Gates and Co. to Axe Marine Corps EFV?

Yesterday at a reporter’s roundtable, House Armed Services Committee chair Rep. Ike Skelton said he expects SecDef Robert Gates and his merry band of program killers in OSD will try to terminate the Marine Corps armored amphibian, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV).

Skelton said he’s pretty agnostic on the EFV and that the HASC would give the Marines time to conduct further tests on the vehicle. He did expect the Marines to fight tooth and nail to keep the program alive. I’m hearing the same thing from inside the Navy department; the Marines really, really want their EFV.

I’m also told that the Marines are embarking on a PR blitz in think tank land and among reporters to try to pre-empt Gates’ move and sell the EFV along with amphibious warfare writ large; for example, a couple of weeks back EFV program manager Col. Keith Moore did a “bloggers roundtable” (transcript here).

Gates told the Marines to explain how the EFV fits into the big strategy picture, I’m told, and, more importantly, he’s asking the Marine’s for their “vision” of how they fit into the overall force, beyond amphibious assault.

He contends that the EFV is a gold plated “niche” capability designed for a highly unlikely repeat of the Inchon landing.

The Marines say… well here’s how Moore put it:

“[S]o many of the capabilities that are in the EFV are specifically designed so you never have to do another Inchon, you never have to do another Iwo Jima, but you can still do that forcible entry mission when it’s required or provide a credible threat of a joint forcible entry so that you open up other opportunities for other capabilities that are within the suite of American military capabilities, whether that’s other surface means, aviation means or whatever, that by having a credible threat in one area you open up a window of vulnerability in another area that we can exploit.”

I’m told that planners in the Navy department are eyeballing the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) as a more versatile means of delivering troops and vehicles ashore. Obviously it doesn’t have the “forcible entry” capabilities of an armored amphibian, but the idea is to use recon to find an empty beach and land there, instead of into the teeth of enemy defenses.

The feeling is that the LCAC, which is due for an upgrade, can deliver more relevant troops and material ashore much faster (carrying up to 75 tons at 40 knots) than a gaggle of EFVs.

— Greg Grant

  • William C.

    Personally I want the Marines to win this round, Gates already made a great enough mistake cutting F-22A production.

  • STemplar

    We haven’t used the ‘credible threat’ in 60 years and we won’t. We can’t afford billions on programs to maintain a ‘bluff’.

  • STemplar

    It is far from essential. It isn’t even a particularly good IFV and it is very expensive. This is about Marine generals trying to maintain the Glory days of the corps, period. We engaged in the beach storming warfare in WW2 and Korea because we had to, not because we wanted to. If we had PGMs and helicopters we would not have had Omaha beach and Iwo Jima.

  • This thing is overspecialized and too expensive. The Marines should certainly focus on their role as an amphibious combined-arms expeditionary force, but this is not the sliver bullet for beach landings. Amphibious assaults should be centered on good coordination between our fleet and the local land-based air forces, not trying to build a catch-all beachbreaker and getting a lame IFV out of it.

  • WTQ

    ’bout time.

  • Dean

    Some issues here: 1.) any future major conflict isn’t going to allow us the luxury of
    establishing bases of operations in friendly countries next door. 2.) Secondly, the future of permanent foreign bases is in great doubt, there’s no reason to not believe that we will have fewer and fewer foreign bases in the future. Because of these two reasons any major conflict will be a ‘come as you are’ type of operation. We’re not going to be building airfields and army bases in the conflict area and we not going to be able to stage operations from friendly countries next door. The future lies in the Western Pacific, that future conflict area is what we must plan for now. Guam and our other island bases will simply disappear in the first minutes of a major conflict-they what do have-nothing but Navy power. There are no more “Fortress Europe” out there, no country has a defended border/coast line line with concrete batteries, big guns in caves, etc. out there. 80% of the worlds population lives on or near the coast. A lot of you are saying that the Marines would storm defended beaches and die by the hundreds, that isn’t sound military thinking, one never attacks an enemies strong point, even if they can defend their coast to some degree, they can’t defend everywhere. Finally if one is a student of history one cannot be smart and say ‘we’ll never need this capability again’ and not look the fool as have many ‘smart’ people done in the past.

