If this story from DoDBuzz is true...then the EFV is heading toward the chopping blocks.
Headquarters Marine Corps, the EFV program office and the Commandant have only one place to look when they're trying to find the
How can a service who's reason for being is Amphibious Assault have allowed this most important of weapon systems to be delayed over and over again....allowed it to go over budget over and over again...and expect it to survive?
I don't have a clue. But several factors led to this...
1. A lack of urgency.
During the day's of the Bush administration, the taps were turned on for defense spending. Of all the services, only the US Army seemed ready to exploit the opportunity this provided. The Marine Corps was caught flat footed and instead of pushing through with evolutionary capabilities chose instead to push for risky, costly revolutionary ones instead. This caused delay, delay costs time, time costs money and money is part of the reason this system got killed.
2. Marine Air screwed Marine Ground.
Our air side has lived high on the hog and got too large a share of the budget. How can I say this you ask? Because the USMC is due to receive the AH-1Z, UH-1Y, CH-53K, MV-22 and the F-35B. What new gear has the ground side received? The MTVR, LVRS, M-777, and refurbished M1 Abrams done over as Assault Breacher Vehicles. Oh and we're also due to get our hands on the IAR...a rifle that the Grunts don't want, that the Gunners love and the Infantry Community is still debating.
3. Think Tank Follies.
Every new administration has a favorite think tank. I have my own (yes Dr. Thompson, you're my hero and the Lexington Institute rocks) but even hero's sometimes get it wrong. Thompson has advocated (during the Bush administrations tenure) for an emphasis on transforming the Marine Corps into more of a Commando type force. The new administration doesn't have a plan but have harped on silly notions of Theater Entry as opposed to Amphibious Assault. A later post will cover my issues with both concepts but suffice it to say that the latter concept (in vogue now) is aimed only at the Marine Corps and has at its roots an effort to weaken the need for assault from the sea (amphibious lift) and the tools to carry it out (the EFV).
While the efforts by think tanks are mainly fodder for Congressional Aides, they do invoke discussion, debate and ultimately influence budget decisions.
4. FAILURE TO TELL THE MARINE CORPS STORY!
This is our biggest failure.
This is an indication that our culture is weakening.
This shows that we have not remembered our history...we've forgotten former (budget) battles.
Every article discussing the Marine Corps in magazines and newspapers starts off with..."after 10 years of warfare the Marine Corps has become a second Army!"
NONSENSE! And the saddest part of this is that those very words originated with our former Commandant!
Last year was a busy, almost chaotic year for Marine Forces worldwide. Action and activity in Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan... Training local forces in Europe, Africa, Asia... Providing forces afloat in the Pacific and the Atlantic... And finally maintaining skills in Bridgeport, 29 Palms and Ft. A.P. Hill.
Second land Army my ass. But the story isn't being told and Headquarters Marine Corps is sipping coffee instead of ringing telephones.
Finally.
If the EFV is indeed on the chopping block then we've got to get a replacement for the AAV up and running with the speed of a loving husband getting his pregnant wife to the hospital while she's in the middle of labor.
General Dynamics has had its bite at the apple. They didn't get it done. Too bad so sad. Pack your bags. We might give you another chance in about 10 years...but right now, its time to ring BAE's phone...have them do to the AAV platform that they did with the CV-90 Armadillo and simply get a major upgrade on evolutionary systems.
A more hydrodynamic form. Upgraded engines. A remote weapon station (with the ATK cannon). Improved water jets....
Its all doable, and we should be able to have a fully amphibious...swift (is 15 knots possible with upgraded water jets?...not as fast as the EFV but possible), mobile (able to maintain pace with M1's cross country), hi tech and mine resistant vehicle on the drawing boards by the end of the year....ready for demonstration by the middle of next year and ready for production by the year after that.
URGENCY,
EVOLUTION NOT REVOLUTION
AND PROPER COMMUNICATION WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT THE MARINE CORPS IS DOING AND WHAT THE MARINE CORPS NEEDS TO DO ITS MISSION.
That's how you win budget fights...how did we forget that?
Required Reading...The History Of Marine Corps Aviation 1912-1985 emphasis on the acquisition of the Harrier AV-8A and the 'warfare' necessary to make it happen...
DOD Buzz have the same level of credibility than Avweek and Ausa(APA)
ReplyDeleteyeah but i checked and Reuters and the Wall Street Journal are both reporting the same thing...
ReplyDeleteAviation Week is very credible.
Bill pisses me off but I piss him off too...now APA is a totally different kettle of fish.
I heard that SECDEF was going to make the announcement on Thursday?
ReplyDeleteThat's when "the report" should come out...
ReplyDeleteSo we have FCS and EFV cancelled, JLTV bleeding out, (marines) MPC and (army) GCV in limbo/still a long ways off, and AAV7 and Bradley still trucking on, with only the recent mission-specific MRAPs and M-ATVs strenghtening the force(s).
Other than the TAK-4 Humvee which is promising, but not a real APC replacement, there are no new wheels/tracks in the works that may enter service within the next decade.
Forget the dreaded "fighter gap", there's a real vehicle gap looming...
Marcase yes indeed a vehicle gap. You might add to the list of possiblities the new enlarged HUMVEE based vehicle. They basically kick the chassis and engine to the max and drop a armored pod on it. I think Snafu has covered that?
ReplyDeleteAs a Gator Sailor I would add there is a landing craft gap too. The SSC is just a lengthened and product improved LCAC aka the Mk2. The Navy has not updated its LCU and LCM recently nor will in the near term. (The Army has more modern landing ships). There are advanced and conventional landing craft in use by other navies. The funnel through which Marine cargo MUST pass starts at the wet well dock and is limited further by the numbers of landing craft and lighterage available. IF the Navy does not improve those two links in the chain, the Marine cannot hope to get more of their gear on beach in a timely manner.
We are NOT talking about star wars technology here.
the LCAC works and if the SSC is an evolutionary development of that then hey...oh well!
ReplyDeleteexactly which landing craft used by other navies are you looking at? the only one that seems to even come close to requirements is the L-CAT....but in many ways it will be less capable than the SSC.
Current conventional would be RN Mk10 LCMs and their LCVP also Dutch LCVPs. Advanced designs inclucde the British PASCAT whihc is completing trials. CNIM L-Cats have already been bought for French BPCs. There are some more I will look up later.
ReplyDeleteThere were several newer American designs for LCU(R) aka LCH. One was higher speed from Textron. Another was a streched version of current LCU. Will dig up those links when I get home.
I do not see a need for a full force of fully amphibous landing craft,cetainly most of the first wave should be. But after that conventional and non-amphibious will do the heavy transport role and can be bought in higher numbers due to lower costs. SSC is only an incremental improvement in lift capacity. Current LCAC are obsolescent and cost $$$ to keep in operation I believe those contracts are worth $10 millions each year.