Thanks for the article Lee!
Why do many human endeavours fail?
In my opinion its because we complicate the simple, and then go on to focus on minor instead of major issues.
The ACV is a point in case. First read James Hasik's take on the issue here.
My take is much, much simpler.
The Marine Corps needs a vehicle to transport Marines from ship to shore and then onto the objective. It will spend the majority of its operational life on land but we must remember that the sea phase of the trip is as dangerous as an IED strewn battlefield. We need it to be protected, networked, robust and capable of mounting different weapon systems.
We also need to understand that the USMC is part of the Dept of the Navy.
James laid out his scheme but failed to note one important issue. Most of the issues that must be solved are for the Navy. Rolling back beach defenses, clearing corridors for the landing force etc...
THE IDEA THAT THE USMC IS DOING THIS ALONE IS CAUSING INDECISION AND THAT IS THE ROOT OF THE FAILURE.
The EFV concept looked to take away the role of the Navy at clearing away the danger for the landing force. That's why it didn't work.
What should be done is to buy a company's worth of whatever vehicle scored the best in the MPC program and put them in the fleet with contractor support to see how they do in direct comparison to the AAV.
If they perform up to snuff then buy them.
If not then get a redesign and modernized AAV, produce new builds and be done with this nonsense.
Its past time for decisive action on this issue.
Why do many human endeavours fail?
In my opinion its because we complicate the simple, and then go on to focus on minor instead of major issues.
The ACV is a point in case. First read James Hasik's take on the issue here.
My take is much, much simpler.
The Marine Corps needs a vehicle to transport Marines from ship to shore and then onto the objective. It will spend the majority of its operational life on land but we must remember that the sea phase of the trip is as dangerous as an IED strewn battlefield. We need it to be protected, networked, robust and capable of mounting different weapon systems.
We also need to understand that the USMC is part of the Dept of the Navy.
James laid out his scheme but failed to note one important issue. Most of the issues that must be solved are for the Navy. Rolling back beach defenses, clearing corridors for the landing force etc...
THE IDEA THAT THE USMC IS DOING THIS ALONE IS CAUSING INDECISION AND THAT IS THE ROOT OF THE FAILURE.
The EFV concept looked to take away the role of the Navy at clearing away the danger for the landing force. That's why it didn't work.
What should be done is to buy a company's worth of whatever vehicle scored the best in the MPC program and put them in the fleet with contractor support to see how they do in direct comparison to the AAV.
If they perform up to snuff then buy them.
If not then get a redesign and modernized AAV, produce new builds and be done with this nonsense.
Its past time for decisive action on this issue.