  • Jack

    LCACs are aluminum and burn easily. AAVs are old as dirt. Forced entry is not going away…but Gates needs to give us options instead of just cutting things. Readers to need to in tactical terms at Grenada, Gallipoli, Tarawa, and Normandy to understand. We spend millions on the USAF and it’s pristine bases, the Army and their toys, and billions on new CVNs, but when the Marines need a vehicle to do it’s mission MANDATED by congress, everyone starts getting nervous. Besides, knowing the USMC we won’t have to buy new amtracks for them again until 2050….

  • joe

    “Gates told the Marines to explain how the EFV fits into the big strategy picture, I’m told, and, more importantly, he’s asking the Marine’s for their “vision” of how they fit into the overall force, beyond amphibious assault.”

    This looks more than just “axing” the EFV….Gates have a special agenda to do away with the Corps? Gates could save Billions by getting rid of one whole branch of Service…beware, it’s been tried before.

  • Dean

    If Gate really wants to save money he should be looking at how each services spends the money they got 1.) why are all the Air Force bases and residences luxurious with fine golf courses, etc.? 2.) how can the Marines spend less $ per fighter then the Army does but yet have more effective fighters? 3.) why does the Air Force have THREE heavy bombers, B-52, B1 and the B-2? That’s what I call a huge waste of money since they all do basically the same thing-drop big bombs. 4.) Why is the Army and Air Force in the ballistic missile defense arena when it has been shown that they don’t know a damn thing about it? 5.) Lastly, I can’t leave the Navy out, why are we spending money on the LCS that gains us nothing in war fighting ability, we should be spending on money on a new frigates-replacing the aging Perry class. Cheers

    • Bob

      Well speaking for the Army. It has to do the whole thing, medical, logistics, engineers, chaplins, combat support etc. The Marines have the Navy to do most of their support missions for them.

      • Charley

        Not that I’m an USAF fanboy – far from it actually. But I think that the people have gotten their money’s worth out of the B-1, and especially the B-52 – that aircraft is still relevant after how many years now? The B-2? Different story.

    • chris

      First, lets start with the fact that Marines do NOT have more effective fighters. That is simple Marines hubris. The average Marine grunt is far less trained than the average Army infantrymen. Second, lets go with the fact that the majority of the USMC support function is performed by either the Army or the Navy depending on the theater of operations. Even their medics are funded by the Navy and those costs carried on a different budgetary line item. These acounting games make the actual Marine costs appear to be much smaller than they really are. If you were to factor the support costs from the Navy and Army onto the individual Marine grunt and then factor in the expensive equipment in their little air force and stuff like the EFV the average Marine grunt is far more expensive than their peer Army grunt. The Marine Corps as it currently structured is intended to support a dead mission. Reduce their strength to that necessary to support their pre WW1 mission and move the difference to the Army for a huge cost saving.

      • Donnell

        Well said Chris, I wish every Marine could read that and stop preaching and believing in there own propaganda.

  • Rick W

    Here’s the problem guys – If you have an enemy so strong you need the EFV’s capabilities to have a viable ‘forcible entry’ option that enemy is so strong the mission will be suicide. As someone wrote on another board, an EFV would be nothing more than a 10 million dollar coffin for twenty marines.

    The flip side of that is if the enemy is not that strong, you don’t need this expensive boondoggle to do the job.

    For me personally, I would like to see the Marines get a much inproved landing vehicle. But I’d like a concept that sets realistic goals, and that can be bought for a realistic price.

  • Howe

    I agree with Gates, beaches will never be taken like on D-day, these days…bombs and missiles will be the ones clearing out the enemy.

    Cut Away Mr. Gates.


    From what i hear its aluminum, good luck once you’re on lands. I’ve read it can hurt occupants backs in choppy water going fast (which is its biggest asset) since it is designed for ‘over the horizon’ its a long ride. Helo’s can skim the surface of the water so there not that much more of a target, go faster, maybe armed better, and prob. cheaper. Plus you’ve already softened the beachhead with precision munitions. Cancelled.

  • SSG.Hubbs 82nd Abn

    Seems like once a program gets cut because it’s not needed it is invariably needed again. Remember how snipers were always dropped after a war was over, then we had to do it all over again hwen a new war began. Now finally there are ongoing sniper schools, lesson learned. What can it hurt to have a hard hitting amphib forced entry group around, one just never knows. Once all the tooling machines are melted, factories dismantled it would be a bear to reinstate a system. I say pull back from all these needless conflicts, consolidate where you can, arm the forces in a way they can fulfill their missions and pick our battles WISELY!!!

