Marine Corps Insists on High Speed ACV

Marine Corps Insists on High Speed ACV

U.S. Marine Corps officials told lawmakers that speed is a top requirement for its new Amphibious Combat Vehicle even if it means trading troop capacity to get it.

The Marine ACV program is designed to produce a modern ship-to-shore vehicle that’s twice as fast as the current Amphibious Assault Vehicle.

Corps officials maintain that the ACV is one it the services top modernization priorities, but lawmakers at a May 14 Senate Armed Services hearing seemed skeptical since the Marines last attempt at such an endeavor – the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle – ended in a $3 billion failure.


Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., wanted to know “What are we doing differently this time? … When you look at the cost of the high speed in the water issue; when you look back on it in retrospect, it is just nonsense,” McCain said.

Marine officials explained that the Corps using all the lessons learned from the EFV program – which focused on achieving increased high-water speed – to ensure the same mistakes don’t occur again.

“Capabilities such as high-water speed will be weighed carefully for affordability and for trade space so we understand what we are giving up if in fact we want to achieve the high-water speed,” said Lt. Gen. Richard Mills deputy commandant for Combat Development and Integration.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, wanted to know how many Marines the new ACV will carry.

“The present AAV is designed to carry at least a squad of Marines,” Reed said. “When you look forward to the new ACV, is that going to maintain that same unit integrity?”

Marine officials said they would know more in October when the Corps is scheduled to receive a report from industry that will look trade space areas that will help program officials set requirement priorities.

“The number of Marines inside it would be one of those areas where we would look at possible trade space,” Mills said.

The ACV is capable of traveling at more than 15 knots in high water, compared to the current AAV which has a top speed of seven knots, Mills said.

Tags: , , ,

Join the Conversation

Only the marines would be dumb enough to want to fight in boats on dry land

The Marines should just buy plans of stripped down Chinese “ZBD2000/ZTD-05″ and add our “Electronics” and call it a day. With the speed of 65 km/hr on road, 45 km/hr on water, and either 30mm or 105mm canon, what more could you ask for? And at somewhere between 3–4 Million a pop, the price would be right as well. But if they did, it would end up costing $20 Million to build it here, which is the really sad part.

I can’t pretend to be an expert in amphibious warfare but perhaps some out of the box thinking is needed.

If you could get a company or two of Marines on the beach, in a stealth like manner, to offer perimeter defense before the main wave comes in, wouldn’t it make sense to use a different platform, something that is very low to the water, hard to spot, and quiet, and can slip ashore without much noise, such as a large rigid inflatable, something much bigger then a normal one, but with long range and speed when a few miles out, but a very quiet engine to use the last mile or so inbound. When they are 12 or more miles out, they will be on high speed and once they get within visual range they will go slowly and creep quietly in.

Once the first company or two is onshore, setting up a perimeter, then they can bring in the big boys, the amphips, LCAC and everything else they have. The big boys will get some cover from the defensive perimeter and the bad guys will be caught off guard.

Do we have any experts in the house to discuss this idea?

II am sure that extra speed will be real handy in outrunning ATGM’s and anti-tank submunitions from a fortified beach… oh wait, it won’t.

Another crazy taxpayer funded suicide machine, brought to you courtesy of the United States Marketing Corp.

These type of crazy machines and crazy doctrines are equivalent to the U.S. Airborne asking for a supersonic stealth transport that is armed to the teeth so that the Airborne troops can land in an area defend by an IADS.… on second thought, that’s a thousand times a more sane idea since at least it might actually avoid detection.

And if the beach isn’t fortified to hell, then why the heck do you need a floating tank in the first place?

Hell, why do you need a “specialized” corp to land on non-fortified beaches in the first place? The Army in WW2 made more landing than the Marine Corp in the Pacific, and nearly all the landings in the Atlantic. Hell, the greatest amphibious invasion of all time against one of the most protected shorelines ever was conducted by the Army.

Marine Corp — Redundant and redundant.

How often have the Marines actually deployed onto a beach against a hostile force in the past 50 years? I am thinking that Inchon in 1950 was the last amphibious landing against a hostile beach, but I really don’t know. But how often have Marines been transported on land in LVT-5’s and LVT-7/AAV-7’s while in a combat zone? Hundreds of thousands of times over the past 50 years.
And the Marines will sacrifice combat utility on land to gain a faster speed over the water. That will probably never be used. If they want to go faster over the water, use their helicopters, not their armored vehicles.
This “over the horizon” dogma has lead to the Marines demanding perfection, without realizing that “good enough” would work a lot better than some pipe dream that will never be built in numbers large enough to actually work.

The downside is the ZBD –ZTD family is very lightly armored and doesn’t carry the Marine 12 man squad. Heck, it doesn’t carry the Army’s smaller nine man squad and what we’ve relearned in Iraq is splittiing the squad across armored vehicles isn’t a good thing.

Then sending more money to China or relying on them in case of a fight isn’t a very good idea either.

Hardly.

The threat alone of a forced entry capability makes the enemy devote limited resources to defending against that option. There are numerous contingency ops ranging from NEO to high intensity situations where a forced entry capability pays big dividends. Though I’d agree that multi BDE size amphib ops is a thing of the past (just like multi BDE airborne ops).

The Army can train to do the mission but why? Why reinvent the wheel and rebuild all the expertise that already exists in the Corps? Will it be done any cheaper than the Marines? No. Let the Marines make forced entry amphib their forte but we don’t need three divisions worth of that expertise. We have ONE airborne division.

I’ll let a Marine jump in and cite the numerous combat ops Marines have conducted since Korea. They are small but they exist.

What you don’t consider is the threat of a large scale amphib landing is something Saddam had to contend with during Desert Storm and even though it wasn’t conducted it was quite effective. Iran has to worry about the same thing.

There are advantages to helicopters but they don’t put as much firepower on the ground as armored vehicles landing across the beach and moving immediately inland. Helicopters also don’t do very well in resupplying troops in contact. Once the grunt leaves the helicopter he’s limited to the equipment on his back, speed of his feet, ammo he’s carrying and the ballistic protection of his ballistic armor plate. Not much of an overmatch. An amphib vehicle increases all those capabilities that a helicopter does not.

It is lightly armored, but the ZTD-05 carries a crew of 3 and 10 passengers, larger than the Army’s 9 man squad. We should just buy the plans and add our goodies to them, just don’t GOLD PLATE the SOB.
. http://​www​.armyrecognition​.com/​c​h​i​n​a​_​c​h​i​n​e​s​e​_​l​igh
.
And as of 2009 it cost only $2.5 Million. The 105 variant has a crew of 4, and with the current 105 Ammo that is available they could hold the beach till the M1-A2’s arrived.
. http://​www​.strategypage​.com/​h​t​m​w​/​h​t​a​r​m​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s/2

Any half modern infantry force equipped with guided ATGM’s will make piecemeal of any landing force. You don’t need the “threat” of an ‘armed’ assault force, the threat of any landing force is enough then.

There is no reason the Marines job can’t be rolled into the army under a specialization like the Airborne. You can then get rid of the redundant second naval air force and second land army.

http://​www​.sinodefence​.com/​a​r​m​y​/​a​r​m​o​u​r​/​z​b​d​2​0​0​0​.ashttp://​www​.militaryfactory​.com/​a​r​m​o​r​/​d​e​t​a​i​l​.​a​s​p?a

These sources say 8 grunts or less. Still less than the 12 man Marine squad.

I guess you aren’t getting that the enemy has to commit forces to defend a beach leaving them vulnerable somewhere else (let alone defending EVERY beach) and those beach defenders aren’t immortal.

I do get it, that doesn’t change the fact that you don’t need a second land army and a third air force to accomplish this.

Just put this into perspective, $29 billion dollars (the budget of the Marine Corp excluding the Navy rides) could buy you around ~29,000 Tomahawks a YEAR, every year. Take a year or two of the budget to fund the launch platforms (hell, just use old barges).

The threat given by the Marine Corps is definitely not proportionate to that.

Just fold up the Marines into the Army like the Airborne and call it a day. You will still have your “threat” while saving the Taxpayer billions. It’s a crime that the Marine Corp is still allowed to exist and drain BILLIONS of dollars from the taxpayer for no good reason.

Joe, you must be a Army history revisionist, please read history before you spout off your insecurities

Operation Iceburg, the invasion of Okinawa, was larger than the D-day invasion of France and it was far deadlier 84K dead verses 12K., at 82 days verses and longer lasting 82 days verses 1.
http://​wiki​.answers​.com/​Q​/​W​h​i​c​h​_​w​a​s​_​t​h​e​_​l​a​r​g​e​s​t_a

LOL, is THAT how they do it in Israel?

