Corps wants amphibious tractor, not a ‘Cadillac’

Corps wants amphibious tractor, not a ‘Cadillac’

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos didn’t mince words describing his commitment to the Amphibious Combat Vehicle and delivering the Corps a new amphibious tractor when speaking with reporters at the Pentagon Thursday.

“We need an amphibious tractor, period,” Amos said.

The Marine Corps four-star expects his acquisition team to finish the requirements for the ACV this fall and potentially submit a request for proposals to the defense industry. Amos read over the completed Analysis of Alternatives in June and remains optimistic the Corps will get its tractor. He received additional briefs on the ACV this week.


“We’re going to get one opportunity to do this right,” Amos said. “I want to make sure when we go to Congress with the requirement that Congress looks at it and says it makes complete sense to me and I fully support it. I feel like we are right where we need to be.”

Amos is understandably feeling pressure to deliver the Corps a new amphibious tractor. Their last attempt, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, was notably canceled by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates as requirements spiraled and questions arose about just how far a Marine squad could travel from ship to shore.

The Marine Corps has its top scientists and engineers evaluating the ACV’s requirement’s down in Woodbridge, Va., and making decisions on cost tradeoffs to keep the tractor affordable, Amos said. A major issue remains the distance the tractor will have to travel ship to shore and whether it can get up on plane and travel over the waves.

If the transport doesn’t reach the necessary planing speed, then the Marines aboard must endure the choppy surf and the slow pace will make them a fatter target. However, with the additional speed comes a higher price tag.

“[The scientists] have been getting into the physics of fluid dynamics. How fast a vehicle can go before you have to have a planing vehicle. How big a motor you have to have. What’s the cost tradeoffs. They’ve been working on that for a little over a year-and-a-half,” Amos said.

Following the completion of the AOA, Amos said he wants his acquisition team to work with the engineers and re-evaluate the requirements one last time to make sure the requirements are “locked in concrete.”

He made sure to not make the same mistakes the Corps made with the EFV. Amos emphasized that the Corps is not interested in building a luxury tractor, he wants a fighting vehicle that can deliver a squad of Marines ashore for amphibious assaults.

“This is not a Cadillac Escalade we’re trying to build here,” Amos said. “This is a fighting vehicle that will come ship to shore and go in with likely a squad of Marines. We are trying to make sure we are not building something that ends up with capabilities that we don’t need or can’t afford.”

Join the Conversation

One other major requirement that the article doesn’t mention that hurt the EFV program — Operational Maneuver From The Sea. That’s the doctrinal term the Corps operates under now that requires their forces to go from the ship straight to the objective, not the shore. The AAV-7 was built to get to the shore and drop everyone off to build a beach head before attacking further inland. Under OMFTS, the EFV needed to deploy from the ship near the horizon, high-speed plane to shore, fight its way across the beach, then immediately keep driving inland and behave like an IFV.

Good Afternoon Folks,

tmb2 hits the problem square on the head. The Marines tactical amphibious doctrine involves establishing a beach head. Securing and fortifying it the move inland. The Army’s amphibious doctrine (test the have one) call for the invasion to move inland from the beach and support and supply will come in for at sea stagger platforms and move over the beach. No build up on the beach.

Here is where the problems lay. Do we need two Army’s. The Marines doctrine with exceptions like Tarawa served them OK in the Central Pacific in WW II. McArthur was much more successful in amphibious assaults with the Army doctrine and the last major amphibious invasion Inchon in 1950 was conducted by Army doctrine and was successful.

The only time the Army attempted Marine doctrine was at Anzio and we all know what happened there.

The hybrid AAV/ACV is just not workable. The vehicle must be made large enough and light enough to float, that dictates aluminum or a light composite material. An ACV has to have enough armor to withstand assault from RPG’s. We all saw in Iraq when the 3/25 Marines took the AAV-7 to Iraq.

The Marines problem is that their basic amphibious unit is the battalion size MEG that has limited resources to support an amphibious assault. The hybrid EFV seemed to be an ideal answer. Of course the only problem, besides its $21–22 million per unity price tag and manufacturer incompetence was that the all aluminum vehicle was PRG bait.

What it appears is what the Marines news is a n amphibious taxi to bet the assault units ashore, the bring in the LAV-25’s and M1A2’s and the M-199’s that are carried with the MEG and get their butts off the beach.

Oh wait a moment that Army doctrine.

The leads us back to the same old question, why do we need the Marines amphibious capabilities?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

The Marine advantage is that the MEG can float offshore and at preset staging areas in trouble spots. Just as you can park a carrier offshore without having to make deals with other countries to use airfields, the same is true with a Marine force in the battlegroup. There is a flexibility there that I believe is crucial to foreign policy.

Trying to get comments to publish

The Marine advantage is that they can float offshore and at preset staging areas in trouble spots. Just as you can park a carrier offshore without having to make deals with other countries to use airfields, the same is true with a Marine force in the battlegroup. There is a flexibility there that I believe is crucial to foreign policy.

My apologies for the double post

First its an MEU not a MEG. Second the Commandant covered the issue when he talked about the distance from the ship to shore being an issue. The further out the greater the need for water speed. Last Skinner is smoking crack. THE US ARMY IS LOOKING FOR A WAY TO BE RELEVANT IN THE PACIFIC. THE MARINE CORPS DOES NOT HAVE THAT PROBLEM. That’s why we fucking need the Marine’s amphibious capability.

EFV was a disaster. Overall I dont see AAV-7 going away soon. More wishful thinking from the Pentagon.

Where is the defense mechanism,rockets, missiles canons or cwis? It look vulnerable …

LOL, the Army doesn’t have to “look” to be relevant in the Pacific. It already has more combat power there.

The Army and Marines used the same playbook in their amphibious ops in WWII and Korea. Each operation was just executed by different commanders and staffs with varying degrees of success. There hasn’t been an Army doctrinal manual on amphibious operations since the early 1960s. FM 3–0 dated 2001 mentions the Army doing amphibious operations, but says “in conjunction with the Navy and other services.” It also says “The Army specializes in parachute assault and air assault. The Marine Corps specializes in amphibious assault” The only Army manual to talk about amphibious operations in detail is ATTP 4–15 Army Water Transport Operations and 3 of the 4 core competencies listed are logistical in nature. The 4th says they can be used as a mother ship for special operations infiltration. The Marines are the only service with field manuals for attacking and seizing a beach from the sea.

The basic Marine unit afloat is the Marine Expeditionary Unit. The MEU is a battalion sized landing force with logistics and and aviation element. A Marine Expeditionary Brigade is based around a regiment with commensurate increases in logistics and air support. A Marine Expeditionary Force is built around a division. There is no such thing as a MEG. We need the Marines because the Army doesn’t have an amphibious assault capability — it has a bunch of logistical landing craft in the Army Reserve. The Marines have the ships and aircraft to make a forced entry.