    • STemplar

      Except we haven’t needed to do a forced entry since Inchon. We don’t fight like this anymore. We don’t have to. We only did back in the mid 20th century because we had to, not because it was a very good way of doing business, it was the only way at the time.

  • Maurice

    This one is kind of hard to figure and non-Marines (Sailors rate the right, they help get us from ship to shore) dont rate the right to comment here. The Marines have always gotten what the Army didnt want or cast away (the LAV-25 was presented to them they didnt want it..then came up with the Stryker, which is a HUGE LAV 25) the Cobra (they got the Apache which is bad a$$, but we put 4 blades on the Cobra and she has a nasty bite).

  • Maurice

    cont’d Looking at, as another posted pointed out, the Army has been through a bevy of vehicles with overhauls and new designs even before the Marines can get one upgrade (the Stryker is going through what, its 5th upgrade?!?!?). AF, you folks cant even begin to go there. We have been in the mix for almost ten years and most of your shiny aircraft havent been outside of the hangar…except for training. The only people you folks have worth talking about are FAC’s, PJ’s, medics,and CCT’s. You guys should remain moot on this point hoping no one notices your financial SQUANDERS! We should give two spits what the Navy says simply because they sign our checks AND the commit bodies to our fight (SEALs, Corpsman, SWCC’s, SeaBees). As for the vehicle, we definately need it; not just for ship to shore but for inland incursions. Some of these numbskulls think we only have beachhead capabilities when as a combined arms force in readiness, can deliver more of a quick strike punch in the mouth capability than most Army units. But again, the smallest branch of the service keeps getting picked on by the larger budgeted two…sort of like Cinderella and her wicked step-sisters…and we know who came out on top in that story!

  • I’d really like to ask the EFV supporters what they think about the rapidly expanding global arsenal of anti-shipping, cruise, and guided anti-tank missiles in inventories around the world. Conceptually, I really like the idea of Maneuver From the Sea, but the minimum safe distance keeps getting further from the shore in several cases.

    Remember, your answer can’t be “air power and Tomahawk strikes”. If you assume that strategic fires are available, there’s really no reason to risk forced entry.

    • Locarno

      Good point.

      Problem: The stand-off troop deployment distance you gain with EFVs versus the range of modern high end SSMs. Orignial concept was to operate outside artillery and rocket range (call it 20 miles) – is the EFV really capable of being deployed 70+ miles plus off shore now that C802 and any future successors are starting to turn up in national armouries?

    • Jeff M


    • Taylor

      What about the ever more present surface to air missles so they ahave alot of those maybe we shouldnt use helicopters either??

      • Flawed analogy. Surface to air missiles are indeed a legitimate threat to aircraft, but the West has developed techniques and technologies to curb those threats down to an acceptable level. Additionally, the costs of a helicopter (well – pre V-22, anyway) are not prohibitive if you lose one to a SAM. They are “priced to go”, so to speak.

        Naval anti-missile warfare is still developing, by comparison. Cruise and anti-shipping missiles are extremely difficult to intercept by naval forces on a simple 1:1 ship/missile basis. When you factor in proximity to enemy shore, you need to start thinking about volley fire and over-saturation attacks. Consider the costs of a single amphibious assault ship, then add the lost aircraft (hypothetically, F-35Bs), plus as much as a complete Marine Expeditionary Brigade.

        Get it yet?

  • slntax

    guys look at this and look at the f-35 you cannot build a victor that does everything and expect it to be good at anything! look at the overblown costs! it would be wiser to for the army/marines to build a quality ifv and the marines to design a new delivery system for it when attacking shores. specificity is what works!

  • danf

    We can no longer afford wars like Iraq and Afgan. The lesson we should learn is that counter-insurgency is a loser. That means we need to focus on strategic threats. Emphasis on power projection. Navy, Marines and Airforce. That means we must DOMINATE air and sea with 100% certainty. Gates keeps putting up the straw man of how does this help us fight our current wars. That is the cover to obscure the preemption of our future capabilities. In my book the 780b “stimulus” could easily have funded F22, ship building, submarines, anti missle defense, future bomber etc…keeping skilled people employed and providing unmatchable capabilities . But instead all these programs are being cut leaving us with a light infantry constabulary force.

    • I’m generally for revising the EFV project, but for the sake of playing devil’s advocate.. how can a nation choose the battles it fights? If we get hit with a second major mass-casualty terror attack, are we going to shrug and say “sorry, we only fight first-world nations now”?

