Cart
0
Marines Claim That ‘Force Design’ Project Will Outrun Reality
Marine Corps commandant emphasizes on the importance of Force Design path. Arguing that lost capabilities, stalled programs, and unrealistic goals have left the service unbalanced and in urgent need of redirected resources and reforms.
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
The Commandant of the Marine Corps in October 2025 spoke on the Force Design project. This update opens with a sweeping assertion that the Corps is a “globally responsive, lethal, and resilient combined-armed naval expeditionary force” capable of projecting power across all domains in contested environments. However, analysts argue this description is aspirational and not reflective of the Marine Corps’ current state, which they describe as lacking balanced lethality and battlefield resiliency.
According to critics, the Corps remains stalled by resource constraints, defense budgeting realities, Department of War approval processes, and congressional support. They note that the Corps’ historic hallmarks operating in every “clime and place” and rapidly task-organizing for any mission were weakened by the “divest to invest” approach embedded in Force Design 2030.
Gear Spotlight: Relevant to This Story
M18 Enamel Pin – For When It’s Time to Bounce
$9.99
$2.99
Nearly six years after its rollout, Force Design’s impacts continue to affect Marines, including the loss of combined-arms resilience, reduced amphibious ship requirements, the diminishing of the Maritime Prepositioning Force, and the neglect of an integrated combat development system. Analysts say the Commandant’s goals for a ready 911 force and resilient Marine Air Ground Task Forces require actions and resources rather than rhetoric. They add that restoring full expeditionary capability will demand investments in new supporting arms such as expeditionary bridging, assault breaching, mobile protected fire support, cannon artillery, aviation, and logistics.
Improving amphibious ship readiness and exceeding the longstanding 31-ship amphibious fleet requirement will also be necessary. The Commandant has advocated for a steady presence of 3.0 Amphibious Ready Groups/Marine Expeditionary Units, which would likely require increased readiness and additional ships. Some analysts argue this would help ensure rapid reinforcement of deployed units or response to emerging threats. With the National Defense Strategy expected to increase focus on the Western Hemisphere, they note that global naval response requirements will remain unchanged.
While long-term reforms will be challenging, several immediate steps could improve readiness. Analysts recommend returning the Marine Littoral Regiments to traditional regiments, replacing isolated Stand-in Forces with survivable formations, halting the Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System and naval Strike Missile programs, and moving away from the Landing Ship Medium concept. They point to slow timelines as an example: the FD 2025 update notes that the 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment will not have its full complement of NMESIS launchers until fiscal year 2033, raising questions about timelines for other regiments and the 12 planned missile batteries.
The fielding schedule for the nine Landing Ship Medium prototypes also extends far into the future, with the first ship expected no earlier than 2029. Analysts warn these vessels could compete with traditional amphibious ships for funding and may even be counted against the 31-ship requirement.
They argue that the Marine Corps already has viable alternatives, including the upcoming 300-mile Increment 2 Precision Strike Missile, the F-35’s Joint Strike Missile, and the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile. Instead of relying on purpose-built regional defense forces, they say Marines could tailor a survivable Marine Expeditionary Brigade or Marine Expeditionary Force-sized Stand-in Force backed by amphibious ships and Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons.
Amid discussions of budgets and reallocation of resources, analysts note that even Marines appreciate small morale items that reflect the service culture after all, if the Corps insists on “bouncing” from one force structure model to another, some jokingly say it might as well come with an M18 Enamel Pin - For When It’s Time to Bounce. However, they stress that symbolic gestures cannot replace the material capabilities needed for readiness.
These steps, they conclude, could strengthen the Corps’ global responsiveness, though achieving the Commandant’s aspirational vision will require sustained support from the Department of War and Congress. They warn that rebuilding the Marine Corps as the nation’s expeditionary force-in-readiness will be a long and resource-intensive journey.
Editor’s Note:
This article examines the ongoing debate surrounding the Marine Corps’ modernization strategy and reflects concerns raised by military analysts about the long-term impacts of Force Design changes. It highlights critiques of specific programs, capability gaps, and strategic assumptions shaping the Corps’ future posture. The views presented are those of the authors and sources cited in the reporting.
