030 can still offensively island hop and be the beach-hitting force to get a lodgment for the Army somewhere larger (Korea, Taiwan, etc.).
Brilliant podcast, very informative. Thank you
There should still be snipers. Also, we should standardize a Designated Marksmen's Course and a Scout Platoon Selection and Training Course if we want to see real benefits from this restructuring. I understand and agree with the change in emphasis to Scouting over sniping, but at the same time, Snipers don't take away the ability to conduct precision marksmanship or even scouting capabilities from the rest of the infantry battalions. They just specialize the most in it. Imagine having Scout Platoons AND Scout/ Sniper (or Surveillance Target Acquisition) Platoons! Why not have BOTH? Snipers are a HUGE force multiplier when you look at how small, distributed, low signature units can punch above their weight in an enemy's weapons engagement zone by delivering precision marksmanship on selected targets from afar. Thats in addiiton to the benefits this Scout Platoon also brings. Speaking of range, where are Assaultmen? Marines that can use a weapon system that's better than the LAW, and cheaper and lighter than the Javelin can be an effective supplement to the 0352's in CAAT, in addition to delivering precision direct explosive fire with various types of rounds (including airburst) can be another form of indirect fire support. Urban centers next to coastlines are expected to grow in the future, so why not have more than 1 Squad of Engineers that can supplement those engineers as needed, and act as another platoon of riflemen when not needed to be assaultmen? What about a wheeled, amphibious, airmobile, air droppable tank destroyer? What about replacing the heavy and large 155mm howitzer with a 105mm howitzer that is lighter, smaller, has cheap ammunition, can be self-propelled, and has a smaller kill radius meaning lower risk of collateral damage? What about making JTAC a primary MOS to provide more terminal control to the increased amount of drones the infantry have? What about nodernizing the M27 IAR to supplement Snipers and the DM-trained Marines in the Scout Platoon, let alone the infantry? What about the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System Rocket to mount on ULTV's, JLTV's, ARV's, ACV's, and so on? Why aren't wet gap crossings, surf qualification, and amphibious assaults covered in IMC (and maybe one day in Boot Camp)? What about a lightweight, man-portable version of the .50 Cal with a dual feed capability to better help the infantry combat enemy vehicles? Plans for a lighter version of the 81mm mortar with extended range- at least as far as the old 120mm EFSS could reach? Standardize TSULC? Bring DLAP to every Division? High Performer Track for the SLDP? Adversay Force Companies to help with Force-on-Force exercises in each Division? Supplementing MEU's with FAST Platoons? Attaching LAAD elements to Infantry Battalions? Turning Air Naval Gunfire Liason Companies into Battalion-Sized units to better provide deconfliction of airspace and approval of fire missions to USMC and Joint units?
I think we have a long way to go.
My apologies to Gen. Berger. As an old salt Marine (73-77), I thought Gen Berger was destroying the Marine Corps. Lately, I have been paying more attention to FD2030, its mission, and implementation and after listening to LtCol Cuomo I'm an FD2030 supporter. Semper Fi.
Glad you were able to gain some clarity. Semper Fi!
Well Done, Scott! BZ - I'm passing this on to some of my generation; it needs to be part of the dialogue. Hope to see you again in the War Hall...Nasty sends / SF
The split between Hunter & Killer is a big deal. Autonomous Bell Eagle (killer) in a self-deploy TEU driving to the front with quadcopters in drone in box (hunter) drones is something.... Bell Eagle can deploy the drone in the box anywhere and bring Hydras & line charges at scale. The lack of opex costs allows one to buy Bell Eagle in the thousands or tens of thousands. Toss in a VLS in a cargo plane... compressed air firing long range Air to Air is something.... you can't take away the initiative of time and place but you can strip mass from China.... add that to the V-22. Phoenix with 500lbs more propellant probably gets you 200 miles.... one V-22 & F-35 can deny a whole area.
I think this is the right way to go. Moving back to its amphibious/maritime roots how Marines stay deadly and first to response in the future.
Only about KingDoG family mean Hi more all pleplo in the Word p😂😂😮OMG Sorry I not understand why 😂
And all pleplo same KingDoG family 😂😂same Nobody Hi and Nobody Small# about KingDoG family When Start Think and Not play mit my baby 😂But war have make 7y ago 2017 in This time 😢
Because
3y5G [2017] one parkTische
Code and Sorry
ESI not EN😂😂😂😮OMG
KingDoG family
I hope they are working on a defense against drones for my Marines.
With all due respect he seems a little too defensive of Gen Berger. I would have rather heard more of the reasoning behind some of the other big changes such as in artillery and military police.
Do Officers not get good cookies? Just got looking at his stack while watching haha.
No they are expected to be a good cookie.
What's the over/under on how many years before tanks are back? Alternatively, what would it take for tanks to come back? Hopefully, it's not we turn on the news and see a BLT (or the MLR) getting run over by 1x tank plt.
I'll try to preempt some potential responses below:
-Well, tanks can be countered by hunter-killer teams. Right, because hunter-killer teams definitely didn't exist before 4 years ago (they did in WW2, Vietnam, Arab-Israeli wars, etc.). You can easily combine armor with UAS and loitering munitions.