    • Bob

      Because a light infantry force is all we can afford. Mr. Obama has other plans for federal dollars and the military isn’t on the short list. The stimulus money was spent on what gets politicians re elected. The democratic party that brought us the stimulus would never stand for it being spent on the military. As a general rule most of the military when it votes, does not vote for democrats.

    • Donnell

      Danf I’m a military man like most of the bloggers on this site and I love my Army and My country, but if I had to choose between the two, my country wins hands down. I would like for my country and people to prosper and if that mean that we have to cut off a weapon system, so be it. I would like to remind you that the US military budget is bigger than half the nations on this planet combined, that includes friends and foes. When is enought, enought for you…


    Once again we are thinking of standing face to face with our enemy in 3 ranks with muzzle loaders- a nice neat western war. Huge portions of the third world Asia/ Pacific , South America and Africa have no road structure and shallow waterways are the main highway. I much rather face an enemy in these areas coming out of Amphibious fighting Vehicle than being dropped into the swamp off a chopper. We need a vehicle that can put squads not divisions into small mobile conflict areas safely and rapidly with fire power and face an enemy that fights us in shallow water, swamp and water accessible only land masses.
    And yes it is time to stop replacing equipment, get rid of the Marines and the SeaBees, whole army divisions and many Navy ships because we have a democrat president and he will be able to brag how he cut federal spending and jobs and then they can blame the next Republican administration that has to restore all they have shorted -With the help of a willing media it has worked every time – results don’t matter when no one will be told of them.

  • Jeff M

    This is the same argument as missile defense, you could say why are we building this because if the missiles start flying we’re all doomed anyways. Well it’s simple, this makes doomsday less likely. The United States needs to maintain it’s overwhelming firepower. When you’re running a race you don’t stop and take it easy when you pull out ahead of the pack, you keep running as hard as you can. We need ground forces and it’s not always easy getting them over the ocean and onto dry land. If I were a soldier fighting a war along a coastline, I would want one of these.

  • diablotakahe

    I ask myself in situations such as these, what would Reagan do?

    Buy both of course. LCACs and EFVs


  • Sean Wagner

    Whatever happens to this program, the Marines shouldn’t give an inch on forcible entry.

    The threat alone is an important military asset, and preparing for future conflinct has to mean the ability to inflict pain in multiple ways, not searching for the predetermined road to victory.

    However, I do think that the present round of cutting and redistributing has many benefits – if we do not regain our ability to build relevant hardware in meaningful quantities and useful development cycles, we may as well pack up.

    And since we do not know what hardware will really be relevant (because there actually is a revolution in communications and computing), we need lots of experimentation and flexibility, and maybe a greater atomization and variety of platforms.

    What seems to be the Achilles’ heel of the EFV is its size and the dangerous tendency of trying to be all things. When you separate systems, you lose a lot of complexity, gain a lot of flexibility, and get to optimize and replace subsystems more easily.

    From an adversary’s perspective, a force that can recon, raid and reinforce with impunity is a nightmare. Problem is, are vehicles of this size really the answer to the urban coastal environment? Threatening rice paddies is senseless.

  • cabgx2

    Gates is still mad at the Commandant for his public stand against the repeal of DADT. Gates and Obama are on a witch hunt and the Marines are the target.

  • Tony C

    The point was made that the AAV is old and needs replacement, so why not develop a replacement with superior capabilities to the AAV? The same logic holds true for keeping the F-35 alive over the F-16 and AV-8. There is a price to pay for any new hardware, if the world was a static place, we wouldn’t need to develop new capabilities. The EFV is an easy target for budget cutters since it has no place in the present conflicts. There will come a time when the DOD will have to make the decision to wither keep the Marine Corps separate and a forced entry force or delete the capabilities and disband the Marine Corps.
    SECDEF Gates seems to want to disband the marine Corps altogether.

  • Cowboy50

    You should put the top NCO’s in charge of the military that knows what it’s like to be in the trenches. Those lazy high ranking no goods have no business making decisions what the troops on the ground need when they are setting back in the white house drinking coffee and eating bon-bons. I’ve seen first hand both in Vietnam and Iraq that all those a–holes have to do is show up in country and they get more awards and ribbons than Audey Murfey for just being in country. It is a shame that the guys on the front off breaking down doors don’t get to make any input into what gear they need to keep safe and get the job done quickly. This pussy footing around with these radicules in the middle east and in the courts back in the states is a bunch of B.S. When in Rome do as the Romans, off with their heads just like they have done in Iraq to some Americans and post it on their web sites so they get a taste of their own medicine. The bottom line is let the people on the ground do most of the decision making about what they need to get the job done!!