Relevancy isn’t the problem for the Army in the Pacific. They’ve just been a little busy in the CENTCOM AOR for the last few years. There are five Stryker brigades, an airborne brigade, and an infantry brigade all within an hours drive of the Pacific Ocean (when they’re not in Afghanistan). Despite the war, the Army still conducts annual exercises in South Korea, Thailand, and has been conducting training and counter-terrorism operations in the Phillipines. III MEF never got involved in OIF/OEF and they’ve been able to keep doing their Pacific operations as well.

It’s a lot of money to maintain an ability we haven’t used in 2/3 of a century. I know the ‘just in case’ crowd and glory days types will say it is essential to the USMC and US foreign policy. The problem is so are a lot of other things and the pie is shrinking. Costs certainly haven’t demonstrated they are headed south on the F35. The JLTV is an unknown. The MPC has yet to be selected. Lots of questions and less and less money. Some form of opposed landing capability is needed but I don’t see the 2 BDEs worth that was envisioned with the EFV being financially feasible for the corps.

How mobile are US/Allied ground forces in the Pacific and can potential enemies counter that mobility?

The answer is yes, the are mobile, but quite limited. And yes, potential enemies can easily counter that mobility.

Once upon a time, Bataan and Singapore were thought impregnable.

It would be quite foolish to think any allied ground forces in the Pacific cannot suffer the same fate today.

I’m sorry if I’m not only thinking tactially, but I’m thinking logisitically.

How do they move around?

How long can they operate isolated?

We should stop saying we’re going eventually face the million man PLA then…

This is a HUGE waste of money. As is most large military equipment development systems: Why do all 4 services need different aircraft?? Hueys and 60s, Cobras and Apaches, 53s and 47s? Kiowas and xxx? How about re-freshing the current AAV not developing a whole new one with support and schools. That is xxx billions of dollars. It is funny because we all end up in the same place. Take existing platforms and adapt folding rotors for sea deployment. Why the hell do we all have different cammies?? The Army and Marines have different patterns.. WHY? In the age of frivolous spending we are spending on the dumbest shit. We have been in combat in desert theaters. Our current fleet of ship to shore vehicles will do just fine. Give them an update, add a few knots to the speed. If we ever invade Iran, we will Shock and Awe them with quadruple what we did to Iraq before conventional boots on the ground. PTSD, suicide briefs etc, how about pay us more money and get a better product. We are an amphibious force but 90 percent of the Marine Corps cant even swim!!!!!!!!

The Army flies and ships its personnel and equipment the same way it does to any other place on earth.

Resupplying Marine or Army units in the Pacific is much easier than resupplying our forces in Afghanistan. The entire Pacific isn’t going to become hostile to us overnight. There’s only one nation in the Pacific with the ability to prevent us from resupplying our forces and if they’re in it, then we’re going to throw everything we have at them.

It seems to me Army Airborne Brigades and Marine Expeditionary Brigades have a lot in common. Both are are specialized units which are pale reminders of their glory days in WWII. I doubt there will be any seriously opposed parachute or amphibious operations in the future. Air defense and anti-ship weaponry have advanced to the point that the cost of large airborne amphibious operations against a relatively sophisticated enemy is likely unbearable. Raids and surprise attacks against lightly defended objectives will occur. Marine and Airborne units are Infantry. They can deploy quickly but have limited ability to win against heavy opposition unless reinforced. Over the horizon amphibious operations are no more feasible than Airborne operations against determined opposition. I appreciate the desire for an upgraded version of the AAV-7 but not a very expensive over the horizon landing craft. In addition, I question the value of the Marine version of the F-35. I don’t see why an upgraded Harrier isn’t acceptable for ground support. I don’t see a need for a next generation tank or armored personnel carrier either.

The Army’s mobility can be easily countered? Uh and the Marines can’t? Is the Navy or Air Force not going to support the Army?

It’s this kind of one dimensional thinking about Marine invulnerability and supremacy that makes it so easy (and fun) to poke huge holes in your argument.

Customer — buy this car is useless it has no engine.
Bill Crook — but if reduce the cost by taking off the wheels too its a great buy !

Its hilarious how low rent the shilling gets somethimes

Beause waste IS the objective.

besides everything that TMB said how long does ANYONE operate isolated. Can the Marines turn coconuts into JP8? If the Marines have the Navy offshore they aren’t “isolated”.

“It’s this kind of one dimensional thinking about Marine invulnerability and supremacy that makes it so easy (and fun) to poke huge holes in your argument.” x2

Agreed, but that also means dumping the doctrine that went along with the hydroplane.

Point of clarification — what the Army calls a brigade and what the Marines call a brigade are two different things.

An Army brigade is about 3500 Soldiers with two battalions of infantry, a recon battalion, a battalion of artillery, and a support battalion all led by a Colonel. A Marine Expeditionary Brigade can be between 10,000 to 16,000 Marines with 3 battalions of infantry reinforced by division level recon and engineer units, one or two battalions of artillery, two to three logistics battalions, a tank company, and an air group consisting of nearly 100 fixed and rotary wing aircraft all commanded by a brigadier general. A MEB’s structure isn’t fixed and can be expanded or shrunk to fit the mission.

William — FINALLY some common sense!

I think you have a point about the commonality of Airborne Bde’s & Marine Expeditionary bde’s when it comes to utility as a large force. I disagree in your position of their overall utility. Desert Storm and OIF showed they bring something special to the battlefield. You know sometimes a force doesn’t even have to be used to have utility? Look at our land based missile capability.

Something you didn’t compare was the relative cost of equipping these units including deployment platforms. Marine Bde’s are MUCH more expensive and we have THREE Marine Divisions compared to One Airborne Division. The Marines in effect are a second Army. Heck, by size alone they rank between #8–9 in the size of armies in the world one or two behind the US Army. They are much more than an expeditionary force with amphibious warfare as their primary means of insertion.

I also believethe AAVP7 is on its last legs. They need a replacement though I don’t buy the planing requirement coupled with an IFV. Tech isn’t there yet and the cost is prohibitive.

Bataan and Singapore in WW2 had passive defences.

The army doesnt do massed parachute drops anymore.

Doesn’t and haven’t had a need to are completely different things. 6000 paratroopers were dropped in 1989 in Panama and almost 1000 were dropped in Iraq in 2003. The 82nd had a brigade as theater reserve during the invasion with plans to drop two battalions into the Baghdad Airport to seize it. They were reassigned as supply line security and the jump was considered unnecessary.

great points tmb

How precisely is any US military service easily countered by any adversary? There are a lot of things we need to improve on, but l seriously doubt any military staff anywhere on planet Earth considers taking the US military head on ‘easy’.

Counting the Ranger Regiment, I don’t think even 4000 troops jumped into Panama,

You also forgot Haiti in ’94. 1st Bde, 82d Abn, was in the air. and 3rd Bde was loaded on aircraft, waiting to take off.

