A project we should kill. Mobile Landing Platform.

Name one project that we can afford to delay or kill.

Yeah that's right I'm saying that we can afford to delay or kill the MLP.

The MLP is the result of happy thinking and fat budgets.  Those days have definitely passed.  Can you honestly tell me that the sea base, as the Marine Corp envisioned it, is an absolute necessity to the US way of war? 

It isn't and since it isn't essential it should be done away with. Quite honestly the money would be better used to purchase more LCACs or even other really needed ships.  As for getting vehiclesashore in areas with limited port facilities...check out the pic below.

2nd Commando Regiment Counter-Terrorism Exercise

India Battery EFSS live-fire in Kuwait

Know your enemy. ZBD05 Amphibious Vehicle.

Pics are from Air Power Australia.  Note.  We can talk all we want but they have the best info on Chinese weapon systems with the added bonus of not having ugly ass watermarks all over the photos.  Go to their website for more info on this and other threat weapons.

 Army Recognition has this vehicle as having a top waterspeed of 45km.  I seriously doubt it and I've never seen any pics of it planing.

I also wonder how many troops it can carry with the turret placed directly over the troop compartment.  But on a sidenote.  I once laughed at the thought of the Chinese attempting to duplicate USMC capabilities. 

They're still not there.

But on a local level.

If they concentrate on say a particular island or island chain...They have the ability to "look" like US Marines in the assault.  Whats probably more disturbing is that the Chinese are using this vehicle as a building block to something more advanced, which will mean increasing combat capability in the future.

Know your enemy. Chinese amphibious landing op.

Lockheed Martin. WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION?

Geez LM.  Are you guys crazy?  Do you have a pain fetish?  Do you like getting kicked in the nuts over and over?  In short what is your major malfunction?

WTF am I talking about?  Check out this interview with the den of evil...but as usual a tidbit.

It was hardly surprising when Lockheed Martin announced this spring that Chris Kubasik would succeed Robert J. Stevens as CEO at the start of 2013. The world's largest defense contractor had telegraphed the move two years ago, when Stevens relinquished the title of president to Kubasik, who was once a partner at accounting giant Ernst & Young and joined the company in 1999.
But he will take the top job under less than ideal circumstances: next January also happens to be when $500 billion in automatic cuts in U.S. defense spending could begin taking place under a legislative process known as “sequestration.” Lockheed Martin has warned that if Congress does not avert the cuts, it will be forced to lay off 10,000 employees, or 8% of its workforce. The company already has reduced its staff, including senior management, during the past two years as it seeks to get ahead of leaner Pentagon budgets. Kubasik met with AW&ST Editor-in-Chief Anthony L. Velocci, Jr. and Managing Editor Joseph C. Anselmo at Lockheed Martin's headquarters in Bethesda, Md., to discuss his plans to maintain the company's strong profit margins, what he is telling its 29,000 suppliers, and his close oversight of the over-budget F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

Thats the beginning of the interview.

Does that sound like something thats even approaching fluffy interview territory?  Does that not sound like the beginning of the French Inquisition?

Why the brain trust at LM continues to put themselves through the Aviation Week meatgrinder is beyond me but the coverage of that program by AW has tainted the entire defense industry.

Companies are more guarded than ever about their projects.

The military is alot less forthcoming about issues with their projects.

A wall of silence is falling into place and it all started with the coverage of the F-35, extended to the FCS and even nudged the EFV.  Careers were made by destroying programs but the ramifications that came with that reporting (including the slaps on the back and the rounds of drinks) has led us to a dark place.

Thanks guys....and LM...get your balls back...and I'm not talking about the kind you play sports with.

Another word on why we need fewer carriers.

Hate to keep beating this dead horse but can you all tell me something?

When a crisis breaks out now why do we have to send three or four carriers to the scene and disrupt our rotation schedule?

Its because our carriers are understaffed when it comes to the number of planes that they carry.  A NIMITZ class carrier can hold more than 100 airplanes!  We send them out with 50 or 60.

If those same aircraft carriers were fully staffed then one carrier would be doing the job of two.  You would have less to send to various trouble spots but when trouble broke out, more than likely one would be enough!  You want to talk about surge rates?  Get the Carrier Wing back up to full strength and watch what happens.  You want shock and awe from the sea?  Let the enemy know that over 100 strike fighters on one carrier is sitting off his coast with double the number of escorts equipped with cruise missiles because we're able to get a fully equipped battle group together.

Fewer carriers does not mean less firepower.  If executed properly it can increase throw weight.

Feeding the Beast

A U.S. Marine Corps M1A1 Abrams tank finishes refueling at Combat Outpost Shir Ghazi, Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 27. The M1A1 Abrams is the main battle tank in use by the U.S. Marine Corps.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Samuel J. Nieves)