by Tom Clancy
They are answering those questions, and we have made major changes in the Corps today based on their input. We have, or are, considering changes in training, in the promotion system, and in our performance evaluation system. The changes are driven by lance corporals through colonels dialing up and dropping me a note with an idea. You have to see the quality of what they are saying to appreciate just how intelligent they are and how much they care about improving the Corps. It is truly motivating!
One of the most difficult tasks facing General Krulak and the Marine Corps as they head into the 21st century is the need to modernize their equipment during a time when there is very little money and even less support around Washington, D.C., to do so. With their modernization budget (for new and replacement equipment, as well as upgrades/conversions) slashed to almost historic lows, the challenges for the Commandant are immense. Let's hear his thoughts on this.
Tom Clancy: Could you talk now about the Marine Corps modernization budget? Obviously you're making due with an absurdly small amount, compared with the other services. What is the outlook?
General Krulak: Let me preface my comments with some background about our budget. Procurement and modernization for some equipment [Marine aviation, amphibious shipping, and landing craft] are funded by the Department of the Navy. The shortfall you are referencing has to do with what we call "green dollars," or dollars earmarked specifically for Marine Corps procurement. With that as background, the Marine Corps needs a "green" modernization budget between $1 billion and $1.2 billion. That is one of my biggest challenges. We had $474 million in FY-95; and that's less than half of the historic average; and that means we have had to sacrifice either readiness or modernization, because we can't have both at that level. If I don't get that budget up to the necessary level, we'll be in real trouble.
In fact, we're in trouble right now. We have 5-ton trucks that are almost twenty years old. You don't drive a car that is that old, but we'll be sending Marines into combat in those vehicles. Our amphibious assault vehicles [the AAV-7s] are twenty to twenty-five years old. There are problems on the aviation-dollar side as well — we are flying CH-46 medium-lift helicopters that are headed into their fourth decade of service as we are sitting here! We have some real modernization problems that we need to come to grips with as a service and a nation.
Tom Clancy: With that introduction, I'd like to run some of the key modernization programs by you, and get some of your comments on them. Tell me about the V-22.
General Krulak: The V-22 is critical to the nation and Marine Corps. We're going to get it, and get it quicker than anyone thinks we will. Once other services realize the capability that tilt-rotor technology brings, I believe that they will join us in procuring this aircraft. It has all the capabilities of a helicopter in terms of vertical flight, but has the speed and distance more akin to a fixed-wing aircraft. Imagine how useful this aircraft would have been in places like Somalia or Burundi, or might be in Bosnia. We're currently programmed to get the first squadron of V-22s in 2001, but I would like to be able to buy two or three squadrons a year [twenty-four to thirty-six airframes], as opposed to the current planned buy rate of fourteen airframes per year. Again, I believe that once people understand and appreciate how incredibly capable this aircraft is, the buy will be accelerated.
Tom Clancy: How about the Harrier re-manufacture?
General Krulak: The re-manufactured Harrier will be our "bridge" aircraft until the Joint Advanced Strike Technology [JAST]/Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] program gets us to ASTOVL (Advanced Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing — a variant of the JSF). With the updated AV-8B Harrier II Plus, we have an extremely good aircraft that has remarkable capabilities compared to earlier versions of the plane. In fact, thanks to the re-manufacture program, it is virtually a new airplane. It is not, however, the plane we want for the 21st century. That's the ASTOVL strike fighter. Our goal is for the Marine Corps to "neck down" to just one single strike aircraft, the ASTOVL version of JSF. Combine that with the capability of the V-22, the heavy-lift CH-53E, our light attack and utility helicopters, and our support aircraft, and we will have a Marine aircraft wing that brings incredible capability to the combatant commander.
