\
I've been reading the news on the defense budget today.
No mention of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle. AAV upgrades. Nothing.
Meanwhile we get clarity on the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle, the JLTV, the C-27, Carriers, Air Wings and end strength numbers (even cancellations provide clarity).
I find it amazing that the most important ground acquisition for the US Marine Corps has gotten no attention.
No mention.
We are lost in the woods when it comes to modernizing our ground component.
Say it out loud.
The US Army has gone through the M-113 (with upgrades), the Bradley IFV (with upgrades), the Stryker IFV (with upgrades) and is embarking on getting the Ground Combat Vehicle.
The Marine Corps has been saddled with the AAV.
Now tell me something isn't broken in Marine land.
I've been reading the news on the defense budget today.
No mention of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle. AAV upgrades. Nothing.
Meanwhile we get clarity on the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle, the JLTV, the C-27, Carriers, Air Wings and end strength numbers (even cancellations provide clarity).
I find it amazing that the most important ground acquisition for the US Marine Corps has gotten no attention.
No mention.
We are lost in the woods when it comes to modernizing our ground component.
Say it out loud.
The US Army has gone through the M-113 (with upgrades), the Bradley IFV (with upgrades), the Stryker IFV (with upgrades) and is embarking on getting the Ground Combat Vehicle.
The Marine Corps has been saddled with the AAV.
Now tell me something isn't broken in Marine land.
well the usmc adopted the lav-25 in 1983, an the m113 is a 1950s design, as for the acvs, efvs, mpcs etc. its kind of hard to get a tougher vehicle for ya when it has to float and swim. So you wind up drawing for a while until you find a better solution. I think the entire situation needs to be addressed from a broader prospective that starts at the navy ship level when you can have an M1A2 SEP TUSK for 250% less money than a EFV.
ReplyDelete