I got those figure from globalsecurity​.org. They listed 1300 soldiers in the 75th task force, and over 4000 troops between two 82nd brigades. I honestly couldn’t say if they all jumped, but even if it was only half that number that’s still a sizable force.

Forgot about the guys that got turned around en route to Haiti.

Well, I don’t know about GlobalSecurity​.org, but, I was there. Only one brigade and the division HQ from the 82d took part in “Just Cause”. The 82d did have have 1st Bde, 7th ID attached, so that may be where they got the “over 4000″ number from, but, none of of the 7th ID folks jumped, of course. There were 24 pax chalks (C-141) out of Pope, and they averaged around 110 troops per A/C. 3/504 was already staged at Ft. Sherman, and attached to 7th ID.

The AAAV’s can deploy all fine and dandy but the light weight required of a boat doesn’t work well for combat itself. AAAV’s suffered terribly in occupation duty, and it’s unlikely to be easier against an active opponent.

There’s a reason we drop amphibious capability from the LAV-25 and the Bradley: weight for armor creeps up and knocks that capability out. To compensate, EFV went with the planing requirement which may be responsible for its high costs.

If the Marines want to push a force to the beach quickly, it may as well be a low-draft boat. Dismount in the surf and fight it out. I’m not sure if a thin-skinned AAAV is going to help much on a contested beach anyways. If the Marines want to do second land army (hence the tanks), they need a proper IFV, for much the same reasons that the Army ditched the M-113 and went with the Bradley/Abrams combo.

Back in the late 70’s early 80’s I was a Maintenance Officer for 78 AAV’s that made a landing in Denmark. It was a nasty Day with 23 Ft sea swells. All the onlookers on the beach left the beach because that were sure the Marine’s couldn’t land the Amphib group. General Gray, The RLT Commander gave the order,“Land my landing Forces”. It was a site to see and one hell of a ride. Three clicks out in a 23 foot sea, you couldn’t even see the beach. This was a high speed landing that was a new test for the trac’s. Loved it.

Where’s South Korea?

Is the DMZ considered “passive?”

Where’s Thailand?

Too far to make a real difference?

Again, can a swarm of air transports face a swarm of Mig 21’s and survive?

Can an active CAP destroy such things?

Which allied airfields exist in ASIA?

What is the RANGE of aircraft occupying that airfield?

Can they easily be CRATERED?

How long would it take to repair?

The enemy does not have to make the entire region hostile.

They simply have to create the same situation as in WWII.

They hit the majority of assets that make us MOBILE, then isolate and siege the remaining assets.

You can then claim said assets, island hop and expand, then fortify your positions before the enemy returns.

In a modern battlefield, how damaging would such a scenario be?

Perhaps that’s too hard of a strategy learning from WWII.

Absolutely true, anyone operating isolated does not fare well.

But what is easier to destroy?

An air transport, or a fleet of ships?

Apparently the helos/lcacs aren’t needed either.

what ever happened to EFV that the Marines wanted

Again with “the second army.”

If you don’t like it, then don’t create a demand where we need IA from every BLUE service that ever served in that position, the “National Guard” and reservists serving overseas, A DEMAND FOR PMCs, and every criminal/gangmember/militia extremist that was recruited into the army during the last 10 years.

You’re not a regular here are ya?

The Army and the Marines both use air to deploy bodies. They also both use ships. There’s at least eight Army ro-ro ships in the Pacific alone along with a bunch of others. Is the Navy not going to protect those?

“It’s this kind of one dimensional thinking about Marine invulnerability and supremacy that makes it so easy (and fun) to poke huge holes in your argument.” x3

Doesn’t this also apply to every beachhead?

“It’s this kind of one dimensional thinking about Marine invulnerability and supremacy that makes it so easy (and fun) to poke huge holes in your argument.” x4

The “second Army” bother you? Good! :)

Joking aside don’t know who you think is creating the “demand”. The size of the Corps is set in law (the ONLY branch that has that luxury). The Army on the other hand has to grow or shrink depending on the need and the budget.

BTW, as you malign soldiers you might want to check the headlines. The Corps unfortunately has it’s share of miscreants. Again, the irony of someone that has never worn the uniform defaming a branch doesn’t escape me.

Why would we put a bunch of transports in the air where Migs could have a reasonable shot at them? If we had to do that, we have this group of guys we call fighter pilots that we would call on to hang out with those transports.

We have allied airfields in Alaska, Guam, Japan, Okinawa, Thailand, Philippines, Australia, and for anywhere that those airfields can’t reach, we have 12 aircraft carriers.

Range varies with aircraft type and whether or not we use tankers.

Any airfield can easily be cratered.

China is the only power in the Pacific that could counter our air/naval forces. It’s a known threat.

You keep asking a bunch of easily answerable and pointless questions. What’s your point to this entire discussion? Are you offering up some kind of analysis or solution or are you going to keep pointing out to us that if a land force was isolated it would go hungry? You might as well be arguing that gravity makes things fall. We’re aware of it.

Just below North Korea.

The DMZ is minefields, radars, observation points, and lightly defended outposts.

Just a little ways west of Vietnam.

A real difference in what?

If you want to contribute more than rhetorical questions, feel free to.

Who is this “they” you keep referring to in WWII? WE took out the Japanese Navy’s transport fleet and aircraft carriers. WE isolated islands to starve them out and cut them off from reinforcements before seizing them and moving onto the next set of islands. In the opening days of the war, the Japanese made brute-force attacks against the Philippines and Guam to take them. There were no sieges. We lost them because they were unprepared for invasions and we didn’t have a ready surface fleet nor reinforcements to come to their aid.

No doubt. If you want to speak to specific capabilities you feel China has to make movement of US forces in the Pacific too difficult then by all means please speak to specifics but stop already with the devil’s advocate questions void of details.

Neither, in millions of square miles of ocean.

It was canceled by Defense Sec. Robert gates.

With all due respect, I think you’ve just reiterated Skinner’s point: a beach hasn’t been taken by a Marine force since WWII unless during an Xcise. So why keep paying for that capability when the need (in the forceable future) doesn’t exist?
We can’t afford that kind of stuff anymore and my shop sure could use a bit of that money.

The Marines need a new amphtrack. Their amphibious role is needed but must be kept in perspective. Their primary role doctrinally to seize and defend forward bases for the navy. All else is a secondary consideration. I doubt it is technically possible to design and build a AAV that can function both as an amphtrack and APC, much less as an IFV. Even if it is possible, the cost would probably be prohibitive.

I think you nailed it. don’t know why someone gave you a neg?

Inchon, numerous NEOs, Grenada, Somalia (and that’s not all of them) would counter you’re point. It’s an essential tool in our arsenal and if you aren’t getting enough money you might want to hit up your parent branch. Seems they have an affinity for fighters?

