Yeah, that’ll clear up a lot of budget issues, won’t it?
Let’s start with the headline…
Yo Rooters, the EFV is not a “tank” by any definition of the term. It’s an Amphibious Armored Personnel Carrier, otherwise known as an APC. It cannot do the jobs that a tank can do, and vice versa. The EFV does not cost $13 billion each, $13 billion buys us almost 600 of them. Overpriced to be sure (and not enough of them either), but certainly not the thirteen billion dollar per vehicle lie that Rooters is pushing with that headline.
Ah but, we already know that the Rooters headline writers are a bunch of uneducated idiots, so let’s dig right in to the rest of the feces from Rooters…
“U.S. Marines must be able to storm enemy shores in amphibious vehicles such as those being built by General Dynamics Corp, the top Marine said, defending a $13.2 billion program called into question by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.”
General Conway should not have to explain the obvious to you idiots at Rooters. The US Marines are an AMPHIBIOUS force. That means they sail to their objective on ships and they land at their objective, preferably through docking facilities, but on some occasions, when the enemy will not permit normal docking operations or such facilities are not available, the Marines must have the ability to land over beaches and their landing craft must have the ability to defend themselves from enemy fire. This isn’t too difficult a concept for you, is it Rooters? Because it is clearly far too difficult a concept for Robert Gates to understand and that is far more worrying then the babblings of a bunch of poorly educated legacy media whores and terrorist supporters like Rooters.
“As conceived by the Marine Corps, the EFV is to be able to transport up to 18 combat-ready Marines at high speeds on both land and sea. It would have advanced communications capabilities, provide increased armored protection against rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices, and deliver lethal firepower up to 2,000 meters (2,200 yards).”
With the exception of the speed part, this was planned as a straight forward replacement of a class of vehicles that the USMC already has. The AA7V/LVTP7 series was first developed in 1967 and the last one was delivered in 1974. The LVTP7 last received a major upgrade in the early 1980’s. After almost forty years in hard USMC service (is there any other kind of USMC service?) and several wars, they are worn out and beyond further repair or upgrades. The AA7V/LVTP7’s were due for replacement a decade ago. Without these vehicles the US Marines no longer have the ability to land any where any time by sea, which after all, is the very definition of the military term “Marine.”
“But Gates, in an April 17 speech to the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, said he had directed Pentagon planners to take a “realistic” view of the need for landing large numbers of troops “so we can better gauge our requirements.”
“But we have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious action again,” Gates had said on the last stop of a weeklong tour of the armed services’ war colleges to promote revamped budget priorities. “In the 21st century, how much amphibious capability do we need?”
So what Gates is saying is that we no longer need the USMC or any of the US Navy’s big amphibious landing ships.
I think we’d be a lot better off keeping the USMC and its amphibious capabilities, and firing the historically challenged Robert Gates.
Is this what you voted for?