First they've managed to almost...not quite but almost combine their Ground Combat Vehicle Program with their M-113 Replacement Program....
They're proceeding with these programs despite having difficulty describing the need for them and they're making these procurement decisions without any acknowledgement of combat in the Pacific.
Suggestion:
They then need to piggy back on the USMC's Marine Personnel Carrier buy. If the Army is going to be effective and a player in the Pacific then they need a couple of things that the MPC will provide.
1. Fully amphibious.
2. A capability to carry at least 9 fully equipped Marines/Soldiers.
3. Ship board capability from the start.
4. An established supply chain.
Lets be quite honest here.
The Army doesn't appear to know what it wants and why it wants it. Teaming with the Marine Corps on the MPC will show that they're serious about participating and planning for warfare in the Far East.
.
The Marine Corps can help this process by separating the MPC from the Amphibious Combat Vehicle and AAV upgrade offices.
Time to get this done.
Hmm.. I have to disagree. The Army doesn't need a fully amphibious vehicle. It needs one with greater survivability than the Bradley. The Army already has the Stryker, so buying the MPC would be highly duplicative.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, the Marines should buy a LAV III-based MPC to utilize the huge Stryker supply chain.
i wasn't as clear as i should have been. the Army is looking to replace the M-113 which should be a larger contract and provide larger numbers than the GCV.
Deleteadditionally with the turn to the Pacific the Army should want an amphibious vehicle. amphibs provide more than just mobility from ship to shore...they also prevent those choke points known as river crossings from existing.,...well at least with bridging equipment.
last the Stryker is so different from the Stryker II that the supply chain is sufficiently jumbled to make falling on it an unreasonable consideration.
comeon army...join the Marines!
The Army still should choose either the Stryker the improved version for the M113 contract. It doesn't make sense to add a third 8x8 armored vehicle to the mix.
ReplyDelete"Amphibousness" is a nice to have, but not a requirement. Also, a useful ship-to-shore amphibious capability will be significantly more expensive than just river crossing.
The M113 is a C4, logistics, utility vehicle nowadays. Having its replacement be amphibious and the rest of an armored unit not amphibious doesn't really help you.
Maybe in the pivot to the Pacific, the Army should just be cut more and the Marines cut less?
good point about the M113's roles ... but the Piranha 3 and the Lockheed Havoc (Patria AMV) aren't more expensive than their land counterparts...i don't think we can afford to let the Army or the Marine Corps get much smaller than already projected...i'd like them both to retain size.
ReplyDeleteif we're actually looking at battling Chinese or N. Korean forces we face the same problem. manpower and they have a ton of it and if previous wars are an example then they'll spend it cheaply...and we've gotten out of the business of mass destruction...we're precision monkey's now so we could easily be overwhelmed if not battlefield wide then in certain strategic locations of their choosing.
yeah. if we're looking at the possibility of fighting china then we need to stay big.