I don't disagree with your points leerw, but the reason it is important to follow what Work is saying is because right now in 2006 it is very obvious the House is basically following his every suggestion. It isn't about which researcher is right and which is wrong; it is about which researcher the politicians are listening to, and right now that would be Work for the House, and the top US Navy people in the Senate. I'm not convinced either of us are right or wrong. I looked over the FY2006 budget proposals, I must of missed where the MPF-F was funded. I did see testimony where Navy R&D money is proposed for both QTR and JHL including air ship funding, I would assume that would be for a Sea Base platform.

The last CNO's testitmony said: "MPF(F). These future Maritime Prepositioning Ships will serve a broader operational function than current prepositioned ships, creating greatly expanded operational flexibility and effectiveness. We envision a force that will enhance the responsiveness of the joint team by the at-sea assembly of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade that arrives by high-speed airlift or sealift from the United States or forward operating locations or bases. These ships will off-load forces, weapons and supplies selectively while remaining far over the horizon, and they will reconstitute ground maneuver forces aboard ship after completing assaults deep inland. They will sustain in-theater logistics, communications and medical capabilities for the joint force for extended periods as well. Our FY05 request accelerates the lead MPF(F) from FY08 to FY07 to reflect our emphasis on Sea Basing capabilities." I thought I had seen those hulls in the FY06 budget? The HLhelo, high speed connector are works in progress. HSVs being much more advanced both in the LCS realm and in the theater support vessel area - both Army and Navy want them and there is a JointHSV project office at NAVSEA. I would agree that both the MPF-F is and SeaBase will be very expensive programs. The question is do we need one of the latter more than we need a carrier? Sen Warner would definitely weigh in on that one!!! Continuing my Work rant: analysts don't always have an appreciation of what is needed or right sometime doing theoretical comparisons is misleading those on the hill who should know better. P.S. send me an email and I will send you more on seabasing (ltr to AFJ editor)

>>Yeah, that did occur to me. But from an outsider looking in, the Marine air units could be controlled by the USN, and much of their ground units by the army. I think marines along the lines of the Netherlands and the UK's fill the niche much more effectively.<< Which was the situation pre-WW2, as others have noted, with the USMC strength not being a whole lot more than that of RM or Royal Netherlands Marines. The USMC presently likes to talk about their skill at doing unconventional warfare (since that's where budget $$$ is these days), but tend to forget that when they were doing it well prior to World War 2 they had a total end strength of something like 11,000 marines. Or, in the case of Vietnam and the CAP platoons, generated the same thing by handpicking individuals for that role (creating a dreaded de facto elite within a 200,000 man "elite" in the process, albeit an unofficial one and one that was regarded with suspicion by "Big" USMC leadership rather like the Army and its relationship to Special Forces in the era). Present USMC end strength, as others have suggested but not stated baldly, simply boils down to the Marines playing politics very well in Congress. Whether or not we need three divisions of Marines is not open for discussion because of this in much the same manner that reform of the Catholic Church is of infrequent importance -- too much inertia and too many taboos and myths would have to be overcome to really look at the issue, as far as the people in power are concerned.

>>The same world War that turned the Royal Marines into commandoes turned the USMC into a corps-sized combined arms force. The USMC keeps its air and expeditionary roles because of the incongruity that you mentioned in your post. It actively seeks roles that other services turn down.<< To defend its budgetary existence, yes. >>It is cheaper than other services<< Because it hides actual operating costs in the budgets of the US Navy, US Army, and DoD in general, which is precisely why the USMC is not a model for how organizations should be budgetted and run. If you take actual real operating costs and capabilities and line them up, the USMC is not a bargain, and its only real cost savings is in the less professional nature of its force -- lower re-enlistment rates mean a younger force which can be provided fewer amenities and a lower standard of living, fewer NCOs, and overall less experience and training . . . and also a smaller payroll. >>and yet it also brings the esprit de corps of an elite force to every task it accepts.<< 170,000 men does not an "elite" make by any rational interpretation of the term. The USMC is larger than the militaries of many nations, and so can hardly make a valid claim to a rational definition of the term and its connotation of a small, chosen, and superior group -- the only referent which it can claim "elite" status vis a vis would be the US Army or US military as a whole . . . but 20,000 joes in the 82nd Airborne would appear to be a *more* select, *more* chosen, and *more* elite group than the USMC. To say nothing of true elite military organizations like, say, SOCOM assets . . . >>No, it’s not logical, but neither is history.<< Or mythology. Take your pick.

