Pentagon Is Poised to Cancel Marine Landing Craft

[RamboLiberal]

Source: NY Times

It was supposed to be a tank that swims, a new way for the Marines to storm hostile beaches.

But as military budgets come under pressure, the 38-ton landing craft that turns into an assault vehicle seems destined to be the next bit of high-tech wizardry to bite the dust.

Pentagon and industry officials say the defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, is poised to cancel the long-delayed $14.4-billion program on Thursday, when he is expected to announce a new round of belt-tightening at the Pentagon. The hybrid vehicle, being built by General Dynamics, is the most expensive weapons system to be cut since Mr. Gates canceled or trimmed three dozen programs in April 2009.

Mr. Gates is also likely on Thursday to approve a two-year delay in the Marine Corps version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, the military’s largest program, and spell out how he plans to save up to $100 billion on the Pentagon’s operations.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/business/06marine.html?_r=1&hp

---

Cancel it! This is a vehicle designed for war fought 50+ years ago!

[RKP5637]

1. Yeah, I was reading similar someplace else - really pretty much obsolete before

launched ...

[bossy22]

2. I agree it should be cancelled

but your reasoning if flawed. Forcive entry through amphibious landings is an integral part of any marine corp. Just because it hasnt been used in 60 years (actually it has and ill go into that in a second) doesnt mean you should give up the capability as long as there may be a need for it. In fact in the gulf war (first one), our amphibious forcive entry ability is what kept a large number of iraqi forces occupied since the U.S. kept a large marine corp force right off the coast (iraq didnt know whether the U.S. and allies would come by the sea or through saudi arabia). This allowed forces in saudi arabia to make a quick invasion of lower iraq and swoop down to free kuwait.

The reason this should be cancelled is that its just "too much". Its not an amphibious landing vehicle- its a swimming a tank. You dont need that to make forcive entry. This should be cancelled and the marines should develop a scaled down vehicle with less of a tank to tank fighting capability. The purpose of this type of vehicle is really just to get men on shore to secure the beach head so that the tanks and heavier equipment can move in. The purpose of the EFV is to do everything under the sun.

[bossy22]

3. I agree it should be cancelled

but your reasoning if flawed. Forcive entry through amphibious landings is an integral part of any marine corp. Just because it hasnt been used in 60 years (actually it has and ill go into that in a second) doesnt mean you should give up the capability as long as there may be a need for it. In fact in the gulf war (first one), our amphibious forcive entry ability is what kept a large number of iraqi forces occupied since the U.S. kept a large marine corp force right off the coast (iraq didnt know whether the U.S. and allies would come by the sea or through saudi arabia). This allowed forces in saudi arabia to make a quick invasion of lower iraq and swoop down to free kuwait.

The reason this should be cancelled is that its just "too much". Its not an amphibious landing vehicle- its a swimming a tank. You dont need that to make forcive entry. This should be cancelled and the marines should develop a scaled down vehicle with less of a tank to tank fighting capability. The purpose of this type of vehicle is really just to get men on shore to secure the beach head so that the tanks and heavier equipment can move in. The purpose of the EFV is to do everything under the sun.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Gates wants to drop $14 billion Marine landing-craft program

Source: Washington Post

Gates wants to drop $14 billion Marine landing-craft program
By Craig Whitlock and Greg Jaffe
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 5, 2011; 10:54 PM

A long-troubled $14 billion program to build a landing craft for the Marine Corps is destined for the chopping block, defense officials and analysts said Wednesday, part of $100 billion in savings that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pledged to squeeze from the Pentagon's budget.

Gates is scheduled to meet with congressional leaders Thursday to outline how he intends to save the $100 billion over the next five years by cutting weapons programs, Pentagon overhead costs and other portions of the Defense Department's massive bureaucracy. Gates announced in June that he would press the military services to find the savings with the incentive that they would be able to reinvest the money in programs essential to the current war effort and military modernization.

"The secretary will not only announce how much money we have saved and where we have saved it, but what new investments this will allow us to make," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon's spokesman. "This will be as much about investments as cuts."

His push to impose thriftiness on the Pentagon is part of a strategy to protect the military's budget from deficit hawks and others on Capitol Hill. Even some Republican leaders - traditionally fierce supporters of the military - have recently suggested that the Pentagon will no longer be immune from efforts to shrink the ballooning federal deficit.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/05/AR2011010506374.html

[Psephos]

5. Sounds good to me. n/t

[truthisfreedom]

6. Cutting the military budget is ok if the repukes choose to do it, huh?

Stupid assholes.

[Citizen Worker]

7. A purely symbolic sacrifice to the budget axe and there won't be any further sacrifices without a

fight. The MICC must be fed a constant diet of $$$.