What do you think this is for?
The Marines have hundreds of them.
Posted on 04/17/2009 4:19:34 PM PDT by Nachum
NEWPORT, Rhode Island (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department will take a "hard look" at whether it needs a projected $13.2 billion General Dynamics Corp program designed to hurl combat-ready Marines from ship to shore, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday.
Widening a drive to reshape the U.S. military for what he sees as its most likely future fights, Gates raised questions about the "expeditionary fighting vehicle," or EFV, an amphibious tank being developed by General Dynamics for the Marine Corps.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The List, ping
Heavens forbid that we should be able to go ashore in a place like Somalia without getting a lot of Marines killed in the landing.
Anyway, we wouldn’t want to hurt those nice Pirates, would we? Many of them belong to the same Luo tribe as Obama. And they’re just confused kids.
Peace in our time!
What do you think this is for?
The Marines have hundreds of them.
How about moving a mile down the beach? I had heard that the Navy/Marines were capable of moving a bit, here and there. And, it’s not as if there are a lot of Rommel led, Todd built, Wehrmacht defended coast lines around.
Yes, they do have lots of them; and they travel from ship to beach at about 8 miles per hour, which although twice as fast as WWII era amphibious tractors, is still mighty slow. The replacement travels through the water three times faster and offers better protection for the personnel inside and has better firepower.
And is that really needed for the kind of assaults the Marines are likely to do - undefended beaches in countries like Somalia?
“And is that really needed for the kind of assaults the Marines are likely to do - undefended beaches in countries like Somalia?”
Maybe, maybe not. One can’t tell what the next amphibious landing will hold.
The AAV has served the Marine Corps for over 35 years now. But, it is tired iron and a replacement is due.
Pretty old technology fifty years at least, we can do better for our storm landings.
It’s about time we did.
I should have known this was coming, the other day this was praised as One of the Marine Corps Triumphs in technology and budgeting.
Nothing’s been in more desperate need of killing than the EFV.
Just an insanely complex and basically unneeded capability.
Just an insanely complex and basically unneeded capability.
Yep! Exactly what the demoncruds said about the B1, B2, M1 Abrams, M1A1 Abrams, M1A2 Abrams, Patriot Missile system, etc, etc, etc.
It's amazing how prescient people like you are.
Most likely written by someone who doesn't deploy as part of a MEU.
But if what we have fills the need why buy something else?
Since you are an expert on what the Marines are “likely” to do, maybe we should let you do all our mission planning. If you’re wrong, we’ll lose more Marines, but, what the hell, its not YOU getting killed or maimed so who gives a crap, right?
And since you seem to be such an expert please tell me how replacing 1300 LVT-7s, each capable of carrying 25 Marines plus crew, with 570 EFVs, each capable of carrying 17 Marines plus crew, is a plus? It would appear that you're reducing your capacity by two thirds and all you're really getting is faster speed in the water. And since Marines haven't assaulted a defended beach in almost 65 years it seems to me that you're preparing for wars long past.
I’m deferring to the judgement and experience of the war fighters. I don’t presume to rule out a type of assault which may be used over a beach, a river or even open ground.
Approximately 3 dozen amtracks, lumbering along at 4 knots, were knocked out by the Japanese artillery at Saipan. The troops inside were killed. What the Marines are saying is that if they have do something like that again, they want fewer people inside and they want the exposure time to be less. They also want a vehicle which is far more capable on land and with better armor than the current vehicle. That makes a great deal of sense to me, although I do have to admit that the logical extension of your argument would be to issue them school buses for use ashore as buses can carry a lot more people and much more cheaply.
The days of assaulting a defended beach are over. I don't care which amphibious vehicle you're in, if you try to assault a beach defended by trained troops with today's sophisticated weapons then you're going to be massacred. If your purpose is to transport the troops ashore safely, and provide protection once they're ashore, in places like Somalia then the LVT-7 will do the job. Surely there are other Marine priorities that can use the money more?
But if what we have fills the need why buy something else?
Because we don’t want to fight the next war with tools from
four or five wars ago. We owe it to the citizens who will end up storming that beach.
As a Former Marine I know the history of amphibious assault
and the price paid to learn the hard lessons, and there
are hard lessons still to learn if we don’t keep up.
Yep, they sure can spend the money other ways. School buses and body bags. That’s the ticket!
I defer to your judgement as a professional. What part of the Marines are you in?
Navy.
Like it or not, the military budget is going to get squeezed and there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it for at least the next 4 years. And under those conditions I suggest that the Marines and all the other services are going to have to prioritize their needs and make some tough decisions. The LTV-7 design is about the same age as their Cobra attack helicopter. Is funding enough amphibious assault vehicles to move a third of what they are currently capable of moving more important than a replacement for the helicopter that will provide them support once they land? Is this vehicle needed more than an APC that would protect them more in the kinds of environments that they've been fighting in the last 8 years? In short, is the money spent on this a better investment than the same money spent on other arms and equipment given that it probably will never be used to assault a defended beach?
As a Former Marine I know the history of amphibious assault and the price paid to learn the hard lessons, and there are hard lessons still to learn if we don’t keep up.
And since you do know a lot more than I do about amphibious assaults, what scenario are you looking at now? Take a global view, picture the potential enemies, and tell me what scenario you see an amphibious assault ala Tawawa or Iwo Jima? One where you are assaulting a defended beach against a modern enemy with precision guided munitions, anti-tank rockets, modern armor and artillery. I can't think of a single situation like that which doesn't end in slaughter regardless of which amphibious vehicle you have. Moving Marines from ship to shore in the future will be on undefended beaches or against third world opponents. Marines will enter combat the way the army does, and they would be wiser to invest their money in arms and equipment that will allow them to perform their job more efficiently under those circumstances.
Oh, Gaza, Lebanon, Venzuela, North Korea, Taiwan, any number of places where Americans and American interests might be threatened, just cause you aren’t driving nails, doesn’t mean you can give up your hammer.
“The days of assaulting a defended beach are over.”
What do you base this assertion on? I wouldn’t be so quick to discount any military operation.
“The LTV-7 design is about the same age as their Cobra attack helicopter.”
True, but the Cobra has been redesigned, upgraded and is serving the fleet today. (Zulu model. Stronger, baster, more deadly.) We can’t say that for the AAV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.