I’d agree the Corps is a tad large for its mission but the rest is bogus. Tomahawks don’t rescue and evac Americans out of the next unstable nation about to fall. Nor do they provide humanitarian aide in a catastrophe or stabilize a nation or ally with a visible presence in their streets or border. If Tomahawks could solve every problem we’d have left Afghanistan and Iraq long ago.

As to wrapping the Corps into the Army what’s the cost of reinventing the wheel? Crunch the numbers and let me know. BTW, the Corps has a unique culture across the branch that we have primarily in our combat arms units in the Army. I can’t put a price on destroying that.

Seriously?
http://​answers​.yahoo​.com/​q​u​e​s​t​i​o​n​/​i​n​d​e​x​?​q​i​d​=​2​0​101

Not that it helps your case at all, there were more Army than Marine division at Okinawa and the first regular troops ashore were from the U.S. Army, not the Marines.

What does this have to do with Israel?

You don’t need a $29+ billion dollar organization to fly a few choppers in to take some civilians out. The humanitarian aid part also does not need a $29+ billion dollar war machine to happen.

And Iraq and Afghanistan were solved by zip with the Marines as well, so my point still stands.

And finally, are you joking with the “culture” comment? By that logic, we should have kept the Horse Cavalry around for their unique “culture.

1. A good amount of humanitarian aid in Fukushima, Tsunami recovery, Katrina, and Sandy were through the use of helos as it IS the most efficient way to distribute supplies.

Guess who usually has the most helos? Military.

Keep in mind every humanitarian aid mission is also training for putting supplies on shore as fast as possible.

2. “Solving” Iraq and Afghanistan is harder than you think, its still not solved.

3. “Culture” is also synonymous with history. Horse Cavalry has obviously replaced by modern armor/air, but keeps its culture as an army asset.

Schmoe is a big Israel fan.

A $29 bil organization that can do both and maintains the unique capability of forced amphib entry and is the ONLY branch that gets CAS right IS worth it. We in the Army could only wish to have the capability to integrate CAS like the Marines do (owning it is key).

You aren’t very familiar with Marine or combat arms culture or the word “culture” are you? FYI, the old horse cavalry culture exists today in the Armor branch. The horses weren’t the “culture” though they both start with a “c”. So much for your “logic”.

“we should have kept the Horse Cavalry around for their unique “culture. ”

We did. Been to a 1st Cav or 4th ID change of command recently? You’ll see a mounted team race across the field with six-shooters. Army reconnaissance units still call themselves cavalry, are organized as Troops and Squadrons, and wear stetsons and spurs whenever they can find an excuse. Culture is very important to them.

The Marines didn’t get to assault the beach of a landlocked country? Shocker. You know that something like 75% of the world’s populations lives within 100 miles of the ocean right?

how many of you guys are amtrackers? talk to the marines that have to fight and work on thoughs old beasts. you know the marines did make amphib. lands in vietnam.
my son was a amtracker with 3rd tracks out of pendelton

he knows from first hand experence how badly the corps needs new tracks.
and just because they haven’t made a landing under fire in some time doesnt mean they won’t,have to again in the furture . thoughs tracks they are using now are getting long in the tooth. a lot of them broke doen in Iraq. my son was with the 3rd tracks in iraq in march 2003. Again he knows first hand about lack of parts and break downs in the middle of fire fights.

OUR MARINES NEED A GOOD AND BETTER TRACK THAN THEY HAVE NOW!!

Off the top of my head, Grenada and Panama (unopposed landings, but they didn’t know that for sure), every NEO since the helicopter was invented, and every humanitarian op where a shoreline was involved. And to add to my snarky comment to Joe earlier, the Corps launched an air assault from the Indian Ocean to KAF. They got into position at about the same time US Army light infantry forces did in the north. The difference being the Corps had everything it needed there in the fleet in one neat package. One of the things the Corps has always had going for it is a lot of practice at being deployed and a sense of urgency. It comes naturally to them where the Army was out of practice (especially during the 1990s).

Yes, which is why the Army’s 10th Mountain was the first regular troops on the ground in Afghanistan, well before the Marines.

No kidding, it’s called a normal APC and not a bastardized swimming one.

The taxpayer shouldn’t be burdened by such ridiculous systems that almost amount to theft by their ludicrous nature.

The multi BDE is imo part of the deal breaker. Thinking we will do another Inchon level op is silly. Now having to come ashore in Beirut for an evacuation, very possible. Landing at a Syrian sea side village, very possible. Seizing the port in Benghazi, probably should have happened. Two Regiments under fire? Highly unlikely, strike aircraft and PGMs will annihilate the bulk of any fixed defense.

Both battalions crossed the border within a few days of each other attacking from two different directions. They both seized an airfield on opposite sides of the country (after SOF had already been to both places) and more or less sat there until more troops could flow in. TF 1–87’s airfield seizure is literally a footnote in the US Army’s official history of the opening month of OEF. They weren’t mentioned again until Anaconda. So what was your point?

Even w/o money and funds BIG Corps brass will blow million away IE EFV with same results. Proves how brain dead DC and the Pentagon are. How about a new engine for the AAV? Wait that’s too efficient lets blow money away, DC’s way!

That’s actually pretty funny…

The Marine Corp is part of the Department of the Navy. All the money we get is from the Navy budget. We train and fly from the same ships and bases as the Navy and work to the same manuals. Marine aviation is a small part of Naval aviation.

Don’t the AAV’s carry more than a squad? I suppose one could insist on a vehicle that carried less people, but about a squad’s worth. An AAV with less cargo space can be smaller, or better armored, or faster. Pick one.

I guess the question is how do Marines see their amphibious landings? Landing on a contested beach and advancing over it on AAVs? The alternative is using small boats to get to the shore (which is how Marines operated before LVTP’s and AAV’s), but having to fight as infantryman once they got there, and waiting for some kind of lightweight vehicle to be transported to them to make them mobile again.

I suspect the other reason the Marines want the amphibious vehicle is that due to space limitations on amphibious vessels. You can’t transport a Bradley and something else if you want to move people around by sea and by land using two different vehicles, unless you pay the space penalty, or find somewhere else other than internal cargo to hold your boat.

Then again, maybe we should return to the era of larger Landing Ships. They would need pretty considerable self-defense capability against anti-ship missiles and anti-tank missiles though, and the LST’s still in reserve are not up to the task.

Thanks for all the targets!

The troops at PLAN

majOd, your point about the threat aspect of using the Marines off shore to tie up large amounts of enemy troops is a good one, but would a 10 mph ACV (that is a much more combat capable vehicle ashore) be just as effective in this role? My point was that the “over the horizon” dogma, that the force has to deploy from ships that are much further from shore than previously thought wise, therefore making a higher amphibious speed necessary.
I think that a newer EFV is a good idea, I just think that demanding high speed for an ACV is going to force compromises in other areas.

The other thing you’ve forgotten is that casualty numbers cited are the cleanup of the entire island, versus comparing “D-Day” (Operation Neptune), which was just getting off the beach.

In terms of scope, one would need to include pushing through the Bocage, Operation Cobra and closing off Falaise, and maybe Dragoon and consolidation of the occupation of France. I suppose it’ll still be lower than 84 thousand dead Americans.

Next thing you know, you’ll be advocating using the M113 Gavin.

Sparky, is that you?

Thanks for all of the targets PLAN.

The US Air Force/Navy/USMC Air, and Naval gunnery.

Major: Tomahawks!!!! at what $1.5 mil a piece 2 deliver 450lbs if that of he? how about scrap the tomahawk, develop a more modern anti-ship version of it for the Wavy Gravy.….…that platform is what 25+ years old.…..gramps D R O N E S w/hellfires!!!!! + “other” systems trust me they work real well!

I would like to comment. I work for that Program Office. And I understand the “tax-payer” worries. For I am a tax-payer as well. I am here to tell you that these people work extraordinarily hard in trying to get the USMC a product that will work, that is better than what the Marine Corps has to work with, now. The actual “hard part” is getting the Federal Government to balance a budget, so we can afford to build things that we “need”. (fact) The Marine Corps has always done more, with less people and less money, period. (fact)

ST: then forced entry air assault or airborne forces finish the job & evac the then “Ground” forces w/organic rotary assets!

