|
|
|
|
|
|
by clioharper
1540 days ago
|
|
|
Some of the elements that you've mentioned are subject to divestment as well. The Marine Corps is abandoning their long-trusted M777 howitzer in favor of HIMARs, which are self-propelled and purported to be more mobile than a M777. There is a fair amount of disagreement in the artillery community over this choice among the guys on the ground from what I understand. Many platforms used in the military and Marine Corps are inherently vulnerable to attack. The question you have to ask is whether you can take the budget that would be allocated to one platform and use it better elsewhere. As with many other things in life, this comes down to a constrained optimization problem with many different factors to consider. Overall, an aggressor has to "find, fix, and finish" the enemy to complete the kill chain. My understanding is that the general idea is to invest in platforms can move quickly, continue to decentralize command, and adopt a new warfare doctrine for the "pacing threat" in the Pacific. If you're interested in learning about contemporary doctrine--particularly in the Marine Corps--I'd suggest you look into EABO, which is the war-fighting doctrine that's being proposed for conflicts in the Pacific. |
|
|