Monday, February 24, 2014

What the fuck just happened. New info on 2015 budget.

Aviation Week has Hagel's outline of the 2015 defense budget.  Check out this passage....
I have also accepted the Army’s recommendation to terminate the current Ground Combat Vehicle program and re-direct the funds toward developing a next-generation platform. I have asked the leadership of the Army and the Marine Corps to deliver new, realistic visions for vehicle modernization by the end of this year.
What the fuck does that mean?  What the fuck just happened?

Is the Marine Personnel Carrier back on or not?  Not a peep of it is in Hagel's presentation.

What about the ACV?  The AMPV?  The JLTV?

Shit just got weird. 

11 comments :

  1. Don't read too much into one transcript. I believe funding for JLTV and AMPV are safe. As a matter of fact AMPV becomes army's #1 combat vehicle program due to GCV cancellation. I can't say the same thing for Marine vehicle modernization though. My gut feeling tells me ACV and MPC will fold into a single program of record, which may not be a bad ideal. Given the poor record of USMC acquisition, one focused program is better than two underfunded and overlapping programs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/24/weapons-cuts-in-2015-budget-leave-soldiers-marines-at-risk/

    A new Amphibious Combat Vehicle to get marines safely from ship to shore in future conflicts has been indefinitely delayed. And a new Army Ground Combat Vehicle designed to provide better battlefield mobility and protection for a nine-soldier rifle squad has also been shelved.

    Sydney J. Freedberg of BreakingDefense.com suggested in a thoughtful February 17 analysis that the Marines may never revisit the idea of a vehicle that can fight both on land and in coastal waters, opting for less capable systems.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/chuck-hagel-pentagon-budget-cuts-defense-103854.html

    The Army would cancel its Ground Combat Vehicle. The Pentagon would transfer all the Army’s AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to the active component, away from the National Guard and Reserve

    The Pentagon appears to have left mostly intact major programs such as the F-35 Lightning II, the Air Force’s new bomber and KC-46A Pegasus tanker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "intact major programs"?

      The KC-X contest was FUBAR! The third attempted was tailored for Boeing. The tanker story reminds me somehow of GCV. Several nations already have their operational CV-90, ASCOD, BMP-3, Puma, Tulpar, ... but the US operates a thin aluminum can called Bradley. Australia, UK, UAE and Saudia Arabia already operate their large A330-MRTT while the smaller KC-46 wasn't even in the air.

      The Lockheed Martin F-35, the Just So Failed! Here is a nice quote that sums it up:
      " It would be like taking laptop into battle against a Colt 45; the Colt 45 will always win."
      http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/19/why-the-f-35-is-the-wrong-choice-for-canada-part-1/

      The new bomber? I have still hope Boeing and Lockheed Martin won't f...

      Delete
  3. The best approach is the use of hovercraft to deliver lighter weight tanks to beaches ASAP, instead of high speed amphibious assault vehicles like the EFV. The rest of AAV-7 fleet can take time while the hovercraft delivered tanks do their job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So once all 4 of those big hovercraft get slagged then what? LCACs dont take damage well, and they only fit about 2 per amphib, or I could put at least a platoon of tracks, and deliver a good size force to open the breach for said tanks, arty, and such.

      I do believe the abram is to big for the Pacific, and is goin to get stuck

      Delete
    2. 3 LCAC's per LHD
      3-4 LCAC's per LSD (ramp down/ramp up respectively)
      2 LCAC's per LPD
      1 LCAC per LHA (Tarawa Class)
      0 LCAC's per LHA 6/7 (No well deck...whoevers idea that was needs to be shot!)

      Delete
  4. Slow, from what I've seen of USMC tactics, their MO is not to use assault craft and LCUs LCACs to storm the beach, their tactics are to drop a "heavy" armoured swimming column of AAVs onto the beach to form a cordon and push infantry to secure a perimeter before bringing the class B vehicles there with LCUs and LCACs.

    It makes sense in a way, the AAVs can self deploy and are fairly resistant to damage, so they can drop a heavy spearhead onto a beach independent of LCU numbers (which US amphib ships have a very low number of) and without having to replay a "Saving Private Ryan" style landing. US LCUs are also pathetically slow and are meant for efficient slow speed heavy cargo hauling than assault landings and LCACs are hugely expensive and fairly fragile, too valuable to risk as a point man.

    From what I can see, their playbook suits their equipment, which is a good match and more than I can say for many other organizations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I have also accepted the Army’s recommendation to terminate the current Ground Combat Vehicle program and re-direct the funds toward developing a next-generation platform."

    Aka new project, same as the old project.

    On the bright side, the US military has invented the wheel!

    "First ve get a project, zen ve cancel it and make anozer project just like it. Ingenious no?"

    ReplyDelete
  6. To sum up FY15 budget request in regarding acuqization decicions, every bad performing program either got killed or truncated, except F-35. The mother of all f*ck ups is safe. If LM can’t deliver the promises and JSF ultimately fails, DoD should ban LM for at least 30 years for doing business with military.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Something just occurred to me about the arguments being put forth for the retirement of the A-10. Proponents who argue that it is time to retire the fleet state that "It's too slow, it has relatively short range, it can't survive against modern enemy fighters, it can't survive against modern enemy SAMs, it's not stealthy, it's single mission, etc. etc." All of those arguments...ALL OF THEM...apply also to armed helicopters. If policy makers truly believe that the A-10 has no place in future battlefields because of the aforementioned limitations then they can not possibly believe that armed helicopters will play any useful role either. And yet we hear nobody advocating for the wholesale retirement without replacement of the Apache or Cobra fleets, now do we?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.