The US Army always has pockets filled with money, over-spending on programs, and 3 times as many soldiers in the Armed Forces, as compared to the Maine Corps. (fact) As compared to the Marine Corps…The Army has 4 times the number of casulaties and KIA from deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. (fact) The Army has just as many personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan as does the Marine Corps on deployments. (fact) So…why does the Army still have such the “large budget” and the large number of personnel…if the Marine Corps is always down on their numbers of MIA/KIA/Casualities…as compared to the Army.…a ratio of 4 to 1. (fact) Perhaps it is a “lack of training their men”. The US Army does not train their personnel “good enough” before they have to deploy.…anywhere. In fact, they have more drop-outs in their own MOS Schools, than with Marines taking their (Army) follow-on MOS Schools.…without ever having a drop-out. Why is that?

And.…the “High Water Speed” issue for the new USMC fighting vehicle.…here is the real truth: The USMC is going to give up an extraordinary large amount of supplies, weapons, logistics, etc.…just in order to have their “High Water Speed”. If people want to know the truth? Then ask the personnel that will not “sugar coat” the real truth. The truth is.….the Marine Corps has no right to try to ask for High Water Speed on a vehicle. It is unaffordable, and not realistic.….period. The “Higher-ups” need to wake up. They will be giving up “way too much”.…just so they can have their High Water Speed. Even if they still decide to build it.….it is still too expensive for the tax-payer. And we have no money to build something like that, now. We cannot afford to borrow money from China again.….or from anyone, in that regard.

Let’s start with a cost-savings: Our Presdient is getting a new fleet of V-22 Ospreys, 12 of them, to replace the old fleet within HMX-1. Why do we need to pay that much money, and for 12 of them? He was supposed to get a fleet of new choppers for him, at a price tag of 400 million a copy, just a year ago.…but that went South, just from congress looking at “the bill”. Talk about wasting money. Stop going on trips to Africa, Europe, etc. Start spending money more wisely. President didn’t go on trips anywhere, when he found out that it cost the government so much money to do so.…and kept his trips limited to “Camp David”. If someone is reading this from Washington, “good for you”…and I hope so. Track down this e-mail/post-it note-blog.…and take a minute to take a nice lunch, so I can show you, or you show me.… “where we can save money”.…within the Government Budget. I will have a laundry list for you.…waiting. US Congress take notes.…..starting with this: “Semper Fidelis”. Look it up.

You have a great point there. An enemy that has enough missile capability to keep the fleet at a greater distance likely has the missile capability to sink your tracked landing craft.

Personally, I’d recommend a vehicle that is more survivable in the fight since the AAVP7 is lightly armored. Maybe something that can be up armored after getting to shore to keep weight down? I’d also want a vehicle that carries ONE squad like the Army does vs the almost two that the AAVP7 does. A loss doesn’t wipe out half a platoon and make it combat ineffective. That would give me four vehicles per platoon and a more robust ability to do mechanized warfare and fire and maneuver at the platoon level. The capability of the Marines to conduct mech warfare is less than the Army’s because of its lower density of armored vehicles per formation and non organic assignments of those assets. Marines assign transport for a mission vs always having them which I can understand in a manner because we aren’t going to send an Army mech unit to do NEO, humanitarian assistance or a myriad other tasks that Marines typically do. Instead the Army sends its light formations but it can afford to have both types.

Lat point, for a threat to be effective there has to be a capability. The AAVP7 is darn old not that its replacement needs to be a high speed planing gold plated do it all vehicle.

Cost Savings: get rid of the US Army. Increase your numbers for the USMC Fleet. Better training, less casualities, less money, period. Cost Savings: No more food stamps for people that want to continue to have kids, and not not work, honestly, ever. Keep your legs crossed. Cost Savings: get rid of “trips” anywhere, for political reasons.…for all employees. The US is flat broke! Wake up!

big d: shame on you, your counting the kamikaze attacks on the ships supporting the landing (more than pearl harbor) 12K kia on the island. and here’s another FACT the 8th Air Force in Europe had more KIA, WIA, MIA, & POW’s than ALL of the USMC through-out THE ENTIRE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN! so be careful when talking about history!…your trying to say that Operation Overlord was smaller than the landing on “The Rock”?.……I thought these kind of posts would be found on ‘The Huff”!.…. stay away from wiki.…..highly inaccurate! And Operation Overlord lasted 1 day!!!!! u just left out my beloved airborne from the 101, 82 et al who went in 12–24 hours early!!! I can’t believe this post, …I gotta go take my meds.……

Cost Savings: Tell CNN to get their facts straight. And the man/woman whom wrote this article. We wasted 2.3 billion dollars, not 3 billion…on the EFV vehicle. And.…while you are struggling to correct some of your mistakes: look up where the Army has spent money, on which programs, and what “wasn’t fielded to their fleet…aka: waste of money.….no kidding! I hate mistakes too. And I make them all of the time.

Cost Savings: Make each Congressman give up their travel allowance back and forth to Washington D.C. Have them pay it out of pocket. That is what really gets expensive. Track the money-pipe for travel for all employees in the US Government.

Hey Washington D.C.….! I hope this helps in your future endeavors.

RON: I’m army airborne & I’m with you 100%, one well placed RPG-7 shot and poof, your writin’ those letters home to the families! The USMC has its place within our defence establishment, but 182K..? & the DOD wants the Army down to 490K? with proposed cuts to the RC’s? I couldn’t believe the one white paper I was given to review & comment on.….…..has the NCA & DOD JCS’s lost their minds??????

The 10th Mountain arrived in Afghanistan from neighboring K2 in Uzbeckistan on 25 or 26 Dec 2001 and directly went into combat with the SF at the prison uprising at Mazaar e sharif. The Marines inserted into Rhino the night of the 25th. There is doubt as to which “conventional” force was in Afghanistan first though the Marines officially claim the honor (big surprise there). The reality is that the difference is hours at most. The Army can be considered being in theatre first by being at K2 weeks before the Marines but the details count.

I wonder if the Marines should reduce the quantity of AAV’s, and replace them with proper armored personnel carriers (use what the army is getting rid of: M113/MTVL, or use what the Army has: Bradleys, or pick through the Army’s own research on armored personnel carriers and pick one you like). Breaking up the squad isn’t the best option, which rules out the Bradley. Unless the mfr of the Bradleys makes a “Turretless stretch” version to replace M113’s, the options are limited.

I wonder if the next option is to return to procuring LST’s. In principle once you seize the beach, you could land all the armored vehicles you wanted with LST’s; instead of pinning your hopes on shuttle-ferrying from amphibious vessels hanging out offshore.

Airpower is never going to replace the capabilities of groundpower (and vice versa). Sure, bring on the drones but they aren’t going to replace the Corps.

BTW, I wasn’t the one who brought up Tomahawks as a replacement for the Corps.

major: & how to u plan on resuppling these glorified ALV’s filled with usmc’s? by helicopter, air drop, or a log train from the landing site, which leaves u extremely vunerable to indirect fire, short range missles, attack helicopters, attack aircraft.…insurgent attacks (soldiers in civiys), the landing has to be massive, like almost all of the ones in modern history. The one thing SH feared in DS/DS the most with respect to amphib landings were the BB’s deployed in support of the feign of the marine landing, not the marine landing force..in the southern marshes????.….tell me I’m wrong on that one?????

spot on joe, I wish I could comment more about the early day’s of OEF, but I can’t. It would give tmb2 a new perspective on life!

Joe: reverse that.…tmb2.…SOF forces where there…well.….and that snarky comment about anaconda? do u mean LSA anaconda???? can u read a map?

Why are you asking me how to supply an amphib op? Any “Colonel” worth his salt would know.

I’ll play anyway. An amphib landing force is supplied from the naval force using rotary, and amphib assets (everything from hovercraft to amphib tracked vehicles). No doubt the LOC would be vulnerable to enemy action but not as vulnerable as an airborne force that can only rely on air assets which are less robust or capable than an amphib force. (it takes more to sink a ship than an airplane and the airplane carries much less)

I don’t see you making the argument that airborne ops are dead and gone…

BTW, that amphib landing could also be supplied by fixed wing in a pinch (JUST LIKE airborne forces).

The Marines going to a “proper” APC/IFV would be a big mistake. First they would have to cut their already limited amphib capability. Toss combat losses in there and the capability to conduct an opposed amphib landing is threatened especially when you consider we only have the capability to float a max of 40k Marines. There’s also the increased cost in training, maintenance, parts, personnel, space etc.

Secondly, developing a capability that already exists in the Army just reinforces the whole 2nd Army argument. Third, there is no way the Marines are going to use an Army solution. They are already looking at the MPV, a “unique” Marine APC solution. If you look at the last decade the Corps has embraced unique solutions to common problems across the board it started with the uniform but it is literally head to toe today.

