EFV replacement...another view.

DOD Buzz has a different take on the EFV replacement program that has to looked at...

In an ideal world, then, the Marines would be able to take the things they know worked well about the EFV, including its weapons, for example, or engine and other components, and graft them onto a new, more reliable swimming hull. But that goal of reliability may mean the new vehicle doesn’t have the transforming bow ramp that the EFV had, and as such may not be able to skim over the water at its same high speeds.
What’ll be interesting is whether the Navy and Marines update their amphibious doctrines to make room for their new vehicle, or whether they’ll keep the same assumptions and try to somehow get a cheaper EFV Lite. The Navy and Marines believe that in tomorrow’s amphibious operations, the proliferation of guided anti-ship missiles will make it too dangerous for Navy assault ships to stand very close to the coast. So the Marines needed the high-speed EFV to get to shore quickly on the assumption the fleet would take station over the horizon, far away from the beach.

What has me spinning is that I thought the discussions were over.  That the threshold had been breached and that Navy ships would move closer to the beach.

That one requirement will make or break the EFV replacement.  This definitely bears watching.

USMC Sea Basing Docs.

The USMC Sea Basing Site is back up...but unfortunately its been scaled back to obscene proportions.  What drove this is beyond me but they did put up 3 new documents.  A Why, How and What in regards to the Sea Base.

What is Seabasing

Why We Seabase

How We Seabase

The beauty of the Sea Base is that it codifies the turn toward the Pacific and away from Europe/Middle East.  The bad thing about the Sea Base is that its still being promoted to allies that bring nothing to the table and will allow those same 'allies' to continue to sit on the sidelines with token forces...in this instance Naval Forces...while the US and its real partners will be engaging in real work---be it humanitarian assistance (Remember the Japanese Nuclear Crisis?  Who didn't you see there?  Many European countries!) to peace keeping and of course war.

UPDATE: 
USMC Seabasing Website.

Mid Rats.

Want to hear what military bloggers have to say about the mess that is NATO?  Listen to Blog Talk radio.

UPDATE:

What a disappointment!  Little talk about NATO...and when it was covered the 'guest' sounded like an apologist for Russia.

When does the US ever get someone to ever speak up for our own interests?  This 'guest' also talked in glowing terms about NATO and stated that they need to aim for small wars!  If Libya isn't a small war then what the fuck is!

Even more of a kick in the nuts is the fact that the hosts didn't sufficiently challenge this guys assertions.  To be honest I felt like I was listening to a college lecture.  No debate, just opinion.  And liberal opinion at that.

What a complete 180 degree difference from the hosts writing. 

Never again will I invest an hour listening.  Never again.

The US SecDef---and Bloggers telling Europe an uwelcome truth.

As usual the Euros (yes I know you consider it money on the other side of the Atlantic--I'm using it as a collective nickname for the pacifist set) over at Think Defense are blaming everyone and there mother for the lack of European 'guts' when it comes to fighting a 9th rate power like Libya and coming up short.

In a nut shell.  Europe needs to man the fuck up.

Well, its just not me saying this...others are too...of course they're alot more diplomatic but the results are the same.  

European Defense is an oxymoron. 

First up... CDR Salamander's Website...

We have been too polite for too long.

Read the whole thing----please read the whole thing and follow his links.  He makes the argument much better than I ever could. 

And then this from DOD Buzz...

The defense secretary was even harsher in his critique of NATO’s command of the Libya operation. After an initial bombing campaign run by the Americans, the alliance took over the air war and Mr. Gates warned that NATO may not be up to the task.

“The mightiest military alliance in history is only eleven weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” Mr. Gates said.

While the Libya war was unanimously endorsed by NATO nations, less than half are participating, and less than a third are carrying out strike missions.

“Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t,” Mr. Gates said. “The military capabilities simply aren’t there.”

NATO is a lost cause.  Its another of the many money pits that's draining the US treasury.  It's beyond time we put that old war horse out of its misery.

Assault Breacher Vehicle. Perfect except for one thing.

Above you see the Assault Breacher Vehicle. Perfect except for one thing. One pretty big thing I would imagine if I were a Combat Engineer. What is it you ask? For the answer lets look at what came before. The M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle (CEV) had a 165mm Assault Gun designed to knock out enemy fortifications. The ABV doesn't have that. Perhaps it isn't as important these days due to precision artillery, precision air strikes and guided anti-tank missiles that can be used in the bunker busting role. I'm not sure of the rationale for not including an assault gun on the ABV but it would be nice if it could be explained.

SEAL/SWCC Training.

Got this vid from their FaceBook page.




Navy SEAL Qualification Training [SQT] from Navy SEALs on Vimeo.

David's got awesome pics...check him out.

Plus he's in Southern Europe...they still like America down there and in the former Soviet States, so you won't have to read America bashing on his site!

Marine Corps Mechanized History Sites.