There will be tremendous savings when we pool all the Marines working on or flying in a number of different airframes, and put them all into one of our extremely capable, hard-charging air wings with fewer types of airframes. We will realize significant economies of production, as well as operations and maintenance. When you are talking modernization, you have to think beyond today or tomorrow, and think about the day after tomorrow. That is how we approach everything as Marines. Everyone is excited about the AV-8B Harrier II Plus. Yet while I believe that is great, and it may be doing what we want today, it is a bridge to the ASTOVL strike fighter of the future.
Tom Clancy: Tell me about the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV).
General Krulak: The AAAV is as critical to our future success as the V-22. Seventy percent of the world's population lives within 300 miles [480 kilometers] of a coastline in the littorals. The end of the Cold War ushered in a new era of global instability where regional strife will dominate. While we can't predict exactly where a crisis will occur, there is a good chance it will require a response originating from the sea. If we, as a nation, are going to have forward-deployed forces effective at managing instability around the world, we need the AAAV that operates rapidly in the water from a good standoff distance [up to 25 nm/46 km] as well as on dry land. It will be able to carry Marines, weapons, and equipment under armor with a full nuclear, chemical, and biological (NBC) over-pressure protection system. It will also give us the ability to engage enemy armor with superior mobility and firepower. It will give us tremendous flexibility in a variety of combat environments and conditions.
Ship-to-shore delivery is not an end unto itself, but a beginning, because you still have to maneuver and fight when you get on dry land. Right now, we don't have a system for moving Marines under armor that can keep up with the M 1A1 tank. You can't have an effective mechanized force if your personnel can't keep up with your tanks and reconnaissance vehicles. The AAAV will give us that capability.
Tom Clancy: What about the Predator and Javelin systems?
General Krulak: We need a solid fire-and-forget anti-armor capability, and these two systems will get us to the future. Like the AV-8B Harrier II Plus though, I see Predator and Javelin as "bridge" systems, to get us the follow-on generations of truly "brilliant" fire and forget anti-armor technology.
Tom Clancy: How does the Lightweight 155mm Howitzer (LW 155) fit into the future?
General Krulak: We really need a true lightweight 155mm howitzer. The current M 198 towed howitzer is just too heavy. The LW 155 will give the MAGTF commander greater operational and tactical flexibility in executing his mission. It maintains the current thirty-kilometer range and lethality; but the increased mobility will significantly improve artillery ship-to-shore movement and increase the survivability, responsiveness, and efficiency of artillery units supporting ground operations. We need this system, and will be selecting a contractor to do the job soon.
Tom Clancy: You talk a lot about technology. Do you envision a role for GPS (Global Positioning System) in the future?
General Krulak: I would like see a GPS receiver on every Marine before the end of my commandancy, but I think one per squad leader is more realistic. This will solve so many of the problems that the ground-maneuver forces have had in the past. It will greatly simplify yet improve our ability to determine where our units are and where the enemy is — the basic battlefield picture.
Tom Clancy: Communications in combat are always a concern. What do you see on the horizon in this area?
General Krulak: I want the individual Marine to be fully integrated from a communication standpoint with all echelons above and below. Take a laptop computer tied into a GPS receiver and you have a real-time picture showing all the locations of friends, foes, etc. With
a touch of his finger on the computer screen, this "digitized Marine" will have the capability to call in fire on the enemy with deadly accuracy every time.
The technology is there. What we need to consider is the impact that it will have on how we fight. You give a system like that to every squad leader and you're looking at a completely different battlefield scenario. So the challenge is to take advantage of and field such technologies that will change the existing paradigm of warfare as we know it. In Desert Storm we said, "If you can see a target on the battlefield, then you can kill it." Ten years from now, however, I think we'll be saying, "If you can sense the target, you can kill it!" We need to start thinking seriously about the impact that will have. We need to consider how it will influence the sizes and types of formations on the battlefield. We need to look at how we are going to survive on that battlefield, a battlefield where sensing an enemy is death to them.