(Yes, Marine helmets and boots are different than anybody else’s. I guess enemy bullets, shell fragments and dirt is different for Marines. Heck, even the bayonet is different. It’s madness. Rremember that next time someone makes claims about Marine frugality… Let’s not encourage more waste huh?)

When the fight requires a heavy Infantry force it’s time to hand it over or call the Army. You can’t have it both ways and say I’m an expeditionary, door kicking force and not a second Army but have ALL the trappings of an Army. Then we wonder why branches lose themselves and have to “get back to their roots”.

maj0d: Tomahawks don’t rescue and evac Americans out of the next unstable nation about to fall.……sound familiar?.…it was your post!.

I agree, they are rather large vehicles, good 4 RPG target practice

we have an airborne corps.……the 101, 1st air cav, etc.…..man u got it out for the army.….The 82nd has already begun to train for its traditional mission.…..forced entry airborne assault. The 101 post 2014 will return to the air assault mission its equiped & was trained for. 1st Air cav remains the same. The 24 I.D has a Specialized Forces bde as well.

Read a little higher…

“Just put this into perspective, $29 billion dollars (the budget of the Marine Corp excluding the Navy rides) could buy you around ~29,000 Tomahawks a YEAR, every year. Take a year or two of the budget to fund the launch platforms (hell, just use old barges).

The threat given by the Marine Corps is definitely not proportionate to that.”

“when you consider we only have the capability to float a max of 40k Marines. ”

That’s probably the million dollar sentence right there. Kind of hard to get around Second Land Army when the infrastructure isn’t there to keep the whole force afloat, and to strike either by air or by sea. Even if we procured more LPD/LHD/LHA’s, will the Marines be ready to shed garrison and occupation duties (Okinawa, Afghanistan, Iraq) to be an amphibious force?

I think the Marines have been trying to have it both ways. They certainly did appear in Afghanistan, far from the sea when not required. They certainly did act as a Force In Being in GW1, in line with their traditional mission, and they did participate in amphibious operations around Basra/Kuwait for OIF, but also participated in the advance on Baghdad. In the first and last cases, they acted in Second Land Army roles. Add in the occupation of Anbar province, and it’s clear they actively seek out ways to defend their existence by fighting everywhere America is at war, even if it means diluting Brand Identity as an from-the-sea-by-sea-or-air force.

Paradoxically, if they didn’t participate in OIF and go to Afghanistan, they might find themselves fighting for more manpower, more equipment and more ships, especially now during a sequester. Could they ask for things like more Osprey and EFV if they hadn’t shed blood in Al-Anbar and Afghanistan?

I don’t think the Corps has to shed blood to get new weapon systems. Look at the LCS, & F22. They can make the case for a piece of gear just like every other branch and it will be judged on its utility.

I guess the questions I have are these:

1) Should the Marines readjust to be an expeditionary force, and with it shed multiple garrisons, and help pay for more ships to act as amphibious forces?

2) Should the Marines shed the extra forces and bases that it can’t deploy in a timely manner by sea in a traditional “Marine” fashion?

3) Should the Marines tailor their missions, and “do what they do best” instead of finding themselves in Afghanistan and Al-Anbar? There’s plenty of potential hotspots in the world that could potentially require an amphibious force to drop in on, so should the Marines plan on just saying no to missions outside of their self-defined core missions?

It’s worth noting that even though the Marines have done their part by deploying to the hotspots alongside the Army, that the Osprey and EFV still face incredible opposition. Do you think the opposition would be increased even more if the Marines had done less land deployments?

Again, I stress the fact that you can simply refill a ship after you unload its contents.

Add that to the fact that the US Navy has several fleets in the Pacific, FYI five of them being Carrier Strike Groups.

You can potentially open several beachheads/fronts if you had a place like Okinawa to resupply.

The logistical constraint is how long it takes to turn-around a vessel and send it back after unloading Marines. It’s unlikely a force is going to be supported by one LPD/LHD/LHA, and one will stay on station and the other will refill, or be supplemented by air power from the Navy’s carriers.

Addressing an earlier point. I wouldn’t go as far as saying the Marines weren’t needed in Afghanistan or the march to Baghdad etc. War should never be a fair fight. Makes it longer than necessary. The reality is the Army NOR the Marines could have done the mission in the time it was done without each other. This is how we complement each other and why I get involved when one branch raises itself at the cost of another.

Osprey and EFV opposition have nothing to do with contingencies. EVERY weapon system is resisted. The Blackhawk got similar treatment and it took a decade+ to overcome the “Crash Hawk” moniker. You have to consider the source and content of criticism. The EFV was a bungled progrma much like FCS etc.

As to the future of the Marines I’ll listen what Marines have to say but having your cake and eating it too isn’t going to fly. You can’t say you aren’t a second land Army and an expeditionary specific force when you can’t get there and then participate in more than expeditionary ops.

We have an airborne division, the 82nd.

We do not have an Air Cav div. We do have an an Air Assault Infantry Div., the 101st.

The 24th ID was inactivated almost 20 years ago.

Where did you get that time capsule you live in?

1st u should read posts more closely.…I think I stated clearly the log. challenges of an ampib opn…and u think that a Army Colonel doesn’t know how weak & exposed that landing force would be? Ur right about an airborne force 3 days, thats about it, but an amphib landing force.……with what 30K marines.….againts Iran.……I heard this lunacy at the USNWC siting in a room of officers in civiys. Your beloved parent service is stuck in time, landing with 25 y/o amphib craft.…..ohhh I forgot you’ll have air super. and what about a massed small craft attack againts those beloved LHA’s which can come how close.……once lets say the chinese or ruskys rush their latests & greatest like the DF-21D.…..oh.….that’s right it can’t get through your missle shield. I’m just as American as u are major 0, but you guys & the navy are in an alternate universe if u think that u could pull that off. I follow your post’s, I know your type, major, a deployment or two under your belt, know the world over, take many kia & wia in your last rotation? I can tell your technical comp. ur rotc, or maybe even a ring knocker who switched. Me Just a dumb old OCS combat engineer who has some of his posts deleted because I get 2 specific about opns. But your the man major 0, I will not bore you with the details of my three deployments, or my expoits.…..who gets their first really does count, if lets say ur a PE & are given a mission to survey a runway in the wasteland of central asia to see if it can be improved, surronded by army sof’s.….but that’s just some “Colonel” who in your eyes isn’t worth his salt. But It was a few weeks before I saw any jarheads were I was. EF was my whoa.….then a quick stint “up north” for IF.….…& finally Kosovo for 3 months, summer time, those mass graves really did stink. So this Colonel “Not worth his salt” who lost a lot of good combat engineers & some other folks.……will just.….…..fade away.……major O u got the next one good luck.……because I can see it comin’ around the bend’ so I’ll take my time as a 12E (Airborne) nyarng, ctarng, usar & usace & cash my chips in And I think of you.…..because your the man! drive on! their waitin’ 4 ya.….…I sit this one out & collect my checks, & say a prayer for u & the friends & subords. I lost

I doubt you’re a Colonel. Elsewhere you were talking about the 24th ID and the 1st Air Cav, organizations that have been gone for decades.

I have lost friends and troops (to include a squad in a fiery air to air collision at Campbell). BTW I’m Army so you are pretty consistent at least. Wrong.

Stay on subject huh? No one is saying amphib ops aren’t without their issues (just like airborne ops).

Tbh, it doesn’t take that much. Especially if the operation was planned properly.

And I’ll say that combat experience is a necessity for any US ground force.

The marines are one opposed landing away from being disbanded and they know it — which is why they are so shy to go anywhere anymore. Every time the President asks for a mission they just show him a picture of a typical marine success.. http://​californiasunshinehomes​.com/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​upl

(1) Afghanistan, which kicked the Brits out twice, the Russians, and now the US, is proof that big armies and marine corps, all their ships, aircraft, equipment and tactics don’t outlast the dedication of a few dedicated warriors (who know how to make their own rifles) defending one’s own country from invaders — be they purely infidels or “elective wars” of some other country’s alleged “self-defense.”

(2) The U.S.A. is BROKE. The US Army and USMC will need to be reduced far below the planned levels under sequestration. The Budget Control Act is a 10-year deal that MOST Americans will support because they are tired of paying taxes for general and admiral pet rocks, especially overdesigned and expensive ones. The current status quo forces and equipment should be trashed, and a zero-based review started with a force structure at least 30% below the current levels.

