Marines to Retool to Meet China Threat

[tomahawk6]

True. But the CF wouldn't want an all new inventory that would require training tank crews to operate the Abrams an the supply issues would you ?

 

[FJAG]

So what I am hearing is there will be a lot of used but in good condition tanks and other equipment coming on the market soon? sounds like a golden opportunity for the CAF to add capabilities for a discounted cost.

There's already more stuff that we could ever use by a hundred fold at the Sierra Army Depot in California.

:nod:

 

[MilEME09]

What your saying FJAG is we might get a bulk discount, Costco for the army Haha

 

[FJAG]

What your saying FJAG is we might get a bulk discount, Costco for the army Haha

Quite possibly. The US runs programs for getting rid of surplus equipment such as the Excess Defence Articles (EDA) programme for allies and the European Recapitalization Incentive Program (ERIP) for former Soviet countries having become NATO partners.

http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2015/11/us-offers-m109-sph-to-malaysia.html

https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-government-to-donate-bradley-infantry-fighting-vehicles-to-croatia.html

Get them while they're hot or all gone.

Betcha if we agreed to forward deploy an armoured brigade in Latvia that the US would provide at a minimum all the forward deployed gear for the brigade (if not another one or two for training and reinforcement within Canada) If we then paid for the enhancements to bring everything up to the most recent standards in Canada, everyone would win.

:cheers:

 

[quadrapiper]

Betcha if we agreed to forward deploy an armoured brigade in Latvia that the US would provide at a minimum all the forward deployed gear for the brigade (if not another one or two for training and reinforcement within Canada) If we then paid for the enhancements to bring everything up to the most recent standards in Canada, everyone would win.

Would that be an application where having a split fleet would be manageable? A fleet of Abrams in e.g. Latvia?

 

[FJAG]

Would that be an application where having a split fleet would be manageable? A fleet of Abrams in e.g. Latvia?

Not sure what you mean by "split fleet" but in this hypothetical scenario you should have the same type of tanks in Canada to train on. Like I said: hypothetical! Way hypothetical!

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

Not sure what you mean by "split fleet" but in this hypothetical scenario you should have the same type of tanks in Canada to train on. Like I said: hypothetical! Way hypothetical!

:cheers:

Having Leo 2s and Abrams, mind you same gun so the delta for gunners and loaders would be small.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Having Leo 2s and Abrams, mind you same gun so the delta for gunners and loaders would be small.

Except our track record with buying used gear from other countries isn't all that great.

 

[FJAG]

Except our track record with buying used gear from other countries isn't all that great.

I think a lot of those Abrams and Bradleys might be new since Congress kept buying them long after the Army stopped wanting new ones and they went right out into deep storage so as to keep the assembly line in Lima Ohio open. Also they do rebuilds on them in Lima and at Anniston in Alabama, literally taking them down to the bare hull and refurbishing/replacing worn parts and adding improvement upgrade packages. That said, a lot of the tanks in the US Active and NG inventory are not yet the latest versions.

Our track record sucks but every once in a while one needs a faint hope that someday we'll get our s**t together.

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

While we are at it, we should lease a battery or two of M109's/Paladins

 

[blacktriangle]

I don't see how it would make sense financially to introduce a second family of MBT into our small Army. Might make more sense to look ahead to whatever our allies will eventually move to. Although, the way the government finances will be heading soon, I doubt any of these options are on the table.

If we want to buy some American kit, why not get HIMARS. Useful for the "small wars" as well as countering Russia/China. And the USMC seems to agree.

 

[MilEME09]

While we are at it, we should lease a battery or two of M109's/Paladins

The marines do not use them unfortunately, however they have a crap ton of M198 155mm howitzers they are phasing out, and M777's as well, which could increase our own stockpile.

 

[FJAG]

While we are at it, we should lease a battery or two of M109's/Paladins

They're best when they come in battalions  ;D

:cheers:

 

[MarkOttawa]

Now this from USMC commandant--current Western Pacific basing largely done with Korea in mind, now vulnerable to PRC threats (further links at original):

America’s top Marine says the US must shake up its military presence in the Pacific

The way the United States military has had forces arrayed in the Pacific for the last 70 years must change to meet a new threat environment, the US Marine Corps' top general said Wednesday, arguing that the force must be in more places and spread across a wider area.

