Basic instincts: Resetting USMC core operational mindset

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 16 May 2021, 21:23

LAW = ASBTC (a slow boat to China)

zhangmdev · by **zhangmdev** » 16 May 2021, 22:07

So what is the top speed of the Expeditionary Sea Base Ships? If it is just some glorified cargo ship, what is the point of giving it 30 knot speed?

madrat · by **madrat** » 17 May 2021, 00:51

The contradictions with future planning are not just limited to the Marines.

Let's face it, there is an organized effort to snip the testicles off of our armed services.

It's almost like internal sabotage.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 17 May 2021, 03:49

My observation is that some people fall in love w concepts and ideas...without clear-eyed scrutiny of what those ideas entail in programmatic or budgetary terms. It is beyond comprehension how a 15kt surface conveyance fits meaningfully, realistically into the scenarios in which their use is envisioned.

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 17 May 2021, 03:58

The good Commandant's vision of fighting in the littorals, island hopping would seem to dictate a ship-to-shore connector as quickly as possible. Personally, I think divesting the USMC of all it's M1A2 tanks is foolhardy and short sighted. Wanting to get onto dry land as quickly as possible in this new scheme... if one is not taking MV-22's... then as quick a surface conveyance as possible would seem highly desirable. How does 25 kts + armor grab you? But the EFV was cancelled. If the USMC had hung on to the EFV, then with the correct anti-armor missiles (e.g. Javelins), I could possibly see divesting the M1A2s, but hanging on to the EFV. But apparently the EFV wasn't fast enough and was cancelled. So they are rolling with the 15kt LAW.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 17 May 2021, 04:04

steve2267 wrote:The good Commandant's vision of fighting in the littorals, island hopping would seem to dictate a ship-to-shore connector as quickly as possible. Personally, I think divesting the USMC of all it's M1A2 tanks is foolhardy and short sighted. Wanting to get onto dry land as quickly as possible in this new scheme... if one is not taking MV-22's... then as quick a surface conveyance as possible would seem highly desirable. How does 25 kts + armor grab you? But the EFV was cancelled. If the USMC had hung on to the EFV, then with the correct anti-armor missiles (e.g. Javelins), I could possibly see divesting the M1A2s, but hanging on to the EFV. But apparently the EFV wasn't fast enough and was cancelled. So they are rolling with the 15kt LAW.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

Makes you wonder. If, the USMC maybe interested in the new Light Tank being developed for the US Army???

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/1 ... valuation/

zhangmdev · by **zhangmdev** » 17 May 2021, 09:33

EFV was a 30 t tracked APC on 2700 hp water jet pump propulsion. What could go wrong? It got cancelled because poor reliability, weight too much, failed to complete tests, not because it was not fast enough. It could not go "on plane" to achieve desired speed when fully loaded with armor and marines. EFV was designed to "keep up with" the M1 Abrams, not to replace the main battle tank. Its fire power was puny. Its protection was marginal. Its mobility on land was questionable. So what's the point of "hanging on" to it?

madrat · by **madrat** » 17 May 2021, 11:47

If only there was a way to through land-based drones on the beach ahead of a landing force. More like a high speed submersible bobsled to get a team of automatons on and up the beach as quickly as possible. Stop thinking it has to float since it requires no life support.

Literally the enemy will resort to rapidly deployed remote-operated turrets in the future. Something to counter that,

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 23 May 2021, 15:08

zhangmdev wrote:EFV was a 30 t tracked APC on 2700 hp water jet pump propulsion. What could go wrong? It got cancelled because poor reliability, weight too much, failed to complete tests, not because it was not fast enough. It could not go "on plane" to achieve desired speed when fully loaded with armor and marines. EFV was designed to "keep up with" the M1 Abrams, not to replace the main battle tank. Its fire power was puny. Its protection was marginal. Its mobility on land was questionable. So what's the point of "hanging on" to it?

Your post is the first I have read of all sorts of technical / performance problems with the EFV. If what you write is accurate, then I can understand why the EFV was cancelled.

zhangmdev · by **zhangmdev** » 23 May 2021, 16:49

I don't know if that is accurate. I just read some report found online:

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... 102534.pdf

And that was right after the 2008 gun failure:

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... osJohn.pdf

Again, I don't know if some or any of that multitude of problems were fixable or had been fixed after that, or how it performed during the later tests. I have no more information.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 23 May 2021, 20:58

Thanks all for getting OFF TOPIC so that the mods relegated this thread from F-35land to nowheresville - see the first page and others for relevant info on USMC F-35Bs use for EABO (that's the woody wood pecker song). E E E E AAA BO!