(3) Instant surveillance and weapons technology will make BOTH the amphib ships and small, fast attack boats/tanks/vehicles targets at all points. Using saturation tactics and anti-access weapons with intelligent dispensers firing across the top an invading amphib force will decimate whatever type of vehicle (slow or fast) approaches. So why are the Marines holding to an outdated and high risk OTH water assault when they have V22s now (which will be preceded by ship bombardment and helo gunships)? This is why are current force structure and tactics are partially irrelevant in today’s threat environment.

(4) The Marines need a heavy duty ocean vehicle, like the EFV, for the beach assualt role, and then off-load and go inland with the SAME vehicle as the Army. The EFVs should belong to the ships and not the combat units. This mixed hi-lo mix would have cut the $15 billion EFV program down to $10 billion, and provided the Marines with what they needed. Nation defense is not cheap. Instead, they backed off before testing was complete and got a promise of a future vehicle. More than a few USMC generals should have been cashiered over this 23 years and counting fiasco.

No, it takes A LOT. It takes weeks for ships to steam to and fro otherwise we’d have seen that approach as common in WWII. Then there’s the issue of protecting those supply ships in transit. Considering the fleet is a fraction of the size it was in WWII (when we didn’t do that) it’s an unrealistic approach.

Further if you have to refill, why not just refill with Army troops. The beach head is taken. You are arguing the Expeditionary Corp and second land Army position to justify a corp five times the size of what can be deployed if we use ALL our maritime assets. If we have to deploy that much, sounds like an Army or joint op.

Match up the EFV capability with the latest GAO report on GCV. SecDef forced cancellation of EFV based on APUC growing to 12-14M, while GCV (at a bigger lot size) hopes to get down to 16–20.… Same lethality, more embarked troops, same land mobility, similar survivability. Wonder how fast GCV will go in the water…

The 1st Cav hasn’t been airmobile since the end of Vietnam. The aviation brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division calls itself the 1st Air Cav Brigade as opposed to an aviation brigade for historical reasons. That brigade is a mix of AH-64s, OH-58s, UH-60s, and CH-47s. No infantry assigned to it.

Our airborne units are the 82nd Abn division, the 173rd Abn brigade, and the 4th brigade, 25th ID. The 101st is our only air assault unit.

*fact

Bullsh!t.

Then why do you insist on having nearly every piece of your equipment not in commonality with the Army, which just drives up cost for the taxpayer?

SOF forces were there the first week of October 2001. We were arguing conventional forces. Anaconda=Operation Anaconda. You know, the battle where units of the 10th Mountain, 101st, SF, and Afghans tried to trap Al Qaeda leadership in the Shah-i-Kot valley? I can read a map just fine. I worry about your memory though, seeing as how you think the 24th ID and an airmobile 1st Cav still exists.

What if the bad guys are not caught off guard and the initial assault is wiped out, followed by the destruction of everything following?

1. Should all out war ever break out, it would be safe to say that our allies in the region would also activate their forces.

The main area of resupply in the Pacific will most likely be through, again, Japan. They have a rather good fleet tbh, and have almost exclusively been dedicated to defense meaning they will more than likely be operating in their waters.

The ARG can be escorted until they reach Japanese waters in which they’ll be handed off to a fleet of Japanese ships.

2. If the next big war is in the Pacific, which it seems to possibly be, Okinawa, would be a valid point of refilling ships with troops.

Okinawa, at any given time is literally teaming with Marines. Exact numbers were 15,365 just last year with plans to add thousands more in the near future.

All ready for deployment, some coming back or preparing for other theatres. Getting Army on board is not unheard of (saw a few Green berets on my boat), but it is not necessary.

3. The 3rd Fleet.

If we are going all the way and the 7th Fleet is seen not able do it alone, then lets face it.

We’re going to use the majority of the Pacific Fleet, all at once in a huge operation.

I like traditional Recon units rather than one huge gamble like that.

We ARE talking about a second wave…

Uh, yeah and the enemy will of course wait while we reinforce.

Great plan. Rely on the enemy not attacking, the Japanese fleet to be intact and in a position to help, the forces committed on land not needing the support of ships dedicated to escort Marine reinforcements. What’s to go wrong? Brilliant!!!

No need for Army assistance either. (Marine hubris on parade. This where your ego writes checks you can’t cash.)

1. About the second wave, again yes.

One US fleet potentially does the initial landing, allied fleets support. Then 3rd Fleet comes in with their assets and keeps the ball rolling.

Or have 3rd Fleet be on station the entire time and do the operation/plan with said assets.

2. As of right now, this is quite feasible. The Chinese, though growing, have limited mobility capability by land/sea. Pacific Pivot is supposed to address future issues.

3. The Pacific Pivot seems to bring more and more fleet assets farther into the western Pacific. Wouldn’t you agree?

4. Again why I’ve been advocating the defense of Japan so much the last year or two on these forums.

It is a key strategic area, with the vast majority of our cards.

5. You truly expect 15k + Marines literally right next door, to wait on their hands in Okinawa if Asia starts burning?

Let the Army get here, then get on the boats first without training?

Airborne would do what they do for sure (probably also loading up from Okinawa) if such a war occurs, but that’s abit too much.

the 25th smarty pants…you have a real smart “tude

see major 0, not that far off the mark!, tmbs lfet out all of the cab’s as well. 1st air cav has 47’s???? gee I wonder what they can sling load, or carry internally, infrantry, sling load arty et al seen it done very effectively. & uh-60’s uuhhhhh they carry what .….pax the oh-58 target aquistion birds, for the 64’s and what ever else the bde cmdr wants waxed!

spot on.….

the 25th, not to far off, & i’m well aware off the capabilities of the 1st cav smart a**

Your right, have memory problems, got them from a blast real close to wear I imagined I was.……

Every aviation brigade in the Army has a battalion of –47s and a battalion of –60s. That doesn’t make the division “airmobile.” The 1st Cavalry division is entirely mechanized and armored.

My my, what a furball. We’ve got the anti taxes zealots, the “debt is doing us in” paranoids and the pseudo military historians proclaiming the end of amphibious operations. What a group.

Some things to think about.

We have no idea if there will be need for amphib landings in the future. To eliminate our experts in that field would constitute gross negligence in military planning.

As has been pointed out above, the mere threat of an amphib landing is a valuable asset. Deception is a critical component of warfare. Look up Operation Fortitude.

The Marines, not without some reason, are viewed as an elite force within the American military: better trained, better equipped (e.g. organic CAS) higher morale and more motivated. Sort of like the Waffen SS within the WWII German Army (though I despise that comparison. Maybe the British SAS is better).

Combat on or near the ocean’s edge is the likeliest scenario for future conflict. It is simply a matter of geography and population density. That means specialists with specialized equipment.

In WWII, for the first two years, the allies faced enormous difficulties because of the lack of adequate amphib equipment, including specifically landing craft. Must we repeat past mistakes because some are ignorant of history and/or economics?

your entitled to your opine, its the 25th I was re 2, not 2 far off. The 1st air cav, gone? sheet: The 1st Air cav: During March 2004 the Brigade deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom II as part of Task Force Baghdad. The brigade fought throughout the Baghdad Area of Operations and in Fallujah, An Najaf, Al Kut, Karbala, and Balad. The brigade flew over 70,000 hours and was recognized with 84 awards for valor including the first Army Aviator to receive the Distinguished Service Cross, a Silver Star and seven Distinguished Flying Crosses. In January 2007, the Brigade participated in the “Battle of An Najif”, of which two Air Cav AH-64 were shot down in combat operations. The Brigade was deployed to Taji, Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 09–11. In June 2011 the Brigade Deployed to Afghanistan and Returned Starting in April 2012 . Gee I thought u said they didn’t exist! u just dis’d the courage of those who fought & died. Gen O awarded the bde .…..never mind .….A fiery crash at campbell, impressive…u must be 101, prob a e-6 .…..yeah ur right not a 0–6 with a meb discharge.……ha I’ll tell that 2 my va group therapy boys.…..it will get a laugh.

I should add, I am not advocating this particular piece of military equipment. I think I understand what the Marines want and why. But I am responding to those stating there will be no need for amphib landings in the future in general and no need for the Marine Corps in particular. I hear echos of Alfred Nobel, Maginot, and a host of other misguided prognosticators.

major 0 the mission statement of the 1st air cav that dosen’t exist:The 1st Air Cavalry Brigade’s mission is to deploy by sea, air or land to any part of the world on a short notice and once engaged with the threat; to destroy, neutralize, or suppress the enemy. I’ll post your dodbuzz name on their facebook page & copy your quote that they don’t exist.…..then maybe you’ll have the honor of runnin’ into lets say a Krazy COL who can take you for a walk in the woods! u can recognize i’m not as “sharp” as you are, and maybe you can think of a few reasons why, and it ain’t being old.…..just busted up!

major 0: maybe this busted up PE non-colonel will stop down & visit with Major General McConville, & I can meet such a fine internet operative as yourself, let me ask u do you have glassy eyes & sweety palms from losing “a squad in a fiery air to air collision at Campbell” Because this non Colonel has a few problems.…..maybe we can meet & share some experiences in a less public forum.….gotta go now, take my meds & try & get some sleep.