I would point out that I think he was talking about opposed landings. Inchon is an appropriate example but that was the last one. I don’t think Inchon even used a force the size the corps wants to maintain though. The main reason is we have simply found better ways to fight. We wouldn’t have done D day and Iwo Jim the same way if we had Chinooks, Blackhawks and Ospreys.

We will always need to maintain the ability to move troops and equipment ashore in an unimproved setting. The question is how much ability do we need to maintain for a beach assault. I can’t imagine anyone putting in place the kind of fixed defenses necessary to oppose a beach assault and set themselves up to be annihilated by PGMs. Some capability needs to be maintained for contingencies, but 2 BDEs worth like the nearly 700 EFV but envisioned l think is beyond overkill, it is wasting money that the corps could put to better use never mind the rest of DoD.

700 EFV ‘buy’.

Even as a former soldier I can appreciate the need for amphib capability.

Opposed/unopposed the same argument can be made for airborne forces.

Even if we never have another landing the capability pays off. If nothing else the enemy has to plan/defend against it (e.g. DS). We keep a nuclear inventory for very much the same reason. There are numerous contingencies a force with amphib armor transport makes sense and is more likely to be used e.g. NEOs, reinforcing allies or Army units, a serious punative raid (think Somal pirates), show of force/diplomatic committment.

Considering the Marines can float 30K marines having enough vehicles for two bdes makes sense though I’m flummoxed by maintaining three divisions (the second land army is another question for another day).

The EFV was a technical disaster — far too complicated, far too expensive, far too unreliable, way late, and not well protected. To combine an amphibious armored transport vehicle with a speed boat (perhaps someone in the general staff thought it would be fun to waterski from the ship to the shore) requires engineers to break the laws of physics.

Hence — it was a great idea if the laws of physics didn’t have to be broken (let alone the US budget).

I’m glad their going to try to write the requirements “in stone”. Perhaps this time they’ll get the winning vendor to write the cost per unit into stone as well — and give the marines the vehicle they need without breaking the bank.

cost per unit will only be proverbially set in stone if/after design is complete & successfully tested, prototypes & lrip articles have been produced, and will only be valid for the current lot in the year the govt has the $ and will contract for. in a multi year acquisition program there are huge risks involved for all parties (especially the taxpayer) and if the govt develops and executes a lousy strategy don’t hold your breath for a good outcome. this is reality and often conflicts with the bs from the marketing-types.

Total BS on the 90% can’t swim. I don’t know where you got that from but its just not true.

Maybe 90% can’t swim while wearing body armor or some other fanciful argument but in a regular swim test, you are flat out wrong. I’ve held swim call at sea with Marines and a lot more than 10% were swimming.

Actually ALL of the services have their planned strengths set into law on a yearly basis. The planned strength is part of the Defese Budget which is acutally a law passed by Congress.

Who”s afraid of an Army Amphibious landing?

The questions is though, do we fund the stuff we know we need and will use or the stuff that is nice to have, because we are entering a financial period where we can’t have both anymore.

True but not the same. Each year the budget process does determine an authorized strength for each branch. (BTW, We haven’t had a budget passed for three years). Those numbers don’t dictate how many divisions, ships, planes etc. each branch must have, how they are organized or what their roles are. Those functions are addressed in Nat’l Def Acts and in those acts no service has had it’s size set in law except for the Marines.

I always find it interesting that many who quote SecretaryNavy Forrestal’s prediction to Gen Holland Smith USMC on Iwo, ‘The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years!’ Forget he warned the Corps not to begin thinking of itself as a second Army.”

Same for Eisenhower. Many remember his warnings about the MIC but forget his charcterization of Marine efforts ref the Nat’l Def Act when he said, “being so unsure of their value to their country that they insisted on writing into the law a complete set of rules and specifications for their future operations and duties. Such freezing of detail…is silly, even vicious.”

OldRetSWO, each year Congress says the 4 services will have X number of troops, but the Corps has it in writing that it will always be 3 divisions and 3 air wings whether they have 150, 170, or 202,000 troops (they fattened up the divisions during this war). The Army gets told it will have X hundred thousand soldiers each year and must decide on its own where those troops will work.

Since the Corps will only buy 200 copies of the new Amtrac they will probably never get into the multi-year buys that the Navy got to do with the Hornets.

If China can produce the “ZTD-05 Amphibious Assault Tank” with a 105 mm main gun and the “ZBD-04: Infantry version with 30 mm gun” that can do 65 km/hr on road, 45 km/hr on water, why can’t we produce something like that?
http://​www​.armyrecognition​.com/​c​h​i​n​a​_​c​h​i​n​e​s​e​_​h​eav
http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​M​B​w​X​U​X​Z​I​ow4

And they have a lot of them.

I hope the Marines get what they want. If they want Amphibous tractor they should design it themselves, since surviving defense companies keep on trying to do more with less.

You get what YOU PAY FOR.

I don’t know if its true, but the companies are driving cost on simplist of things up too high to survive on back of the American people.

bet you a case of beer that there will be a multi fiscal year procurement with a ramp up and ramp down. u can go 0 to 60 in a car pretty fast but u cabt go 0 to 200 production in 1 year.

The Marines are like a Cavalry force designed to charge machinegun nests a waste of space.

Immediately after 911 when the President asked the marines how quickly they coud deploy to occupy terrorists camps in Afghanistan the marines said as soon as ther army had cleared the place. The President should have signed an executive order disbanding the marines on the spot.

that plan doesn’t have much of a chance of either happening or working.….

Keep in mind the ZBD-05 (not 04 or ZTD which is a tank) is much much less capable than the EFV. It also sacrifices armor protection and troop numbers. Not a whole lot of info out but only the turret is rated to stop 25mm. The capacity is a max of 8 troops and more likely 6. A Marine Infantry squad is 12 men so you need two vehicles that imposes a whole new bunch of problems that the Army suffered through with the Bradley.

Yep, the Chinese have it now (though its numbers and reliability are unknowns) and that is commendable especially in the amount of time it took them but they need to land three of these for every EFV to put the same manpower on the beach and they are relatively much more vulnerable. Let’s hope the Marines take some lessons learned from the ZBD-05 and EFV when they finalize the ACV.

I’m tracking that nobody is going to build 200 Amtracs in a year. I’m saying they’re not going to lock in a single price over a 5 year period like they do with some other weapons.

after reading up a bit on bona fide needs rule & multi year procurement, I take back my original statement. it looks like within the law there is flexibility that allows multiyear procurement contracts, which would enable lock in to a single unit cost, if they could find a willing conractor(s). whether or not they could actually have and maintain a stable design, and have the strategy approved through DoD and Congress, and survive the inevitable legal challenges, is another story. to me it seems like multi year procurement contracts violate the intent of the bona fide needs rule, meaning the taxpayer has to pony up a lot of cash up front, whereas in annual procurement contracts, taxpayer only has to pay for what the USMC can actually use in each year.