"simply boils down to the Marines playing politics very well in Congress." Yeah, that was what I thought, along with the mindset similar to what Carl S depicted.

Yimmy, the mythology is powerful. "Gazing upward, at the red, white, and blue speck, Forrestal remarked to Smith: 'Holland, the raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years'" That comment by James Forrestal to Holland Smith was as prescient as they come. More than just the myriad Marine veterans of an expanded W.W.II Corps, who would go on to civilian lives helping to build the post W.W.II "hyperpower" that we've become, while robustly defending their Marine legacy at every turn. Or the expanded and entrenched Marine administration that emerged from that war. Or the astute political acumen displayed, coupled with an excellent eye for self-promotion. All important, but... that moment, captured by the only photo to win a pulitzer in the same year as taken, as come to symbolize our emergence as a great nation, for all Americans. The struggle by those marines to the summit, amidst withering opposition, and the planting of that flag, was not just for all marines and sailors on the beach to see and rejoice, but for all of America and the world. More than marines, they were American. When they planted that flag, Suribachi may as well become Everest, because our nation had reached the top-and it was marines that got us there. That sort of lore is mythological, and omnipotent.

easy on the catholic church...esp when this is not the thread.... the marines by law are of certain min. portion to the army president cant change it....it has to be done by congress.......

the navy will never control marine air... in theory, a boyscout leader can call in air. with that aside, since marine airmen go through the same basic infantry training the grunts do and do it every year, they KNOW what the grunt is facing and the emotions and personal danger. General doctrine of the AF and Navy do not do that. They are not as 'in touch' with the people they are supporting...(though some make go through specialized training on their own and all go through SEARS(sp) training, it is not the same. You simply do not get the same over all quality with the other services(not saying they are not good, but the espirit de corps counts for alot....) you might need to take a budget class. I can speak from recent years, only in the past. with the marine budget, you get more bang for the buck...Seldom do we get the amount of new equiptment the other branches get. What they get is mind-blowing....Things might have changed, but in the late 80s we got used army equiptment like flack jackets, kevlars, gear, tents, etc....in the early 90s, we were able to get some new items, but it pailed in comparison to the armys budget...and while they are larger, they still had more aloted per man than the marinecorps... I can remember quite well the number of training sessions cancelled due to the fact our budget was not large enough..at the same time, the army had plenty for training in comparision-and it was not improper allocation of funds. quite simply put, they were better funded...(also, it took alot longer to get the m-1 than was necessary, but funding delayed it-and that is why armour bn still had the m-60 in gw1....I dont recall the army having that problem...as they got it first) the marines are considered elite not because of just size, because of several reason, mainly, it is easier to train a smaller unit better. 3 div are alot easier to train to quality than 10-15 div. the marines are considered better because as a whole, the training was alot harder and longer-bootcamp, speciality schools, etc.. physical standards are much higher.... I can speak of army training now, but I can with authority up to 95..... The marines also put the emphasis on every man (and woman) is considered an infantry man first. the army did(and probably still does not)not have the ethos. Marine officers recieve better quailty training once they become officers...that is fact not by misguided belief. You mention re-enlistment-well, the marines dont have to bribe us to stay in. -as I have said, I can speak for today- but when I was in, we were rarly offered bonusus. They said. "we dont give bonus's...if you want to re-up, you GET TO STAY A MARINE-thats your bonus" and it worked, With few exceptions, the marines did not have to beg people to stay in. so your theory falls short in so many ways and reguardless of any crap I might get from any former army soldiers, this is directed to horsesoldier....compaired to regular army units, or most(not all) of the other worlds units, the 82nd can claim the elite status per a general army unit. But as a whole, compared to ANY marine division, they fall short. I have plenty of army friend-1 just got out 2 yrs ago...bad knees from jumping-some 50+ he made. So this is not ment as scarcasim-he is a good friend, but they just dont compare. now, today, esp with iraq, the quality of army units have gone up dramatically, so the difference of quality is ever shrinking...quite simpley, there now are many, many good army units-far more than in the late 80s mid 90s... so, be the good doggie all you want HS, you ramblins' are just that. History and facts dont support you in any way

and just which service doesnt? duhhhhhhh. and when other people are bigoted toward you, you have to do what you can to survive.....

dont know if you ment that, or are being sarcastic, but I will take it in a positive light. Thank you S-2 one thing not mentioned yet: after the war, truman,esp after listening to the army, tried to get the marine corps dissovled and absorbed into the army........ and to my schgrin, I cant remember the date-49' 50' or so, congress stepped in and truman backed down.... so, who else can claim in modern times that a president tried to have you dissolved?