Marine Corps Mechanized Museum

Amtrac.Org

Both sites can give a quick over view of Marine Corps Vehicles through out the years.  I'm currently looking for the official history (the Marine Corps is usually very good about such things) of Marine Corps AAVs, Tanks, Artillery and other mechanized units.

A very brief history of Marine direct fire systems.

LVT(A)1

LVT(A)4/5

 LVTH6

 M4 Sherman

M103

LVTPX-12* Note I found this photo on the internet but am having trouble finding information.  The issue lies in its designation.  When the Marine Corps was developing an LVTP-5 replacement, it came up with two different sized vehicles in its evaluation phase.  One was a larger (some would say full sized APC) and the other is pictured here...more of an M-113 sized purpose built amphibian.  From what I've read they both fell under the LVTPX-12 designation but history only records information on the victory...the vehicle that would eventually become the AAV.  No worries, I'm still looking for more information.  See the update below.

The rest of the history everyone already knows.  The M-60 MBT, the LVTP-7/AAV and the M1 Abrams MBT.  What I wanted to show in this brief over view is the startling fact that the Marine Corps once insisted on Direct Fires to be amphibious.  Even if that requirement no longer applies, then certainly new constraints are appropriate.  Weight, logistics tail...being where the Infantry needs it, when the Infantry needs it.

These are things that the current MBT just can't do.

How do we know this?  Quite simply by the way that these vehicles are being utilized in Afghanistan.  They're not working with and protecting the Infantry...the guarding MSRs.  A properly equipped MRAP can do that ---mount the proper sensors, put a few designated Marksmen on it and you have your guard.

We need INFANTRY SUPPORT VEHICLES...not MBTs.  More to come.

UPDATE:
Got this from BB1984.

It's off topic but I believe the last pic you have is actually of the LVTHX4, an armed development of the earlier M59 based LVTPX2, so yes roughly the size of an M113. There was also a twin 40mm armed AA version that was sort of in between the two called the LVTAAX2. As the designations suggest, these were all developed before the LVTP5.

About the only reference I have seen for the LVTPX-12 says it was the designation given to LVTP-7 prototypes delivered in '67-'68 before the production run started in '70.

Just FYI, FMC did propose an AAV version of the M113 called the LVT(X). It looked like a smaller LVTP-7, carrying 13 troops, and had a fire support variant with a turreted low pressure 90mm gun and troop carrying cut to 6 to make room for the turret and ammunition. The Italian San Marco brigade also deploys a modified M113, which again looks like a mini-LVTP-7, for amphibious work.

I stand corrected.  This does bring up another point though.  Our armor history is being lost.  Alot of the sources for this type of material are withering away.  FAS and others are becoming pay sites...the only hope is that the US Army Armor Center and Marine Corps History stay in the fight to preserve our military history.

A day without Heavy Armor. Could the MEU survive???

Just a heads up.

Later today I'm going to expand on a discussion that me and B. Smitty have been having on heavy armor and the Marine Corps.

B. Smitty is a heavy armor advocate and I'm just not so sure.

Want to know what Infantry...what USMC Infantry fears (we're talking conventional warfare...not an insurgency)?  Its not tanks...modern Infantry can handle tanks...what modern infantry fears is artillery fire.

With that in mind I penned an article stating that the BAE CV90120 should be the Marines next MBT.

But barring that a few other items come to mind....if we can't get the CV90120, then how about the turret from the Stryker MGS mounted to a Marine Corps vehicle...say the MPC or even the AAV?

If that proves a non-starter then perhaps its time to make a Marine Corps Aviation, secondary mission, a primary one...anti-armor support...AH-1Z's and UH-1Y's can handle the work...if they're swamped then the AV-8B and future F-35 along with F/A-18's can mix it up here too...

And last but certainly not least, Marine artillery could help fill the gaps.  But the point is this...what we need worry about is not tank on tank warfare but direct fire support for the Infantry.  My contention remains that the M1 is just too heavy to provide that support in the MEU and larger units as we're currently comprised.

Give the mission (if its ever required) to an Army detachment assigned to the Marines and find a smaller lighter vehicle to get it done.

Gates..the Ugly American and Europe.

I originally posted my thoughts on this subject.  No need.  And this is purely for American readers.  Want to know how Europeans feel about you?


About your spending for their defense?


About the expense of basing units on their soil to defend their interests?


Read ....


Think Defense
Especially the comments...and...

Defense and Freedom 

Long story short.  This marriage is dead.  Leave Europe to their own devices.  The UK, and the rest of them.  Lets see how they do in their next war.  The bastards will be begging for help.  Personally, I'm tired of the America bashing.

GRAPHIC! DO NOT WATCH IF YOU ARE EASILY DISTURBED. Pakistani Police kill a young man for stealing a cell phone.

And these barbarians are suppose to be our ally?  I don't think anything in the Middle East is worth our association with them...not even oil.  Barbarism.