You don’t think that the 800nm distance from the Arabian Gulf to a land locked country may have influenced the actual discussion (which obviously did not happen as you articulate here)? Or where the AAV-7s supposed to drive to Afghanistan?

The Marines position as a rapid reaction force has been helped by the fact that most of the people the US has been interested in have been near a beach that could be seized. Afghanistan is the first exception in many years, which predisposes it to being an Army/Air Force game.

You’re only thinking in terms of amphibious tanks and big guns.

The EFV is meant to essentially be a speedboat with tracks that can transport a fair number of Marines. It was intended to be fast enough to plane over the water to enable very long range amphibious assaults.

Your typical amphibious vehicle will get dunked in the water and chug along very, very slowly…perhaps slowly enough to get plinked by TOW missiles (which Iran *does* have, post-Contra).

The Soviets had weaponized hovercraft for amphibious landings. Perhaps we should consider that for amphibious entry…then give the Marines Bradleys.

However, their hovercraft didn’t fit in well decks…I smell a moneytastic design opportunity.

Actually the force structure, number of divisions, air wings, carriers, etc is also set into law.

Not too knowlegeable about amphibious doctrine or equipment? The US has had Air Cushion Landing Craft deployed for over 30 years and they provide high speed transit to and from the ships to the beach. What they do NOT provide is the ability to go in the first wave or two when armor is needed along with the ability to assault right from the water and on accross the beach without stopping to offload from landing craft or boats.

I do believe the ro-ro ships require a port to unload. You cannot bring a unit which is on a ro-ro ship directly into conflict without having access to that port.
Also the Marines train extensively with the Navy, I have not seen a large army unit do this. Also, while I have not saying it has never happened but I have not seen a warship escorting an Army ro-ro ship. These ro-ro ships I think will be very vulnerable to ballistic missiles being fired at them because of this.
This support from the Navy is one of the reasons why that the Marines will not be totally isolated unlike Army units.
Taking an island is different then taking a piece of land from pretty much a landlocked country and i have not seen or heard of any large army units doing significant training in this area for a long time

That’s not what he said, stupid

Is the Navy not going to resupply the Army or escort ships destined for Army operational areas?

The Army’s supply ships include floating piers, tugs, and causeways that can interface with Military Sealift Command’s RoRo ships and offload supplies and equipment without a port.

tmb already spoke to ports. (good job)

Navy logistics ships and Ro-Ro’s travel alone in peacetime unless part of an exercise. The same goes for Army Ro-Ro’s. When there’s a threat they get escorts just like was done in DS. BTW, Navy Ro-Ros also require a port.

You guys are desperately grasping for straws to say the Navy won’t support Army ops while history is full of examples of the opposite. It’s incredibly ironic that the Marines who boast of being “combined arms” have supporters that don’t understand “joint”. Why block an Army role so Marines can specialize/focus on forced entry? Makes sense if you want to assume a second army role…

Defended beach, yeah. Use the Marines. How many defended beach landings you think we’re going to have? How many have we had in the last 50 years? How many times have we deployed the Army by sea in the same period? You’re going to find that the Army deployments DWARF the defended beach landings. There’s a lesson there.

I didn’t even mention LCACs because they’re a product of decades of the military’s experiments with hovercraft. They’re fairly well-known, Russian stuff, not-so-much.

What I said was still true. The Soviets/Russians have armed hovercraft meant to hit the beach…and maybe not mow down their enemies, but they will do better than unarmed LCACs, which are supposed to come in under the cover of air superiority, since Marine infantry and AAAVs are unlikely to be enough to secure a contested beach.

There’s the additional question of what the Marines will do at the defended beach that the army cannot. One hope it boils down to more than the AAAV’s. If it’s a matter of using standoff firepower to force entry, then that is the Navy or the Air Force doing the door kicking.

Of course, the Marines have the equipment to deploy combat units to a beach, and presumably the army does not practice loading tanks onto a LCAC and driving them off a beach to fight.

Russians do not have enough amphibs to move more than a very few of these craft and without air superiority, they are still sitting ducks for an adversary with an air force. The Navy/Marine Amphib doctrines rely heavily on close air support. First couple of waves are armored vehicles and the remainder is LCM/LCU and LCACs which come in when the initial threat is diminshed. LCACs are far from “experiments” as they have been routinely deployed for over 30 yrs now.

“product of decades of the military’s experiments with hovercraft” is not the same as suggesting the LCAC is an experiment.

“First couple of waves are armored vehicles and the remainder is LCM/LCU and LCACs which come in when the initial threat is diminshed”

The only armored vehicles that can precede landing craft are AAAV’s. And if something is still standing after you’ve destroyed your adversary from the air, is the AAAV going to handle it? Will it handle it any better than an armed hovercraft which can transport something meaningful to the beach?

One way or another, something has to clear the beach, be it air support or naval support (UAVs+missiles?). The comparison is whether or not you use AAAVs+successive waves of craft, or just throw hovercraft in with wave one, but embarking ground specialized vehicles instead of using a AAAV that has to compromise between sea performance and land survivability.

They also stuck with them on reliability and size issues too (smaller footprint on the LHD’s and LHA’s). They are probably the best recent acquisition programs when it comes to cost/benefit AND effectiveness.

I’m aware that one can carry this logic to an absurd extreme, but maintaining both the Army and the Marines provides significant advantages to our larger defense posture. Two different cultures, world views (largerly complementary, occasionally conflicting) and operational histories provide broader and deeper perspective on defense matters. The result is more robust solutions, strategies, tactics, systems and alternatives.

blight — any hovercraft we adopt has to fit inside our ships like the LCAC does.

I think you have a point about Bradleys. Once on land, the Bradley is superior in every category except for the number of troops it can carry in comparison to the AAVP7 (a shortcoming the Army has suffered through for decades).

No matter what though the Marines need a vehicle to get the grunt to the beach under armor and strong enough to establish the beach head to bring in tanks and more vehicles.

No doubt it’s a tough problem that requires a lot of balancing to equip the force appropriately.

The marines are really emblamatic of the lack of professionalism in our military — one that feels that they don’t have to win just get out with thier funding intact.

No it is not. Budgets justify spending based on force structure, training requirements, operational requirements etc. They do not set force structure. When the Army stands up/retires a bde/division/corp it isn’t congress that decided that. Budget law doesn’t say the Army will have one airborne division. I challenge you to find in law where congress said we’re only going to have one airborne division. I challenge you to go back to the Reagan years and find where congress staed the Army will create the 7th, 9th and 10th ID. It didn’t happen that way

You might as well say the Congress determines when we surge because they’ve passed supplmentals to pay for them. It’s quite clear what comes first.

As it applies to the Marines they have it set in law that 3 div and 3 air wings is the law. I challenge you to dind a national defense act that says how many units another service is going to have…

The ZBD-05 planes.

LOL for the amphibious assault ?

