Weapons Cuts In 2015 Budget Leave Soldiers, Marines At Risk by Loren Thompson, Forbes
When the Obama Administration sends its proposed 2015 defense budget to Congress on March 4, two high-profile armored vehicle programs will be missing in action. 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. Both moves make it more likely that large numbers of U.S. ground forces will die in future wars. What happened?
What happened was spending cuts mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, combined with the unwillingness of Congress to permit trims to activities that might have an impact on constituents. The budget law has capped defense spending while congressional efforts to insulate voters have prevented policymakers from closing unneeded bases, retiring aged weapons, or altering military benefits. So a disproportionate share of the savings required to comply with the spending caps is coming out of what the military calls “modernization,” meaning investments in new technology…
Comments
Maybe we could save a few dollars by not buying MRAP's (and all the other stuff)and giving them away to local police departments, who take them because hey why not it's free.
Smart stewardship, along with wise use of defense dollars would more than make up the savings.
Maybe you all can help me. What city/state has the biggest IED problem? Can anyone tell me where I can read about fire team/squad/platoon sized police units being ambushed here in the US?
Yes we will have a need for armored vehicles now and into the future. But a rifle squads mobility could be improved with a mere $100,000 in ATV's.
There are always considerations to buy American; it does create jobs. That aside, there likely is no one size fits all platform with regard to existing technology that satisfies the Corps' requirements for a vehicle large enough, capable of skimming fast (ability to hydroplane) from over the horizon onto the beach, and once ashore, becoming a survivable light armored fighting vehicle able of continued movement into the hinterland?
At some point, again as the previous Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program demonstrated, good stewardship of the tax payers' money necessitates recognizing when something becomes sunk cost and just is not doable for the time being.
However, all is not lost: the Corps stands to get a number of blocks of new V-22 Ospreys and might want to look toward innovative concepts with the existing Landing Craft Air Cushion . . . Not ideal, but one needs to fall back on economy in management from time-to-time and find solutions through innovating in lieu of technology being readily or affordably available.
Articles like this need to be kept in perspective. As an example: the Marine Corps' replacement for their current aging amphibious assault vehicle has more to do with a lack of significant breakthrough in technology than it would have were funding available, as the Corps' previously cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle demonstrated.
My belief is although the Corps knows what it wants, it recognizes that isn't currently available and my former gun club would be hard pressed to justify anything more than continued R&D funding going forward unfortunately.