Another challenge facing General Krulak and the Marines, as well as his Navy counterpart, the Chief of Naval Operations, is the need to complete the upgrade of the Navy's fleet of amphibious ships. With the job only half done (about eighteen of the planned thirty-six ships having been delivered by the end of 1995), let's hear the Commandant's thoughts on finishing the job.
Tom Clancy: Let's talk about the U.S. Navy — your other half. Right now the Navy is planning to finish building a fleet of thirty-six state-of-the-art amphibious-warfare ships (LHAs/LHDs/LSDs/LPDs) formed into twelve Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) that will replace the current fleet of almost fifty such ships you currently have. Are these thirty-six ships/twelve ARGs enough to meet your requirements, and are they the right ships for the jobs?[9]
General Krulak: We need to be able to lift three Marine Expeditionary Brigades [MEBs are task-organized and can range in size from twelve thousand to sixteen thousand Marines]. Thirty-six ships can't do that. Congress realizes the need for increased amphibious lift and has put additional resources to this requirement. I believe the need for adequate amphibious lift will become even more apparent in the early 21st century, when eight out of the ten top economies in the world will be found on the rims of Pacific and Indian Oceans. In this scenario, forward-deployed amphibious and naval expeditionary forces will be critical to our ability to manage instability in those geographic areas. I think the ARG concept with a MEU (SOC) embarked meets our needs today, but we will need a different capability in 2005 and 2010, when we are trying to protect our national interests in the littorals of places like the Indian and Pacific Oceans. If you think that twenty B-2A stealth bombers with sixteen guided bombs each comprises a presence, virtual or otherwise, you don't know the Asian people. If you want the people of the Asian rim to feel the presence of American forces, let them see and touch the gray-painted side of a U.S. warship. The U.S. can't survive in the Pacific and Asian regions if all we have to offer is a regional Commander-in-Chief [CinC] flying in on a VC-20 Gulfstream VIP jet to hold a press conference saying that U.S. forces are there, when the truth is that they are a month or more away!
Now, how do you cover areas as vast as that? You cover them with Marines afloat on Navy ships — ships like the recently commissioned USS Carter Hall [LSD-50]. This is a Landing Ship Dock almost nine hundred feet long; not some old LST. I say give those up and use thirty-six warships, amphibious ships of the line! Let us design and configure them, and build the MEU (SOC) of the 21st century. You'll still send out an ARG, but with three of the most phenomenally capable amphibious ships in the world. Each might have one "mini-MEU (SOC)" on board, so that they can cover the vast distances that we will be required to oversee in the 21 st century. They'll use things like video teleconferencing data links for command and control, and will only come together when they have to concentrate and apply their full power to a contingency. So, what I see in the building program of today is the possibility of thirty-six miniature ARGs, each one composed of just one ship with a mini-MEU (SOC) on board.
Tom Clancy: Could you tell us a bit about how you feel about the current amphibious shipbuilding programs?
General Krulak: On Amphibious Assault Ships. The Wasp-class [LHD-1] ships provide us with great capability. In particular, the possibility of upgrading the command and control technology on those vessels so we can effectively interface with virtually any other command and control system makes them into an extremely capable system. You can run exactly the kinds of operations that I described previously with a split-ship ARG, disaster or humanitarian relief, or use it as the headquarters of a Joint Task Force [JTF]. We really need that seventh one [LHD-7]; and there may very well be a press to build an eighth ship as we approach the 21st century and have to counter the kinds of instability that I see happening. The desire to maintain stability will be so great you may actually see a slow growth of forces from their current levels.