The Army does NOT own any Ro/Ro ships and does NOT like to fund many to be operated by MSC. IF the Army wants to use sealift ships then it needs to put money where is mouth is~
That said, there are sealift ships in FOS with MSC and more in ROS with MARAD. The latter group assumes CONUS loadoutts though.

Sealift ships can be offloaded offshore without a port. It is the whole point to JLOTS. Exercised all the time.
The Army does do large scale assualt trng with Navy.
BOTH warships and sealift ships could be vunerable to ASCM and other attacks.
Admittedly the USN is fare short on escorting any sealift convoy

You are right about the number of vehicles needed to put the same amount of troops on the beach. But the with the cost of the EFV , you can buy 6 of the ZTD-05’s or ZBD-04 or a mix of both vehicles and get DOUBLE the number of troops on the beach as compared to the EFV and more importantly have 6 times the firepower when you get there.

leesea — We’re both right…

Nine of these 19 LMSRs are dedicated to move Army assets unlike the Marine Corps Container & Ro-Ro ships which are for Marine specific use.

The following LMSRs preposition U.S. Army equipment and supplies in strategic locations around the world.

USNS Seay (T-AKR 302)
USNS Watson (T-AKR 310)
USNS Sisler (T-AKR 311)
USNS Dahl (T-AKR 312)
USNS Red Cloud (T-AKR 313)
USNS Charlton (T-AKR 314)
USNS Watkins (T-AKR 315)
USNS Pomeroy (T-AKR 316)
USNS Soderman (T-AKR 317) http://​www​.msc​.navy​.mil/​f​a​c​t​s​h​e​e​t​/​l​m​s​r​.​asp

As for the Army spending money on ships I’d remind you that the Army owns more ships than the Navy and all are targeted towards the transport mission.

Hate to have to be so specific but USMC aficianados seem to forget the Navy supports the Army also.

I can’t do it right now due to workload but in prior years when carrier strength was an issue, the number of carriers and air wings was placed into law by congress to prevent DoD from reducing it. Actually, the currently in play FY13 budget has language on surface ship strenght, specifically cruisers because the DON wanted to retire 7 Aegis cruisers and Congress does not agree.

Great! I look forward to you finding an example as complete and as expansive as the law that state the Marine Corps size in divisions and air wings as the 1952 law that addressed the Nat’l Defense Act of 1948 which also set the roles and missions of the Corps in stone. :)

I suspect you will come back with examples that address one weapon system. BIG difference.

tee –It’s ZBD-05 not ZTD-05. One’s for troops, the other is a tank. (2nd correction)

Will six ZBD-05s take up the same limited space inside a gator? Will you justify buying more Gators and the crew to man them? Six ZBD-05 requires 18 troops to operate vs. three for the doomed EFV. There went your savings.

ZBD-05s have much lighter armor.

The Chinese solution works for a nation of a billion people with Taiwan as its objective. We have different needs. We might be able to learn something from the Chinese but assuming the Chinese solution will work for us is a stretch.

When we went into Afganistan the Marine MEU went in immediatly and occupied a forward air head because no one else could.

It would be interesting to compare the number amphibious landings the Army made in the Pacific in WW2 to the number the Marines did in WW2.

The General states that they only have one chance to do this. Well we already had one chance and probley spent several billion dollars already on the AAAV. What a waste of money and time .….!

Every time there is mention of the Marine Corps people get their panties in a bunch and start railing about how there shouldn’t be one. I’m sorry my fellow Marines knocked your sister up and you’ll forever hate the Corps and bad mouth behind the anonymous nature of the internet.

Fact: Marine Corps budget is a pittance of any other branch minus the Coasties so all of this railing about how they don’t rate or how useless it is going to be is completely obsolete compared to the atrocious spending sprees other branches go on. AAV’s although primarily for sea to shore operations are more than often being used on land and because of their mission changing need to be revamped. I was riding in AAV’s in Iraq more than I was in a humvee or trucks in the infantry.

Let the Corps has their left over budget scraps. At the end of the day we are all on the same team, even if that means the smallest underfunded branch showed up and did a better job.

Taxis don’t need those, the M113 only had a 7.62 GPMG for most of it’s life, it’s the men and weapons INSIDE that are the offensive force.

Packaging might have been tighter, but a diesel V8 or V12 for on land driving the tracks with an auxilary LM500 gas turbine for the water propulsion could well have been cheaper…

They’re light tincans, little more than a Geman DUKW with tracks and a gun. The EFV was supposed to be armoure in UnObtanium to stop the USS Enterprises photon torpedos, move fast enough on water to go Back to the Future, and carry as many men as TARDIS in the deck space on a gator of a BMC Mini..

Mission Creep and unreasonable expectations of future tecnology that never lived up to the hype.

Actually they didn’t. the 10th ID was in theatre before them in Uzbekistan and was at Bagram the same day or a day after the Marines flew into Rhino (which the Rangers had raided a month earlier). The 10th ID was also in combat ops at Mazaar i sharif on or before 26 Nov.

Pride is great but they don’t trump facts. :)

You have to do the best with what you have and not with what you like to have.

War is dirty and your job is to inolate the enemy.

The problem we have is that there is too much unqualified leadership wasting our money that could be used for Defense and to equip our troops. Other nations can design their vehicles and operate at a fraction of our cost. The problem there is that there is no oversight in our contracting and there is no continuety in the procurement process.

Pathfinder22554

The General is right!!!!!!
He wants a fighting vehicle to do his mission.
THERE HAS TO BE EFFICIENCY AND FUNCTIONALITY
and not just a nice looking vehicle to carry the troops​.to combat

PATHFINDER22554

The AAV7A1 started life in the fleet in 1973 and the Corps has done a great job with trying to keep it up to date. They do it with an office of about 10 people. By contract the Army has about 8 times that many supporting LAV and other platforms.

Rick Bunn

The EFV was envisioned for a near peer environment where anti-ship missiles put the navy amphibious ships in danger should they be in line of sight of the shore. SO, the need existed to run in from over the horizon to protect amphibious ships. Physiologically, a Maine can last about an hour inside an AAV before he is to sea sick to fight. So you need to cover the distance in Sea State 3 in less then an hour. This means that you need to have a vehicle that keeps up with the M1A1 tank on land, runs at 30Kts on sea, carries a range that allows it get ashore and operate until supplies can be provided, protect its occupants. This is a TALL engineering order. Add to that the need to protect it against RPGs, IEDs, Mines.…
The US needs the Marine Corps. I’m sorry the Army cannot do it. The Marines need an ability to do force entry and then be mechanized on shore. The days of foot infantry in modern warfare ?????

Rick Bunn

Hey Itfunk2. You can’t spell and you don’t make any sense. You are emblematic of people with opinions and no clue what you are talking about. “win just get out with thier funding intact” it’s their and your grammar is 2nd grade poor English that makes no sense. If you are going to post an opinion, you should at least sound like you have a junior high school education.