-Tanks became too heavy in 2019, before that ARGs and the USAF could carry them just fine.
-So many tanks are getting destroyed in Ukraine, therefore, armor is irrelevant. That would be the same as if we lived in 1943 and we deduced from the battle of Kursk, where thousands of tanks were destroyed, that armor is irrelevant.
-Lastly, if the Abrams isn't the right system fine. Look at other or foreign systems like the Panther (shares name with the WW2 tank), ROK K2, or USA MPF.
The next full deployment war.
@@EthanBSide I’m afraid you’re not right. No matter how big the next fight is the FD2030 crowd will be content with the anemic and effeminate MC they seek to develop.
How about a Tank Destroyer that is wheeled, airmobile, airdroppable, and amphibious with a airburst capable 40 or 50mm cannon, APKWS, 40MM Crows for mobile indirect fire and possibly even anti aircraft fire, smoke grenade dischargers, and of course the commander's .50 cal and coaxial M240? Grunt Phone on the back, and the ability to mount a mine plow and miclic like the ABV for amphibious assaults and road clearing? Slap on heat reducing panels, modular armor packages, an active protection system, and drone launch capabilities and you'd really have something.
The Marine Corps only has so much money and manpower. You can't look at a list of military capabilities and say "Yes", you have to be ruthless about what you need and don't need. The ability to have a shit ton of anti ship missiles, and to seize bases and pull security for them is more important than having tanks - even if having tanks is good, there's an opportunity cost. Everyone is short on manpower and maintenance personnel, and tanks require a lot of maintenance, even if you make them lighter - the more the Marine Corps is stretched thin. There are amtrak companies with less than 50% of vehicles operational, right now, as we speak, do you wanna be the guy who's gonna pull maintainers and money from those units to have tanks?
@@personalaccount8914 Sir, thanks for the response. I understand the USMC has finite resources. My issues with FD is out of all the capabilities we could have focused on we chose naval strike missiles and aerial reconnaissance. We already have two whole branches of the military devoted to area denial and sea control - the USN and USAF.
The Marines primary value proposition to the joint force is to provide amphibious (not naval) shock troops. Final thought, the USMC in 2018 was much healthier in terms of combat power and ability to conduct combined arms then it is now.
😮OMG EU~EEA -EN
EU~EEA -EN[😂so ESI help😂l
Yeah but we got rid of our scout snipers
Can the marines and navy--NOT EVEN GET THE AUDIO CORRECT---BUGGER OFFFF
No Heavy Armor, A Lot Less Artillery, NO Tracked Landing Vechiles.....just throw those hard taught lessons from the past into the trash bin and then re-learn thru loss of life....2030 IS A TRUE WINNER, just like the new Indiania Jones movie!
The MEU is going to be overrun by one enemy tank company.
CaMera Cadseewer 😂parten of Germany 🇩🇪 International 😂
The best military men come from west point
Hallo I let DoG come follow 😂😂and 😂😂CAD
every had when see DoG follow play Game with baby CaD
because your are a politician.... you really know how to stand by the right person to get promotions. One should stay in the same unit for the entire service. carry their rifle with them.
NeuGieRing 😂😂Book oneV lern Ende
What will happen when our expedicionary units get deployed on an emergency situation an they needs heavy armor?, how long would it takes the Army to provide us with the heavy tank support?. By the time they arrive they'll will pick up the pieces of our units.
Cutting tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets and other equipment will do more harm than good. So much for the self sufficiency of our expedicionary units to get deployed to any climate and place. If this cuts continue We'll be deployed with a ka-bar and Springfield 1903 bolt action. Our Corps juds entetred the endangeted species heading for extinction. China's not our possible enemy, We can't loose our capabilities just because some individuals are downgrading them instead of upgrading our capabilities.
Soon We'll be extinted Brothers!
Semper Fi!.
They won’t. The marines are ending their expeditionary days. Nobody looks any longer to a MEU for a 911 response.
@@purpleslog; Sir, You may be right. That's untill the next "shitstorm" hits our Country and at that point the history will repeat itself, We'll have to complete the mission with under equipped units that will result in a lot of our Brothers dead.
Take care!.
@@purpleslogthat doesn't make sense, SOF can't be everywhere at once and Army leg divisions are too heavy and slow, in addition to the fact we already have 4 ships patrolling the world at any time in different places. Getting rid of our expeditionary capability literally means we can't respond to as many situations as we could before. We should be able to do both, not one or the other. That's our true contribution to the joint force, we have to bridge the gap between SOF and conventional forces and be that true middleweight force.
KinDoG of England is want and being 😂😂and Never let not Stop Never Start think 😮and want only Money Money from FunRRory 😂😂International National
😂Only MoM DoG see ,😂I and KingDoG [KingDoG say Weile😂😂 ]
So MoM DoG thing Claim Clain about
KingDoG and Me [Baby together but when I have and I don't know KingDoG family not want KingDoG family same
I 😂Claim Clain 😂😂About KingDoG family Oxford University of London and 😂😂😂😂KingDoG 😂
WarmVater See play only Game with HitBaby 😢CAD come😂😂😂