via THF.org
Support NeededRead the whole thing here.
Moving forward, the Corps is reliant on the Navy and Congress to make this plan effective:
**The U.S. Navy should support with “connector” capabilities. The decision to go with a wheeled amphibious vehicle relies heavily on the development of a future ship-to-shore connector. Since the procurement and maintenance of these capabilities are all under the purview of the Navy, any change in requirement for the connector needs the Navy’s support.
**Congress should adequately fund defense. In making this decision, the Marine Corps was already cost conscious. However a return to sequestration levels would put the future of many investment programs in jeopardy. The initial phase of the Corps’s vehicle strategy has been crafted to fit within current budget request levels, but additional funding will be required for the new ship-to-shore connector(s).The Right Decision
**The proposed plan is the appropriate path forward for modernizing amphibious operations capabilities. By embracing a phased approach, the USMC can capitalize on current technology to quickly replace aging equipment while freeing funding to invest in a robust R&D effort, effectively creating a bridging strategy that maintains its current utility as a forward-deployed force while preparing it for the future.
Furthermore, the decision to purchase a MPC-type vehicle and leverage modern ship-to-shore connectors is an effective recognition of the evolving threat and operational environments.
My opinion? Heritage is as wrong as two left feet. If anything a wait and see position should be adopted.
The current Commandant fiddled, was indecisive, and generally absent on this issue and now with 6 months left on his tenure we're suppose to get excited and go forward at 900 miles per hour to implement his plan?
I don't fucking think so.
Additionally, I'm not forgetting about Dakota Woods. Personally I like the guy (met him once, but since I'm unremarkable I'm sure he doesn't know me from Adam) but I also know that his idea of a "Commando Corps" was the first building block of Expeditionary Force 21 that we're seeing pushed by the current cabal at HQMC.
We've waited more than 4 years for HQMC to move on the AAV replacement. Waiting 6 more months for a proper Commandant to make a decision on the matter won't hurt us.
I dont know or care about the Heritage Foundation, I am not American. I am interested in following the debate around amphibious assault in the face of opposition / anti-access technologies.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the wheeled MPC / "suitable connector" so wrong in your eyes Sol ? Be it the LCAC mk 2 (LCAC-100 SSC) , something like the French L-Cat or the British PACSCAT technology demonstrator, or even the LCU-F, what is wrong with getting to the shore line quick, getting over the beach (if using LCAC) and doing operational maneuver inland with an a wheeled MPC ?
What would you prefer to see instead ?
Jed ALL GOOD questions! The day of the "assault swimmer" is over, time has come to find a way to land Marine tactical vehicles ashore which are MEANT to operate on land. Stop thinking about WW2 disasters and figure out how to get ashore tomorrow. Technology has changed things a lot.
ReplyDeleteWhiile I do see a need for SOME fully amphibious landing craft, do all Marine vehicles need and SSC? IF so where you going to park them on too few warships?
BTW Whether it is the water spray from an EFV or the huge profile and heat signature from an LCAC/SSC, most landing craft have some problems with being targeted. The idea that swimmers will avoid targeting is naive. Need to have a fast landing craft that is affordable in quantity.