Byron,
Army Amphibious is derived from Marine Corps Amphibious Doctrine. The Inchon landing was conducted under the operational control of the U.S. Navy. The Commander Amphibious Task Force was Admiral Arthur D. Struble. Were the Marines the linchpin of the Inchon landing? Without question. This is reflected by the message sent by MacArthur when the landing was successful stating”The Navy and Marines have never shone more brightly”. The same question can be asked for the XVIII Airborne Corps? We do not have the aircraft or merchant fleet) to haul them or their equipment immediately. The next thing you will say is what about the XVIII Airborne Corps. Great troops. Here is the problem. The XVIII Airborne Corps ability to land against serious opposition that includes dedicated anti air and armor is questionable at best and the regular Army has zero forced entry capability. That’s why we need the amphibious capability the Marine Corps brings to the table.
It does appear that you have a very limited experience with US Military history…

Major landings by the Army and Marines in WWII are around equal in number (as far as I remember thinking of operations in both theaters) . And in many “Marine” landings in the Pacific theater there were some Army forces involved also.

Marines are the amphibious force, period, they always have been since created for the revoltionary war. they riflemen for the Navy, they served on ships, landing parties, ship to shore, amphibious they need a decent tractor.

Hey Byron. Inchon wasn’t opposed (not to any significant extent). And it was mainly Marines doing the landing. And, how can anyone take anyone seriously when they can’t spell and have the language structure of an 8 year old. R. Willis

agree!

Actually the Army made over double the number of Marine landings in WWII. Keep in mind the Philippines alone consisted of over a dozen landings on different islands (Luzon alone involved more troops than the invasion of Africa, Italy or Southern France, yes there were two amphibious landings on France). There were comparatively very few Marine only landings in WWII. There were no marine landings in Europe or Africa.

Can’t disagree that current US amphib doctrine stems from the Marine manual just like combined arms (infantry/mech), COIN, FID/UW, Airborne and Air Assault Ops etc. all stem from the Army manuals.

Do we really need to pul out quotes about the 82nd and 101st from WWII to establish their importance to D-Day?

I would also contest the Marines ability to contest enemy armor. Until the LCAC hits the beach the AAVP is no match for any tank even from WWII. After the LCAC hits the beach the Marines are still extremely limited in anti-armor capability in comparison the the Army. The Marines have three armor BNs in the whole Corps. The Army has double that in ONE heavy division and in Desert Shield but more combat power on the ground than the Marines did before they even arrived..

BTW, much of the Marine amphibious doctrine to support sustained combat ops across the beach was written by the Army. No doubt the Marines took point on taking the beach and integrating the battle but it’s not as much a one sided approach as many think.

Agree! We need the Marine Corps for Amphib capability but three divisions worth? That’s a bit of overkill unlesss one is making the case that he Marines have to be able to do what the Army does and then you are in effect supporting the establishment of a second army.

The Army doesn’t have LAVs. The Stryker actually boasts 10 different models. The AAVP7 consists of 3 different models and some capable of carrying a MCLIC. There are 1300 AAVP7s. There are over 4000 Strykers.

The Army has 8 times the people? BS. Show me the links and count the civilians/contractors supporting the Marines if you are counting them in the Army count.

The President might have love to sign such an Executive Order (idiot) but it wouldn’t hold any legal standing in front of Congress or the Court. You might want to read up 10 USC before spouting stupid things like that.

G’wan…read up, and then come back and tell us all how idiotic a statement that was.

Because WAR is a BUSINESS you numbskull. What do you think keeps those huge government contractors like McDonnel-Douglas afloat? Boeing has been a frontrunner in many Air Force Skunkworks creations. Chrysler produces the engines used in the current Abrams tanks (which is why the US could not allow Chrysler to go belly-up all those years ago). A division within General Motors produces the Humvee. U.S. workers assemble all these military platforms. Multitudes of civil servants and government contractors maintain our war machine and see that they are delivered TO and retrieved FROM various parts of the world. You think we do this just to pass the time of day?

No need to swim when you can walk on water!!

If you had any deducting skills you would have noticed that Byron, for some reason appears to be hitting one key to the right on the middle text line of a standard keyboard. Hope your not having a stroke or Grand Mal seizure Byron? Hence, MEG becomes MEF. We are talking equipment here so keep your USMC defence at all cost panties from getting in a wad. I’m a Soldier that believes we need a competent Amphibious capability and I dont care if its the USAF or the Boy Scouts who have it as long as our country has it. Anything we get for the Marines(at present) to get them to the beach is balanced off completely by the USN’s complete lack of interest in spending a dime on “playing “Amphib”.

Reguardless of Gen Amos’ statements about a tractor, he really isn’t telling the truth. The Iveco SuperAV, KTM Rosomak, & the Turkish PARS IFV( and many others) have equal or superior water borne performance than the now 50+ year old AAV-7 design. They can carry between 9 and 16 troops, at higher sea states and are armed & armored to fight their way off of the beach. The USMC’s insistance on ODD specifications (sometimes in conflict with their own FMs & TMs) that do not match any current vehicles is specifically(strategicly) designed to insure a unique vehicle just for the USMC at a huge cost to the Taxpayer. If the Iveco SuperAV(or other current production based vehicles) wins the Marine Medium Personel Carrier contract that would give the Marines greater amphibious capability and on land fighting ability at a lower cost to the nation. At the cost of being at little less unique. And not being unique or special is what the USMC fears the most!

“I would also contest the Marines ability to contest enemy armor.”

That’s what air supprort is for.

And I’m typing horribly.

Red China, million man PLA with now a very good PLAAF, NK, and potentially other Pacific threats.

Prebombardment solves most of these problems.

Please read the following:
http://​www​.rand​.org/​p​u​b​s​/​m​o​n​o​g​r​a​p​h​s​/​2​0​0​9​/​R​A​N​D​_​MG8

Please send all your appropriate expertise to their attention.

Air support does not replace anti-armor capability. (google Tiger BDE Desert Storm)
The ONE TIME the Marines faced a substantial mechanized/armored force they got plussed up with an Army mechanized BDE.

Feel free to list the large number of Armor battles the Marines have participated in.

Air support has never in the history of air combat eliminated an entire weapon system off the battlefield, especially since man-portable anti-armor systems are so prolific.

If I drop a bomb on an airfield, it makes a hole in the ground. An F-15 has a different sized gas tank than an F-22. Don’t put unarmed aircraft in range of enemy fighters. This isn’t rocket science. I ask you a simple question and you link me a 150-page document while yet again not bothering to write a coherent comment of your own.

Did you even read the pub?

China has the capability to complete effectively neutralize the vast majority of our airfields/assets in asia.

YOU CAN’T MOVE AN AIRFIELD.

You guys expect the fleet to just cut and run after offloading?

How much armor has been destroyed the last 10 years by airsupport?

How much armor vs armor battles have occurred the last 20 years?

