USMC AURA program

The Corps is looking to replace it's ancient/relatively new fleet of Venom and Viper helicopters. The program will be looking at the Army's Dauntless and Valor flyoff. My bet would be on the tilt rotor Valor. The need, aside from the airframe stress and hours the Corps has racked up in recent wars, is a desire to have something as speedy as the V-22 Ospry.


USMC Attack Utility Replacement Aircraft (AURA) program

originally posted by: GD
The Corps is looking to replace it's ancient/relatively new fleet of Venom and Viper helicopters. The program will be looking at the Army's Dauntless and Valor flyoff. My bet would be on the tilt rotor Valor. The need, aside from the airframe stress and hours the Corps has racked up in recent wars, is a desire to have something as speedy as the V-22 Ospry.


USMC Attack Utility Replacement Aircraft (AURA) program

As our first line of defense, the USMC needs the BEST equipment available in order to help them do their job effectively.

What they buy/use should be up to the highest ranking commanders that have *actual* battle experience in my opinion. Only those that have actually been under fire or have had to engage in what people may consider a "first strike" effort on our behalf, truly know what will help the corps get the job done.

It should NOT be up to some congressperson or faceless bureaucrat that has no understanding of the phrase - Semper Fi!

I'm biased though...

a reply to: GD

Dauntless? Do you meant Defiant?

originally posted by: Riffrafter
As our first line of defense, the USMC needs the BEST equipment available in order to help them do their job effectively.

When was the last time the USMC actually was the first line of defense?

The reality is, the USMC is an outdated concept in dire need of reorganisation.

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: Riffrafter
As our first line of defense, the USMC needs the BEST equipment available in order to help them do their job effectively.

When was the last time the USMC actually was the first line of defense?

The reality is, the USMC is an outdated concept in dire need of reorganisation.

The USMC was the first branch of the service to engage in a "significant" way in WWII and Korea. Army Rangers courtesy of the 82nd and 101st airborne are often first in in a more limited (not division level engagement) since then. The Corps were thrown into the worst fighting in Iraq - Fallujah and Tikrit, for example.

And honor, first class training, bravery and patriotism are outdated?

Not in my book.

Your mileage may vary though...

a reply to: Riffrafter

As our first line of defense, the USMC needs the BEST equipment available in order to help them do their job effectivel

Defense? When was the last time the US needed defending on the home soil. I can however give you a list of 100 wars in the last century that the US was involved in, furthering economic interests of corporations

Semper Fi!

to the MIC?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

When was the last time the US needed defending on the home soil.

Pearl Harbor comes to mind.

WTC bombing and 9/11 come to mind too.


And all US embassies no matter where they are located are considered to be on US soil just like the embassies of foreign countries are considered to be on their soil while on embassy property here in the US.

So how about the attacks on our embassies overseas?

a reply to: Riffrafter

Army Rangers courtesy of the 82nd and 101st airborne are often first

Rangers are a force separate from the airborne and air assault troops.

Cheers

a reply to: Riffrafter

en.wikipedia.org...

Embassies? like the 1 that shifty Clinton compromised?

www.politico.com...

But keep feeding the MIC beast - it must feel good to let all those trillions go to waste while the Homeland disintegrates and falls under Fascist police control

originally posted by: Riffrafter
And honor, first class training, bravery and patriotism are outdated?

They are most definitely not and an elite fighting force build around those values has its uses. But this doesn't change the fact that the USMC is a bloated remnant of days gone by.
The Corps celebrates Phantom Fury. With good reason, a testament to American combat prowess in the 21st century. But it's also true that the Corps shouldn't have fought in division strength in an occupied country 350 miles from the sea. Thats the job of the Army, as is most of what the USMC has done recently.

When i look at the USMC these days i see obsolete mission requirements, wasteful dual structures and misaligned procurement.
To put it bluntly, the amphibious capabilities need to be cut back drastically. There are simply not viable anymore against even a second rate opponent. You need a decent air assault capability, but thats about it.
The far greater issue however is the stubborn insistence on USMC centric warfare. No, there is no reason for the Marines to have their own anything. The Marines are a supporting naval fighting force not a separate military in their own right. The Marines don't need their own Air Force, boats, heavy equipment or the latest and greatest - freaking hypersonic weapons.
As a rule of thumb, if another branch of the armed services can provide a capability, the Marines have no business getting into that as well. If anything, the Marines shouldn't be allowed to have their own procurement processes except for the few purely Marine specific capabilities. If it's good enough for the Army, Navy and Air Force it's good enough for the Marines.

The tail has been wagging the dog for far too long.

a reply to: Riffrafter

To be fair, Pearl Harbor, WWII, and Korea (also Viet Nam for that matter), are not really examples of what is required in a modern combat force.

I certainly respect that Marines are often tasked with the toughest assignments, when first response, battalion sized forces are required. They are, for the most part, a self reliant entity, providing their own ground support air power, so I wouldn't say they are outdated. They are the most intensively trained "large force" projection branch of the military.

The role they serve has changed in other situations though.

Strike teams, such as SEAL units are now the preeminent precision tactical force.

As far as embassy duty, in this era, it is more symbolic than anything. High tech, antiterrorism security is a bigger issue than fear of attack by a sovereign entity these days.

My son served 2 deployments in Iraq, and 1 in Afghanistan, and his experience was nothing like that of past conficts. The technological advantages of the US, and it's allies have rendered foxhole warfare of past entanglements obsolete, for the most part.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Riffrafter

As our first line of defense, the USMC needs the BEST equipment available in order to help them do their job effectivel

Defense? When was the last time the US needed defending on the home soil. I can however give you a list of 100 wars in the last century that the US was involved in, furthering economic interests of corporations

Semper Fi!

to the MIC?

everyday we need watchful eyes and ears....my brother is a Marine so I to may be bias

Semper Fi!

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: Riffrafter
As our first line of defense, the USMC needs the BEST equipment available in order to help them do their job effectively.

When was the last time the USMC actually was the first line of defense?

The reality is, the USMC is an outdated concept in dire need of reorganisation.

When was your service time again?

I certainly respect that Marines are often tasked with the toughest assignments, when first response, battalion sized forces are required. They are, for the most part, a self reliant entity, providing their own ground support air power, so I wouldn't say they are outdated. They are the most intensively trained "large force" projection branch of the military.

Pretty much as I understood what they do.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

to the MIC?

What's a MIC?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

There's an argument to be made here (not one I particularly agree with, but whatever), however that guy isn't exploring it to the fullest potential.

Having 2 procurement programs for what are honestly the same requirement (Future Vertical Lift vs. AURA) is hugely wasteful and in an age of ballooning procurement costs and lengths it's unacceptably wasteful, especially when off the shelf items exist that fill the Marine Corps' need. I fully agree with this.

I don't agree that the Marine Corps should be pared back so significantly, particularly in its amphibious capacity. Wars are fought over terrain, and the ability to outflank the enemy through amphibious assault is still valid, not mentioning the potential need to seize artificial islands that may occur in the near future.

I disagree with any assertion that A2/AD systems make amphibious assault obsolete, but I do think defensive technology needs to advance before a gator navy can go toe to toe with ground based ASBMs. Laser/Maser point defense are going to be the key there.

But even if the amphibious assault ships can't stop ASBMs, eventually an A2/AD system will be degraded to a point where it won't be able to saturate. Defensive systems can always be degraded.

a reply to: anzha

Indeed I do, I'd blame autocorrect, but that would be a lie. Thanks!

a reply to: Riffrafter

Military Industrial Complex