Obviously, you’re at the other end of the food chain compared to a Marine. Dumb enough? The Marines are keenly aware that they need to quickly begin training in the traditional way. This can involve Marines climbing up and down the sides of ships via nets, boarding a “landing craft”, and landing ashore as far up dry land as possible/practical. Landing via helos will probably also take place. Marine recon (e.g. Special Ops) may land via swimming and/or “special vehicles”. With China, Russia, Syria, N. Africa at our door, we better know how to land all sorts of ways, including– as stated — the same way we did in WW I, II, Korea and in a few instances, Vietnam. I know because I was a Marine enlisted/officer for 23 years. Then Director of Special Security, Space & Defense. I remind readers that a VERY important part of the Marine Corps Mission is “as the President may direct”.
So you may win the award for being the dummy; or perhaps an award for jealousy because you will NEVER measure up. Grow up! Get educated! Be part of the solution; not part of the problem (as you now demonstrate).
Tom Rutherford Capt United States Marine Corps (Ret)

Krazy, earlier you were lumping 1st Air Cav brigade in with the 82nd and 101st as part of an airborne corps. We have 12 aviation brigades in the Army and the 1st ACB is just another one of them. They’re not part of the “airborne” community and it sounded like you were describing the 1st Cav of the Vietnam era where the entire division was “airmobile.” They retained the “air cav” moniker for tradition’s sake and not because they’re doing something other aviation brigades aren’t. You said “101st, 1st Air Cav…82nd.” Read by itself that sounds like you were talking about the Vietnam-era 1st Cavalry Division (airmobile) and not the modern 1st Air Cavalry Brigade.

If you’re going to try to poke fun at majr0d to you friends, be sure to tell them you thought the 1st ACB had the same mission as the 82nd.

One fleet is going to be enough? You missed the enemy not attacking, the Japanese, ASB doesn’t address subs attacking a convoy huh?

The Army is fully capable of deploying by sea. Been doing it for almost a century. That Marine hubris again.

Those Marines in Okinawa may be part of the first wave (remember that 40K?)

Japan has no sizeable US ground forces.

BTW, there’s a division in HI, a BDE in Alaska, Korea and a Mech BDE + at DG (and of course the Airborne and light infantry divisions which all can be part of the first wave).

You’re getting Marine myopia thinking you can and have to do it all on your own.

Krazy — You said, “we have an airborne corps.……the 101, 1st air cav,” Corps are still made up primarily of divisions. Now you want to switch and talk about the 1st Air Cav Bde. They are part of the 1st Cav Div which is not part of 18th ABN Corps. I’m having a tough time following your ailing memory. I understand that’s the second thing to go.

I don’t get sweaty palms but I can remember their faces. Great soldiers.

I caught the “walk in the woods” line. Be sure to bring a litter, you’re going to need it. This conversation is devolving. I’m going to let you carry it on with yourself. I’m sure you do that plenty anyway.

To clarify my remark about the brigade structure: the 1st ACB has 2 battalions of AH-64s, 1 squadron of AH-64s and OH-58s, and 1 battalion split between UH-60s and CH-47s. The 101st’s TWO aviation brigades on the other hand, have a single battalion each of –64s, a squadron of –58s, and two battalions consisting of –60s and –47s. They are built for air assault. The 1st ACB is built to blow up things.

outstanding analysis of their mtoe/tda equipment! The ACB…very good at what they do!

tmb2.…I did loose a lot of what the military med community calls ‘Cognitive abilities”.…by “not being a Colonel”, so yes, my post’s our not spot on! I don’t think I lumped the 82nd w/1st AC.…..in terms of ability„ but just by habit. I’m a engineer, (PE) in the civ. world. Started my career in the Army airborne (82nd as a 12E), & continued in the RC’s & USACE…so thanks 4 the respectful correction. your more of a professional, than some other posters, who if I found out where they were.….…well lets leave that dog lay,

The 1st Cav Div? I thought u said they didn’t exist? I’m having a tough time following your posts, 1st they don’t exist, now you reference them„,I know who makes up the 18th corps, know their commander, I notice your posts are becoming less professional & more personal.…especially for someone like me, think 4 a minute, you very well might be talking to a full bull who in the course of being deployed was f’d up!, lost quite a few subordinate soldiers & friends on his “tours” & not at a air show! & is now recovering from being a “non-Colonel”. ..blogging is a form of therapy, go visit a friend who took a round, or has had blast injuries. has a knee & hip replacement and speech challenges.…send me your uic I don’t care for your tude, I want to seek you out.….….

1. Again, I’ve stressed multiple fleets. It also seems Pacific Pivot is centered on that

2. Again, as of now, the Chinese really do not have the capability to properly attack with perhaps the exception of air. That which, is quite defeatable when done exclusively and with proper warning.

It will be quite difficult for them to properly attack in any other way.

The majority of both Japanese and US fleets are destroyers, ships that are very capable of ASW.

That and several other US/allied subs are in the region.

3. “Japan has no sizeable US ground forces” is a statement that I find odd.

US Forces Japan is actually larger than US Forces Korea.

4. Again with Korea, if hostilities actually do occur between the US/China, do you really think they’ll sit and watch us transport anything in/out of ROK?

NK would probably shell everything south of the DMZ while China tries to isolate the region with air and what they can spare as a Navy.

As for the Army division in HI, it IS a possibility depending on both the planning and the scale of the conflict.

Though I do not see them doing an amphibious assault.

Perhaps reinforcement through the new MLPs or simply through a seized airfield.

USMC-Enlisted.……do your kia’s for the Army & USMC include reserve componet #’ such as USAR (IRR’s IMA’ etc), Army National Guard & USMC-Reserve? I’ll address the rest of your comments after your reply

Yes, Sun Tzu said “All warfare is deception”, so keeping prospective enemies guessing about your real intentions is a good plan. But USMC leadership should be careful in what they ask for, such as the hardware necessary to make an opposed landing. If that hardware is eventually delivered, they may be asked to undertake that mission someday, and if it turns into a disaster, it could be catastrophic to their future existence.

I still wonder if we could simply improve the Bradley, and put it on a high speed barge to deliver to the shore. This could be something akin to hydrofoil tech, I don’t see why a huge assault ship would be needed, when a container ship could hold the platforms. The only tricky part would be loading the vehicles on the barge before the assault — we have brains — huge innovations in civilian logistics have revolutionized world markets, why not apply to military science?

I must admit though, that the electric hybrid concept of the BAE design was attractive for one factor — because the vehicle could operate for a short distance under purely electric power, it could conceivably operate under water with little preparation — no snorkeling required, it would not take much to generate oxygen for the crew, in fact you could use a concentrator filter instead.! Imagine the surprise of the enemy when the vehicle is simply dumped just off shore into the water submerged and then emerging again by driving out of the water! The BAE design was too heavy — with all that armor and motor in the front part of the vehicle and two modes of power, isn’t it about time to consider the mass of the forward motor compartment as armor? Sure it could get hit, but the rear diesel electric motors would be running the maneuver jets on the “barge” until deployment where it could roll off to break the connection. Armor could be added as modules later on shore to save on initial deployment weight.

I realize I’m not a R&D guru, but I’ve had to design robotic systems that work in nasty chemical flooded environments with very good functional reliability. I can’t see the negative trade offs here; maybe someone could shoot me down — it is all interesting to me!

Except for the Marines in OKINAWA US Forces Japan is made of rear echelon types and 130 USAF fighters (which aren’t groundpower assets).

You are limiting your thinking to China. The fight might actually start in Korea. Heck, by the time ASB gets their money we might even have less presence in Korea.

The point remains. The capability to float a max of 40k Marines doesn’t justify a force five times the size. Even if “refilling” ships was an option it doesn’t make sense. Beachhead is secure, send the Army or fly the Army into a seized airfield. 200k Marines IS a second land Army. Heck, it’s in the top 20 in the world bu itself.

In comparison the Brits have a 130K man Army and 10k Marines. We have a about a 500,000 man Army and about 200k Marines. Think about it. Not so “few”.