The USS Whidbey Island/ Harpers Ferry-class [LSD-41/49] Dock Landing Ships are also doing their jobs well. Like the LHDs, you may also see additional units being built in the early 21 st century, if near-term worldwide instabilities continue to grow. In addition, there are LPD-17-class assault ships. This is the near-term "big ticket" item for us. Just last year it was only a large paper ship. Today it is well on its way to becoming a reality. They are planning to build a total of twelve within the first decade of the 21 st century. The first one is due in 2001. We need to just build that first one, get it out to sea, and then determine what the follow-on units will look like. I don't want production of that first ship to be slowed and priced out of being built by adding more and more systems. I can almost guarantee that the follow-on units will be different from the first one, but we need to get that first one off the line. Also, I want shipyards to be building them at a rapid pace — the quicker we get them the better. But I want that first ship! On Landing Craft. The Landing Craft, Air Cushioned [LCAC] gives us tremendous capability, though I would like to see a smaller version built. We could outfit these with fire-and-forget support weapons that could go in with the AAAVs and be relatively immune to the inshore mine threat. The older conventional landing craft are eventually going to go away. For now, though, we need them for delivery of follow-on equipment to the beach.
Tom Clancy: What is the status of the Maritime Prepositioning Program?
General Krulak: The MPSRONs have been winners, and the program is healthy today. Just as with everything else, though, we must look at what we will need from MPSRON in the 21st century. That is one of the tasks in my planning guidance: to see if the current MPSRON is really the way to go in the future.
I have a feeling that things may be a bit different. Once upon a time, we (the U.S. and Great Britain) managed instability in the world through a system of coaling stations that were used to refuel the warships of the day. Perhaps we need to look at Admiral Bill Owens's [the recently retired Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] mobile-base concept. This is a modular self-propelled floating air/logistics base, which can be moved to a crisis area and would provide the ability to anchor a large support and logistics base right off the coast of a combat zone. We need, however, to look at the trade-off of such a concept with the current MPSRON scheme, which is mainly to haul equipment and supplies, not serve as a core base for their operations.
One of the other significant challenges faced by General Krulak is the matter of the extremely high operational tempos (Optempos) that have faced the U.S. military in general, and the U.S. Marine Corps in particular. With future Optempos projected to increase in the years ahead, his thoughts are insightful.
Tom Clancy: Let's talk a bit about the Optempos that the U.S. military in general, and the Marine Corps in particular, has been sustaining over the last few years, particularly in light of the recent cutbacks. Could you talk a little about this and its effects on the Corps?
General Krulak: Marines operate. Marines deploy. It's what we do. It's what the nation needs for us, with our Navy shipmates, to do. Optempo is going to have long term impacts on personnel and is hastening the modernization problem t
hat is rapidly coming upon us. In regard to the latter, we are using our equipment up — going beyond the fatigue and service lives of equipment — earlier than planned. In addition, we are beginning to see maintenance problems as a result of delayed or deferred maintenance. Funding is a problem too. We are going to see lost opportunities to stretch out the life of our equipment without the proper moneys at the right time. This level of Optempos costs us training time and limits our options on how and when we repair things, which in turn gets us out of sync with the planned funding for that repair.
There is also the human cost of high Optempos. You already have problems with the families, wear and tear on the people. What is amazing, though, is that the individual Marines are loving the work, because that's what they came in to the Corps to do in the first place. The wives and families struggle, but the Marines love to work hard! It's a strange dichotomy for us to balance in the future.
The crown jewels of the Marine Corps today are its force of seven MEU (SOC)s. These compact, highly mobile forces are the key to maintaining the United States' capability to "kick in the door" to a hostile coastline, should it be required. General Krulak's thoughts on the future of these forces are important, because they represent the last remaining vestige of our once-robust amphibious capabilities.
Tom Clancy: The MEU (SOC)s. You have seven now, but will that be enough in the future?
General Krulak: I think seven are enough to do the job today, though beyond 2005 to 2010 it will not be. What we will need to do is optimize the number of MEU (SOC)s on the various amphibious platforms that we do have. For example, if you have a V-22 that can carry twenty to twenty-five combat-loaded Marines, compared to the eight to twelve carried by the current CH-46 Sea Knight, you increase your capability to deal with the threat. In addition, you may be able to off-load some of the V-22s onto the LPD-17s, and build the mini-MEU (SOC)s that we talked about earlier.