    • jsallison

      Senior enlisteds are frequently part of the problem right along with their commissioned counterparts. Too many figured out how to game the system to grab that next rocker thanks to EPMS, son of DOPMA which gave us a whole bunch of senior rankers optimized for self-promotion. I’d like to think that the clarifying fire of combat has burned off the rubbish but with it being a limited effort at any particular time I have my doubts. Too many places to hide, even in the war zones.

  • Mike

    I’m a Coast Guard veteran and I think this thing needs to be built for the Marines. Its faster than the vehicle the Marines us now. What the hell is going on with Gates he’s a retard. Something that does the work of two. Win Win.

  • Benjamin

    Where is a safe beach? A couple of aircraft flying of the coast of a country with Hellfire missile’s could cover an entire countries coast line. An unarmored vehicle would not survive this type of attack. The LCAC’s are good after the beach head is secure and that will require the EFV.

  • Jeff

    I am and will always be a Marine… but I don’t see the need for the EFV and I am increasingly concerned that my Corps, with its M1’s, F-18’s, Ospreys and all manner of heavy equipment, looks more and more the US Army. We don’t, IMHO, need a second US Army and the Marine Corps should focus on its traditional First to Fight role. We are, and ought to be, trigger pullers and door kickers. We are the point of the spear! We are not the spear itself.

  • Charley

    The Marines need to rethink their acquisition policies. Why is it that they choose the most expensive options? The MV-22 – fantastic aircraft and fantastically expensive. Could we afford to lose these at the same rate as we lost helicopters in SE Asia? F-35B – it is not going to be cheap. Can a stealth aircraft be properly maintained in austere conditions? Is forward basing practical? Should we even think about a ~100m aircraft doing CAS where stealth is moot? Would an AH-1Z be better? An EFV than is expensive but is only good at breaching a beach? Inshore, flat bottoms and IED’s (or mines) don’t play well together. LCAC’s and a new IFV designed for today’s battlespace seem more prudent.

    The Corps seems to have convinced itself that it needs these weapons to justify it’s existence – a question that the Marines seem to struggle with periodically.

  • Greg _R

    So the tradition continues, Washington screwing the Coprs!

  • Phil

    Because the EFVs must first be boats, they have flat bottoms, which means that they have NO protection against IEDs. Even a low tech enemy has those now.

    Cut ’em.

  • waylon

    Can someone tell that Col. Moore that Inchon was a good thing that we’d love to repeat one day.

    Gates may cut it before he leaves, but then the retired Generals will just have it reappear with a new name and the money flowing to the same contractors and GD. It was the AAAV, then the EFV, and next year it will be the MFV or something.

  • pedestrian

    I view the EFV in terms of how it fits in asymetric warfare. EFV should not just be sought as a litoral assault platform, but as an option of IFV with brown water capabilities. Strategy Page reported it has survivability of MRAP vs IED. EFV may also travel within the country via rivers as a method of avoiding IED, while that case might only happen, when it is moving to another base or preparing an offensive via river to a terrorist stronghold. EFV has potential strengths in environment similar to Iraq and Afghanistan. There are many rivers, and in that case, it would allow to travel with less encounters by IEDs. IED’s in water is much more ineffective and easier to detect in case terrorists think they are smart inventing in water IEDs. EFV fits into the threats today and Marines future for its potentials in the guerilla warfare.

  • Ted Kuhn

    How can Rep Skelton be agnostic about EFV? Agnostic means a dis belief about God!

  • Sam West

    Those who think we will never need such a vehicle are foolish for thinking that you can predict what future wars will be like. Gates sounds pretty foolish when his remarks are put into historical perspective of the many times we’ve encountered unexpected circumstances in war. (Since I’m reading American Commandos about Carlson’s Raiders in WWII their unexpected problems come to mind – they trained for what they considered every contingency and yet their first amphibious raid was riddled with unexpected circumstances.) You cannot accurately predict how war will unfold.

    It’s the Marines who will have to go in first and they will be in the line of fire. To fail to provide them with the protection they need is criminal.

    And Byron Skinner – what have you been smoking!?!

  • Bob Sheridan

    Impeach Obama

    • Bob

      For what?? He has not been caught at anything, and about half the voters love him.