OOHRAH

So you don’t think opening up multiple fronts/beachheads is a good idea?

Perhaps we should have just fought WWII through Sicily.

Still, if indeed such a fight begins in Korea, either we start another front/beachhead or we grind ourselves through an insanely fortified/mined/zeroed DMZ.

Personally, I like the idea of fighting an enemy from more than one direction.

“Supposedly” (Wikipedia) a Mk 48 torpedo can go 23 miles at 55 knots. Assuming that’s true, I’ll further assume that if you replaced the guidance and warhead with more fuel, you could double that range. So why not just figure a way to bolt one (or more, or a scaled up one) to each side of an IFV designed for planing but without the extra weight and volume of an EFV-like hydrojet system? I realize I’m oversimplifying the engineering, but it can’t be any more difficult than designing an entire EFV/ACV/whatever with hydrojets, and probably way cheaper. I also realize that it wouldn’t necessarily translate to 55 knots and/or 46 miles for the vehicle, but I bet it would move it along a good distance at decent clip. Once ashore, just jettison the torpedos and carry on like a regular IFV. Since the vehicle would already (obviously) float, it could be built with a couple of little propellers a la the LAV-25 so that the force would also be capable of forced river crossings in advance of slower, more vulnerable bridging assets.

Orly: all good points except for the chinese: It will be quite difficult for them to properly attack in any other way? That DF-21D, which everyone afloat seems to dismiss, well its test platform in the Gobi des. shows a rather capable destructive capability againts a carrier & has versions that can attack the CBG in varying modes from mobile launchers, hench your new “stand-off” distance from their coast.

The debt is a consideration. We need to stop being the world’s police for and we need to stop the State Department from finding new places for the DoD to expend resources.

That said, when we spend over 100M for ONE fighter, we need a new amphibious assualt vehicle. The EFV was a victim of too much R&D, unique engine, unique comms. Maybe we need a smaller more agile platform that can run 25kts on on water and 50 plus on land, but small, well protected and with adequate offensive and defensive weapons. The target cost should be about 5 M each, but without the abilty to do forcable entry, we lose a significant advantage. Yes, we have not done an amphibious assault sense Korea, but history has a habit of doing the unexpected.

The AAV7A1 has performed its job becasue a dedicated office at Quantico has done an extrodinary job with very limited funds to keep the AAV7A1 in operation for 40 YEARS. For the cost of 5 F-35s we could make a significant improvement if we stick to the requirement.

USMC Enlisted.…yeah right.…get rid of the Army, & increase fleet based USMC #‘s ur crazy than I am.….…

USMC-enlisted:That goony bird never should have been developed, nor deployed. Why can’t the Navy just buy CH-47D’s, off the self technology, proven airframe, 18 week A & P training program for maint pers.….….I don’t get why your arm of the military needs anything except a replacement for the CH-46.

Yeah, I guess slave labor and lead paint does have its advantages

The Chinese also has an impressive air force/AA network.

Should we give up on planning Airborne operations?

The Chinese also has been hoarding an amazing amount of cruise missiles capable of bombarding most of our bases in Asia.

Should we abandon Japan and the entire Asian theatre altogether?

“Missiles will kill us all.”

Also, prebombardment. Simple.

Return to the era of Larger Landing Ships?
Since the end of WWII, the US Navy’s Amphibious Ships have grown larger and larger because they
are being tasked to carry more and more “stuff” and do more and more missions. The LHD and LHA are
larger than any other Amphib that I can think of and the current LPDs and LSDs are larger than their predecessors. The US does not have “Landing Ships” any longer as the LSTs were retired. As someone
who deployed with them though, I can tell you that since the 60’s at least, LSTs really didn’t “land” often and
instead were used to carry LVTs or other rolling stock. LVTs were launched out at sea and the rest of the rolling stock was generally offloaded via LCU or other landing craft.

I don’t know but maybe someone did some studies and found that the CH-47 was NOT the optimal solution for the USMC.

You might want to look into how much torpedoes cost. HINT: they are VERY expensive

Even if they were just basically fuel and a motor? No sonar, no guidance, no warhead?

Not disagreeing we should have ops on more than one front. Which is a different subject than reinforcing one beach head with a second wave (changing subjects doesn’t relieve you from proving your first point but it’s a nice try).

Conducting multiple large forced landings is beyond our capability just like multiple bde airborne ops is (and that’s for one division).

Your focus on China is myopic and you never addressed how the Marines convince the enemy not to attack for two weeks while waiting on the “second wave”.

BTW, apples and oranges. The Sicily landing was well over before we invaded the Italian mainland. We used the same assets which is my point as you dream of multiple landings with assets that can at most float/support 40k.

Still expensive. The engines are a very intricate design and the fuel is highly toxic. On a sub where they can be “babied”, they aren’t much of threat but being bounced around on an amphib or a cargo ship would be a different story.

If you wanted to use some sort of a detachable power pack to add power/speed to a landing vehicle, it would be much smarter to start from scratch than to use torpedo components.

The Navy and the Army still own a small fleet of the front ramp-dropping LSTs, floating piers, and causeways for the pre-po fleet ships to offload.

The EFV died as you describe because they tried to combine too many things into one package. An infantry carrier has to have a minimum volume to hold the troops, have the components to swim, have the frame and subsystems for heavy enough weapons, be armored to withstand small arms and some heavier infantry weapons, and have an engine strong enough to push all that weight. A fast boat is very light, an IFV is not. The engine on the EFV was larger than the one on an Abrams! The vehicle was heavy and complex and kept breaking down.

orly, naw, the USN has that new laser based technology, Martin mar. has a great new animation on how space based tech, coupled w/shipboard lasers & F-18E with that new “Cruise Missle” type weapon sys. under dev.…..problem solved. They be able to swat all those chinese missles like knats. we’ll just need about 10k of them. No telling what the chinese have in how many miles of under ground tunnels?

Very good post will, being infrantry & retired.…a (Major?) u must have been an instructor at “the point” what a great place for us to meet, lets say on graduation day, or did I misplace that invitation. what part of new york are u from. U defintely know your stuff about the army. I wasn’t smart enough to make the blue braid, no place for a PE runnin’ through the woods! ha.…..I’m right next store in CT, what a coincedence!

in my opinion the Marines Should have a new Amphibious Vehicle because just having that capability scares the bad guys like Saddam he took men and resources away from the front lines to fortify beach’s he though the Marines would land on.

What if we suddenly need to do a Amphibious landing on a beach and we decided Amphibious landings was a thing of the past just like we though after WW2 large scale Wars would be a thing of the past since we have Nukes or when the Air Force said we don’t need the Army because we can just send bombers over enemy cities and bomb them into submission every time we decide something is a thing of the past it comes around to bit us in the A## and then we have to play catch up.

Disclaimer i am No Amphibious Warfare Expert and i do not pretend to be.

majOd:
in response to orly u seem to have omitted the 18th wing of the 5th air force.…and if my fading mind is right, its the most powerful one at USAF’s disposal, coupled w/the 35th in Japan represent a sign. power proj. comp. to provide cover for Orly’s “multiple fleet concept”, but i guess if it doesn’t “fit” your concepts it irrev.…..& a 500k man Army?…not for long, and deployed in a manner to require enormous airlift assets to get them their.

so we should never do an Amphibious landing again and just ask and hope countries let us position huge armies so we can invade places because that worked out so well when turkey said no to us when we invaded Iraq.

so i ask you if we do away with Amphibious landings how do We attack the bad guys Airborne,Helicopters,begging and bribing other countries to allow us to us them as a base? please do tell.

never would downplay the role of abn opns, I know all 2 well, dispite ur coments of their capabilities.…..I proudly wear those “jump wings I earned” maybe a few years earlier than most posting here.

I’m talking about “FORCED” landing, which are a Marines Corp fiction in this modern age.

And if you are not having a forced landing, then you don’t very well need floating tanks.

LOL!

The Marines Corp being compared to the British SAS, now I’ve seen it all.

I don’t know how those boats still float under ego’s as large as yours.

Didn’t know all that. Thanks for the input. My only other thoughts would be either a less volatile fuel source — which might not give the “oomph” needed for good range and/or speed performance — or detachable pontoons (similar in concept to my torpedo idea) with a big propeller and gearbox that mates with the drive sprocket. That way you could use the regular ground engine to drive the propellers, and the gearbox could make it so the propeller RPM is much higher than the drive sprocket RPM (on par with the RPM of a torpedo propeller, maybe even faster).