Never said or implied the fleet was going to abandon the beach head. I said air support won’t be enough to completely eliminate anti-armor threats to a landing. The Navy nor the Air Force are going to drop ordnance on one dude with a missile launcher, especially since they probably won’t ever see him.

In Desert Storm the Air Force destroyed 15–30% of Iraq’s ground force (they promised 50%); once the ground war started, Army and Marine units wiped out whole battalions in minutes and over the course of the 100 hour offensive ended up destroying about 90% of what was left.

Armor vs armor in the whole world in the last 20 years? Desert Storm, Yugoslav civil war, Chechnya (missiles vs tanks), OIF, and South Ossetian war come to mind without looking anything up.

I’ve got much better things to do with my evening than read a 150 page report you posted without providing even your own commentary on it which someone else provided for you on another article.

When did I say our airfields couldn’t be vulnerable? You asked for a list of airfields in Asia. I also included our carrier fleet in that roll up.

Since you refuse to speak in longer than 6 word sentences, I have no idea if you even have a point to make.

A ‚V shaped hull would provide better protection to Marines agains IED’s. What if the Trac/suspension, remained in place. But an hydraulic wing was lowered, to provide lift with a water jet system.

No laws of physics broken, the vehicle works. Even met the much-maligned reliability requirement. Why do I feel like I’ve posted this very defense before…?

There’s no freaking way this vehicle meets the mobility specs it boasts. How come it’s never shown planing?

There’s a reason why the Army has much more armor than the Marine Corps, the Army is based around armor with the only real difference between an infantry division and an armored division is the number of tanks in each. The Army is meant to be larger and heavier than the Marine Corps, in part because of its old Cold War mission of taking on a Soviet armored rush in the Fulda Gap, the Marine Corps has never been about that although recent history has had the Corps operating in more armored/mechanized mode.

The prime reason that the Marine Corps doesn’t have many tanks is that they’re heavy and the Marine Corps, esp. under recent doctrines, has an emphasis on being light, mobile, and rapidly deployable. Now a days the Marine Corps’s focus has been on being an expeditionary and rapid reaction force that, while slower than Army Airborne and Rangers, is heavier and self sustaining and , for scenarios like the GW I, can act as more than just a speed bump until the Army can arrive on scene with its heavier infantry and armored division.

A boat won’t work, WW II proved that which is why the Amtrack family of vehicles was originally developed, Marines were getting slaughtered in situations when their Higgins boats were getting caught on coral reefs and the troops had to wade in on foot much farther than originally planned. While AAVs are pretty lightly armored and follow on ACV isn’t likely to be much better it’s still a whole lot better than a completely unarmored LCU.

I will say, though, that you might on to something and that a hybrid of the two might work. Well, not exactly a hybrid but an improved LCU that would carry 2 — 3 ACVs to the halfway point and launch them and then return to pick up more ACVs or troops once a beachhead has been secured. Another idea I had would be an add on hydroplane and powerplant pack that can be jettisoned once the ACVs get close to shore where it would then move under its own power. Follow on waves could retrieve the jettisoned packs once a beachhead has been secured.

You couldn’t do a D Day or Iwo by air because the helos would all be shot down on the approach and on the beach. Air assault has its uses but against a fortified beach its just asking to lose a lot of helos and lives. Even an Osprey wouldn’t work for such a mission because even if it can avoid enemy fire in and out by virtue of its speed it would still be vulnerable when its on the ground off loading its troops.

All true but it still got expensive and even though I’m a former Marine and one of the biggest Marine Corps cheerleaders around I also felt that the EFV was a bit much. My main concern was its complexity, it seemed like it would be maintenance hog and the retracting track system a potential headache in combat situations or even just after heavy use.

Crazy idea here but what about using LCACs to transport ACVs halfway, just outside of weapons’ range and launch them from there. It’s still a lot slower than if they had their own EFC style hydroplaning capability but, if feasible, seems like a possible compromise.

It’s actually 4 divisions & 4 air wings worth, both 4th MARDIV and 4th MAW are Reserve components of the Corps and unlike in the Army and Air Force, aren’t largely combat or largely support units but are organized just like their 3 active counterparts. Anyhow, I’d argue that the 3 active divisions and air wings are needed so that there are enough personnel and equipment to maintain MEUs all around the globe while still allowing for enough to maintain a good rotation so that the same Marines aren’t constantly on float and actually have time at home to not only relax and recover from deployment but to also train and conduct depot level maintenance. 4 active divisions and air wings also means that there are enough trained Marines to act as reinforcements in case the sh*t really hits the fan.

Riceball — Thanks for the recap. I was aware but it’s good to repeat because you do raise the point that Marines are not heavy on support units (they rely on the navy and Army for prolonged logistical/medical support)

We can float 30k Marines(MAX) at any one time. Three times that MAX number (one on float, one refitting from float, one prepping for float) is 90k. Let’s throw in an extra 30k for “just in case”. That’s 120k. We’ve got 240k Marines.

BTW (and you probably know) the Marines are the only Branch to have their minimum size stated in law, 3 Div + 3 air wings.

Riceball, I’d agree with most of what you said except when it comes to being based around Armor. The Army is a combined arms animal but it’s still more infantry based than armor or even mechanized. There are more light units than mech/armor units and even mech units are infantry based. During Iraq much of the heavy force never left the motor pool.

Oh, and unlike many other countries, the US does not have a “General Staff” as the Soviets and Germans did. Things like this acquisition are done by individual services and occasionally by a joint service team but there is not a multi-service General Staff that oversees it all and sets dumb requirements. The indivisual services are perfectly capable of setting crazy requirements all by themselves.

First I don’t wear panties, second neither of my sisters got knocked up by a Marine and third I’m AM going to rail about a few things… There is a good reason, the FIRST AMENDMENT, as a U.S. citizen to engage in a thoughtful and important discussion as to whether we need to maintain the ability to assault and fight our way onto and past a fortified beach by any type of landing craft. I question whether we need a complete airborne or air assault division, why we should not give all the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft to the Army and the Navy, dump the 1CD, keep the 1AD and reactivate the 2 AD (with a 2/3rds Armor and 1/3rd mech. infantry mix of line battalions), keep the 2ID & 3ID as mechanized(2/3rd mech inf.). Figure out why the heck the AF has four bombers (the B-52, B-1B, B-2 and F-117 (and why is the 177 listed as a “F” for fighter when it has no air to air armaments!?!) and on and on — why four C.I.D.s, three medical corps, JAGS and on and on. To complete this rant I’d like to say that what we wasted on the EFV is not a pittance AND to answer an earlier question, more Army troops made landings in the Pacific than Marine and there we NO Marine formations in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, the south of France or at Normandy. Thanks & JMO.

Oh, and my name is Stephen A. Dombrowski from Connecticut, so much for hiding behind anything and God bless the United States Marine Corps!

Dude, your punctuation and grammar are incorrect also. Don’t get angry, just get educated.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.