After WWII and the Korean War, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have had their forces set up to respond to a possible crisis on the Korean Peninsula, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger said, but with the rising Chinese threat that force laydown is no longer going to cut it.

"I know we are taking a look at the posture of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Berger told the virtual audience at the annual Modern Day Marine conference. "They were well designed and well crafted, pointed from California to Japan like an arrow at the Korean Peninsula to make sure that if there was another problem on the Peninsula we’d be well positioned to handle it.

“It’s not a good laydown for 10 years from now or 20 years from now. We need to look at it again.”

Today, the Navy and Marines Corps' presence in the Western Pacific is heavily weighted toward Japan. The Navy operates a carrier as well as cruisers and destroyers out of Yokosuka, just south of Tokyo. The Navy’s forward deployed amphibious fleet operates out of Sasebo, which is in the far south of the Japanese mainland a few hundred miles from Korea, separated by the Tsushima and Korea straits.

The Marines are likewise situated in the south, with the III Marine Expeditionary Force located on Okinawa, the Japanese island situated about halfway between the Japanese mainland and Taiwan. There are about 18,000 Marines in Japan, according to the U.S. Forces Japan website.

Analysts have questioned the wisdom of having U.S. forces so concentrated in an era when fixed bases are increasingly vulnerable to Chinese missile and bomber attacks. The military’s 2020 “China Power Report” noted the marked increases in recent years of China’s ability to attack targets in both Japan an increasingly in Guam [emphasis added].

“Military modernization has resulted in the rapid transformation of the [People’s Liberation Army’s] missile force,” the report reads. "U.S. bases in Japan are in range of a growing number of Chinese [medium range ballistic missiles] and [land-attack cruise missiles].

“H-6K bomber flights into the western Pacific Ocean demonstrate China’s ability to range Guam with air-launched [land-attack cruise missiles]. The DF-26, which debuted publicly in 2015 and was paraded by China again in 2017, is capable of conducting precision conventional or nuclear strikes against ground targets, which could include U.S. bases on Guam [emphasis added].”

To meet the threat, the U.S. must distribute its forces and spread out potential targets to make it more difficult for the Chinese to target, Berger said.

“We have to spread out,” Berger said. “We have to factor in Guam. We have to have a disbursed, distributed laydown in the Pacific that allows us to work with all the partners and allies and deter forces like the PLA from asserting themselves in a manner that tries to rewrite the global norms that have been well established in the past 70 years. So, our posture must change.”
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/24/americas-top-marine-says-the-us-must-shake-up-its-military-presence-in-the-pacific/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

But looks like Marines and US Army thinking along similar lines for Western Pacific action vs the PRC–both affordable (further links at original)?

Are the US Army and US Marine Corps competing for missions in the Pacific?

With the U.S. military locked in on what it sees as a long-term competition with the People’s Republic of China for ascendency in the Indo-Pacific region, two services seeking to pivot away from heavy ground conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are looking toward missiles as a ticket to relevance in a potential future conflict.

The U.S Marine Corps and U.S. Army are both working toward fielding long-range strike and anti-ship missiles to hold Chinese targets at risk within the first and second island chains. Both have talked about putting supplies, gear and forces forward to be able to rapidly respond in a crisis, and both are actively discussing sacrificing older equipment and upgrades for current equipment to help pay for the modernization they need.

The expectation in the Pentagon, however, is that the military will see flat defense budgets at best going forward. Some defense watchers argue that limited resources means gets the funding may depend on whose concepts carry the most weight among defense planners. Others, however, believe a potential China problem is big enough that there are plenty of missions to go around.

Previously, long-range strike was the domain of the Navy and Air Force from carriers, vertical launch missile tubes on submarines and surface combatants and from land-based fighters and bombers. But the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty has opened up long-range, ground-based fires as a means of countering China’s capabilities in that area — China was not a party to that treaty, and U.S. Pacific Command for years bemoaned as unfair the advantage the treaty gave the Chinese in the theater…
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2020/10/14/are-the-us-army-and-us-marine-corps-competing-for-missions-in-the-pacific/

Mark
Ottawa