  • jsallison

    I’m still convinced that the very doctrinal concept behind the EFV is what is flawed. You want to assault onto a beach and then continue inland but a vehicle optimized for the former is not going to be optimized for the latter. I’ve thought the Bradley was too bloody big for it’s own good all along but this stupid floating boresight panel is outrageous. Get the guys to the beach in whatever way seems best but to push inland use land AFVs. Marine tankers are apparently able to use M1’s to good effect without being overwhelmed by army cooties, I suspect their counterparts in the rifle companies will do just fine with Brads and Strykers.

  • IronV

    Here’s how it is people. You can’t have it all. Limited resources dictate prioritization. And the question is, is the EFV a PRIORITY? I trust Gates to make that decision.

  • Benjamin

    Sec. Gates was good at getting stuff out to the troops in the field but has shown that he is out of his league when it comes to weapons development and budget decisions. (F-22, EFV, JSF and Tanker)

  • blight

    I find it hilarious how the Marines think EFV alone would be enough for a contested beach. If they really believe in contested beaches there’d be amphibious tanks and artillery, etc.

    Nopers, just infantry. Definitely want a repeat of Omaha Beach, man versus direct and indirect fire. It just shows that the Corps is interested in repeating the operations of yesterday verbatim, but with more spiffy technology. Taken to its logical conclusion, we’d have tanks that charged each other on the battlefield with lances made out of shaped charges…

    New times and new technologies call for new tactics and new equipment, not new equipment and old tactics/strategy. And if the Corps wants to go brown-water again, I suspect there are better vehicles for the job. It’s easy to insist on “jack of all trades” stuff but the corollary is “master of none”. Do you want an expensive turkey that can’t do anything well?

  • howard

    i think the USMarines are missing another aspect of this type
    of weapon. to my mind, it’s not the fact that it is
    carrying troops to a WWII beach head that is so important.

    the issue i see is that with three changes
    it’s a new weapon systems changing the
    balance of sea power; and the role of the
    Marines in it.

    1 – retrofit our ‘in storage nukes’ to be
    micro power plants and power the EFV
    with them for essentially unlimited range.
    2 – seal the EFV so that it can achieve a modest
    underwater cruise depth of say 50 meters.
    3 – design water tight missle launch tubes
    and put 2 of them on each EFV. in this case
    i’d second guess the strategists and
    suggest these tubes be ship to ship extended
    range types. even hypersonic ones.

  • Sgt. Wade

    I wonder what Gates would have done as SecNav in the 1930’s when the Marines were developing Amphibious Warfare and the weird Alligator?

  • The Marines need a Superior IFV family not a miss-match of equipment they now have. Quite frankly the Army has the right Idea, but the Stryker is a very expensive and only adequate in performance. While on my last rotation to Afghanistan my Stryker Scout platoon was paired up with Polish Mech Infantry with their Patria Rosomak(Wolverine) 8×8 IFV. How does a similar vehicle that is SUPERIOR in every important aspect Protection( i saw one hit by a RPG-9 @ 250meter detonated-no penetration), mobility, Fire power(30mm,40mm and 2x120mm AMOS motar), crew comfort and ease of operation cost 1/3 of the price of the Stryker. While crossing a river we looked for a fiord point. The Poles just plunged in to find a low spot for us to cross.

  • The Rosomak is fully amphibious and can attain 35Kph in water once the mechanics give them a tweaking. Polish Naval Infantry drive them right off the back of their ships. It is also tranpsportable in C-130 and CH-53E which Stryker is not. The most expensive version, 2x120mmAMOS motar cost about the same as a plain LAV25, so Just do not let an American Defense Contractor get involved. It will be too heavy, too tall, too slow, be 15 years late and cost 20 million a piece and still will not swim. Oh! Sorry! thats my Stryker.

  • In reality it will do nothing as the USMC needs to specialize and change into a actual Commando brigade with the capabilities of 3 Commando Royal Marines. 1-2 of such Brigades with 3 Battalions a piece is what the USMC will be left with soon . Armor needs to be in the Army as well as most Combat Aviation( my experience is that USAF, NAVAIR and MARAIR do not real want to fight wars, theyjust want to fly jets around looking pretty). Its time to realize that in the future our defence budget will be set by our Creditors. If India called on all US notes currently due we would be bankrupt, and we owe Chine 8 times more than India. We wanted to sell them the Kittyhawk, They could ask for the USS Truman and get it. Sorry USMC its time to change!