They want em for a North Korean,’ just-in-case situation’, FFS… Obviously!

An assult should be preempted by an air strike — then you could land a row boat boat on the beach

One well placed SA-7 and poof, you’re writing letters home.

Because the –47 is a heavy lift chopper and we already have the –53 for that role, what we needed was something to replace the –46 in the med. lift role which is exactly what the –22 does. The other thing is that the –47, as a design, is old and if you’re going to go with something brand new that’s not already in the fleet then why not choose a new design that will have more life in it?

I agree with your on everything but your comparisons to the Waffen SS and SAS, though we’re probably closer to the Waffen SS in status than the SAS but neither is entirely accurate. The Waffen SS was an elite force that existed as a force in itself and was not under the umbrella or direct command of the Whermacht and answered to Himmler and Hitler though they were often under the operational command of the Whermacht in the field. They were also, up until late war, the direct military arm of the Nazi party and had strict racial and political requirements to join, both of which don’t and never have applied to the Corps. They were also very well equipped, often at the expense of the regular army, something that, until relatively recently, didn’t describe the Corps at all. Furthermore, the Waffen SS also had an unsavory reputation for committing all sorts of atrocities including the Malmady Massacre, the Corps doesn’t, as an organization, commit atrocities although I’ve heard stories of what we supposedly do to prisoners and are required to do in order to join the Corps.

Comparing the Corps to the SAS is even further off the mark. Although we are technically an elite force we are at best, man for man, only slightly better than the average Soldier and are from the level of elite that the SAS are.The SAS are far closer to units like the SEALs and Delta while the Corps is far closer to the Royal Marines although I think that the Royal Marines have a leg up on us in the training dept.

The general idea is to bombard the beach to the point where all you might have to deal with are the man-portable weapons the pilots didn’t see. That being said, don’t ever let an air guy convince you they can take care of it all.

oblatt1: I think as u well know the reason for such high kia rate on the Tarawa landing was the mis-calculation of the location of the coral reef’s. The higgins craft hit them, the landing ship crews dropped the ramp & the USMC’s ran off dropping into 12–14 ft deep water. If not mistaken, this gave birth to the UDT concept which evolved.…well the rest is history.

spot on

that’s why the 688 class carries so few!

well thought out & historical post, a well trained, led & equiped soldier is just as good as any marine, lets face facts & drop the my wanger is bigger than your wanger bs that has permeated these past few day’s.

tmb2:
the EFV’s MT 883 Ka-524 diesel engine was larger than the M1A2’s multi-fuel?

tmb2:
And bombarding the beach with the biggest ship mounted cannon requires you gettin’ how close. If that’s not possible the USN has a large # of SSGN launched missle that can get the job done, don’t we? Like if something goes splat in lets say Turkey/Syria & maybe The Iranians try some foolish 3rd rate attack at the same time. Think it could happen?

2800 vs 1500 horse power and 3800 pounds vs 2500 pounds. I imagine if they wanted to get the Abrams to swim it would need a humongous engine too.

I’m not too well versed on naval shore bombardment. My point was that no amount of bombardment will clear a beach of the entire enemy force. It’s never happened. The assaulting force will still need some level of armor.

riceball:
can’t argue with that, but you’ll be writin’ a whole lot more of them! just hope the formation has drop flare counter-measures available, & all the airborne guys are out of the aircraft. If I’m not mistakin’ its an a** shot weapon system, & the strela(sp) does have kinematic performance short-comings. Some C-130 pilot types told me a rumor that it brought down a AC-130, but don’t know if its true.

tmb2:
roger that, plenty of those around, only like the MATES of the cold war, they would be the 2nd target I would go after, before they even left dock., maybe with a persitant chem agent.…..wow what a scenario!

Riceball:
beg to differ, the 47D’s, I wouldn’t consider old, have a higher pax cap. than the goony bird, personally which I think never should have been developed, what’s their unit cost? & If I was a bettin man, the 47’s have a better safety record. It would by fleet marine forces 10+ years to develop something more “modern” & speakin’ of age, the ’53’s aren’t spring chickens

tax payeth: ouch.…what about our commitments to our allies?

V22 # 10 G.I, “ship bombardment from how far off shore, ur talkin a missle type right.…helo gunships…the old upgraded cobra’s? .…..or maybe dial 911 for a af AC-130

tmb2:
The MT-883 EFV engine a multi-fuel gas turbine engine?

Not a gas turbine like the Abrams, just a massive diesel.
http://​www​.dieselpowermag​.com/​f​e​a​t​u​r​e​s​/​1​0​0​1​d​p​_​exp

They’re all liberal, therefore to some Americans, they’re worth nuking ourselves

Never seen a transport ever win a fight against a 50 year old MiG.

Good or not, it’s what the Marine corp gives us to fight with, like everything else nobody put a gun to our heads we are all volunteers. Oblatt1 tried to join the Marines but was only accepted by the Army. Hence, the comment…

How interesting. There a reason they opted for the diesel instead of gas turbine? Fuel economy?

…“wouldn’t it make sense to use a different platform”…

You mean something like a helicopter or a tilt-rotor?

Perhaps I’m not presenting my theory properly, but I believe it IS possible to open one beachhead, refill/reload, then do a second assault and create another beachhead/front on another portion of land using the same assets, but with several fleets.

I wish I could illustrate it better than with words.

I need powerpoint I guess?

orly — Sure, theoretically one can do that just like opening multiple airheads. The problem is it doesn’t negate the requirement to keep the initial beach/airhead supplied. No easy task against a second or third rate force. Even more challenging against a near peer and the more operations you engage in simultaneously the more need for the Army.

No need for powerpoint. It’s pretty simple.

An idea…use a fairly large boat to carry an armored whatever to the beach. The what ever would be loaded with x-number of marines, etc. The boat would beach and the whatever would go ashore. Sounds too simple. Maybe a smaller LCAT. Might be able to navigate the mini LCAT from the whatever. This would be the best of both worlds. But of course in a better world we would have a 600 ship Navy, no LCS’s, an effective, squadron operational F35, an Air Farce that can handle nukes w/o any rot, and an Army that was able o fight two wars at the same time. Oh yea, an administration that supports the idea that we are number one and that shinning light on the hill. Oh well one can wish or one can vote.
MMCS(SW)(SS) USN Ret.

You mean an LST?

They took Bagdad in boats, went through the populated areas crossed rivers and canals. Why? because they could. Army couldn’t.

You do realize the Army was in Baghdad before the Marines and took the center of the city?

Actually, I wouldn’t worry. The USMC actually knows a better than some teenagers on a website. That would apply to just about every comment thread on this site.

Doesn’t get any dumber than that.

I’ve heard about the Battle of Nasiriyah, the Battle of Najaf, the Battle of Basra and the Battle of Karbala; funny I never heard about a “Battle of Baghdad”. The Marine Corps does the fighting, and the Army strolls in and makes headlines. That’s about right.

I smell a Haji.

No, some guys only read your own history books and never ask questions.

As to the Battle of Baghdad gogle is your friend… https://​www​.google​.com/​s​e​a​r​c​h​?​q​=​b​a​t​t​l​e​+​o​f​+​b​a​g​h​dad

BTW, from your list it seems you blamed headline grabbing on the wrong branch.

Sounds like you are talking about Marines making a Dieppe raid, or capable of scaring a poor 3rd world country. Even Hezbollah could decimate the landing force you propose, as well as alert them “this is where they are coming.”

Ron, let me find the pictures of the Marines landing in Da Nang and Vietnamese girls standing on shore with flowers. During the 1st Gulf war the Marines made a beach landing and the U.S. Army and CNN sat in lawn chairs while the “awesome” Marines took the beach. In Afghanistan the Army and Air Force had already captured Rhino and left in Oct 2001. When the Marines air assaulted Camp Rhino n Dec 2001 the Army was waiting to turn over their prisoners and CNN took camera film of the Marines making another “deadly” propaganda assault.
During Gulf War 2 the Marines found their water taxi AAV did not maneuver very well, could not keep up with an Abrams tank, and was dead meat for a single RPG. Hit a water taxi with a RPG and the thing lights up like a match.

Yeah, dumb enough to know the doggies can’t land an airplane with tanks in it, until a Marine Corps’ “boat-tank” captures them a landing field. Or do you think tanks can swim?

Inventor of US Pat. No. US 8,206,190 B2 “Amphibious Fighring Vehicle running on Land and Water Surfaces“
Please refer to this patent for an innovative new amphibious combat vehicle that can run significantly faster than 15 knots on the surface of water. This is the result found in the nature and developed in reality.

*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 | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.