Amphibious Vehicles Are the Military’s Latest Tax Dollar Sinkhole

One of the worst symptoms of the paralysis in Washington and at the Pentagon has been the inability to correctly match weapon systems with current enemy threat capabilities. Hence the United States Marine Corps is set to announce the final winner between defense contractors BAE Systems and SAIC to build and field their new Amphibious Combat Vehicle, or ACV.

Or should we say the old Amphibious Combat Vehicle? Because after 46 years and tens of billions of dollars, the Marines are right back where they started with this technology, which leaves no one—except maybe the contractors feeding off this farcical routine—feeling very satisfied.

So how did we get here?

The naval campaigns in the Pacific theater of World War II were successful due to the capability of the Marine Corps to conduct amphibious assaults against Japanese-held islands. Following the war this capability was written into law via the National Security Act of 1947, which stipulated that the Marine Corps was responsible for the seizure of advanced naval bases.

In order to move from Navy ships to enemy-held territory, the Marines must be transported across a distance of water and rely on what is generally called a connector. Both the Navy and Marine Corps operate various connectors from ship to shore, while the job of the Marines is to fight their way into enemy territory. Marine connectors only carry one weapon: Marines. Step one is to take the beach.

During World War II, the Navy ships could move to within a few miles of the Japanese-held islands before loading Marines into connectors. But with the advent of ballistic missile technology during the Cold War, a new weapon made its debut: the anti-ship missile.

The idea is simple. If Navy ships are within range of an anti-ship missile, they risk being severely damaged or even sunk. The solution is standoff. The Navy ships must stay outside the effective range of the missiles or use defensive measures to shoot the missiles down. This forces the ships further out to sea and increases the distance the connectors must travel over the open ocean to transport the Marines.

The connector vehicle the Marines adopted in 1972 was the Amphibious Assault Vehicle or AAV. AAVs are stored in hollow lower sections of naval ships known as well decks, which can be flooded so the AAV can exit the aft end of the ship into the ocean. The vehicle moves through the water using two traditional water propellers and also has tracks similar to a tank in order to drive on land. The AAV can carry around 20 Marines, swim through the water at seven knots (nautical miles per hour; seven knots is eight mph for comparison), and has an advertised water range of approximately 20 nautical miles, which in reality is closer to five nautical miles.

But anti-ship missile technology advanced in the 1980s, and proved deadly in the 1982 Falklands War between Great Britain and Argentina as the British lost two ships* to French-built Exocet missiles. So the Marine Corps and Navy rewrote their doctrine to move their ships over the horizon to approximately 12 nautical miles.

This strategy necessitated a new connector vehicle. Marine amphibious doctrine requires a “swift introduction of sufficient combat power ashore.” If the AAV can only swim at seven knots and the ships are 12 nautical miles away, you are looking at close to a two-hour ride to the beach. Time equals distance divided by speed. For the Marines stacked like sardines in full combat gear in the sweltering troop compartment of the AAV, this bumpy two hours becomes a rather nauseating and incapacitating experience.

So work began in earnest on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, or EFV, in the 1980s. It was designed with a powerful jet propulsion system that allowed it to plane above the water like a speedboat and achieve 25 knots, three times as fast as the AAV with a water range of approximately 65 nautical miles. Over the course of 20 years, more than $3 billion was invested in the program. Operational EFVs were due to be in service by 2015, completely replacing the aging AAVs.

But potential adversaries didn’t stagnate. They developed a defensive Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy. Waters around potential landing sites would be mined, and the range, speed, and lethality of anti-ship missiles enhanced significantly.

The increasing complexity of the operating environment did not go unnoticed. During the Obama administration’s first term, Undersecretary of the Navy Robert O. Work envisioned an either/or type of scenario for the future of amphibious conflict. Either Marines would land essentially unopposed as in Grenada in 1983 or the A2/AD posture of our enemies would be so preventative as to require a massive bombardment using long-range stand-off weapons like Tomahawk missiles and bombers to clear out anti-ship missiles and other defenses. Neither situation necessitated the use of a high-speed, heavily armored connector like the EFV.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates canceled the EFV program in 2011. Immediately afterwards, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Amos, decided to pursue the next iteration of troop connector named the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, or ACV. High speed on water remained a top priority as late as 2013.

After some research proposals were explored, General Amos decided in January 2014 that the ACV would be developed in a phased approach with a decreased need for speed on water. The ACV 1.1 was to be an off-the-shelf, armored, wheeled vehicle that met requirements for armor protection on land but would rely on connectors like the Navy’s Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC, aka Hovercraft) to move it swiftly from over the horizon at 40 knots to a few miles from its objectives, where it would then swim the last few miles. The LCAC has a large deck area that can accommodate several ACVs. Traditionally the LCAC would bring in heavy equipment like tanks or trucks after Marines secured a beach since the LCAC lacks armor protection.

The phased acquisitions approach was a tacit admission that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. The Marine Corps asked industry for a vehicle that offered protection first and then speed on the water at some point in the future.

The ACV 1.1 would not be able to self-deploy and swim from a ship like the AAV or EFV. The Marine Corps would buy a smaller number of the ACV 1.1, upgrade older AAVs and keep them in service until 2030, and research and develop ACV 1.2, a high-speed, fully amphibious vehicle.

But this solution appears to have been smoke and mirrors. In March 2015, Marine Commandant Joseph Dunford testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee concerning the program. He said industry might merge the ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 requirements together.

BAE Systems and SAIC were awarded $100 million each in December of 2015 to develop 16 test vehicles for ACV 1.1. And lo and behold, abracadabra, both company’s test vehicles could self-deploy and swim from a ship at, wait for it, seven knots—as fast as, you guessed it, the 1972 version.

Since the introduction of the AAV, almost 50 years have passed and many billions have been spent in research and development. And now the taxpayer will be footing the bill for a connector that holds fewer Marines than in 1972 (13 versus 20), swims at the same speed, and is more expensive.

The Marine Corps and industry are touting the fact that the ACV is under cost and ahead of schedule. The program is projected to cost $1.2 billion with 204 vehicles operational by 2020.

In October 2017, deputy Marine commandant Lieutenant General Beaudreault stated that “we have to find a solution to getting Marines to shore, from over the horizon, at something greater than seven knots. We’ve got to have high-speed connectors.”

It appears the deputy commandant didn’t get the memo. As the F-35 and USS Gerald Ford programs have shown, whenever the system wins, the warfighter and taxpayer lose.

*Story has been changed to reflect the British loss of one destroyer and one container ship during the Falklands War in 1982.

Jeff Groom is a former Marine officer. He is the author of American Cobra Pilot: A Marine Remembers a Dog and Pony Show (2018).

Read more from The American Conservative…

Everytown for Gun Safety Continues to Ignore the Facts

Federal Judge Throws Out Effort by UT Professors To Overturn Campus Carry
Federal Judge Throws Out Effort by UT Professors To Overturn Campus Carry

AUSTIN, TEXAS-(Ammoland.com)- Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun-control conglomerate that falsely told both state legislators and the public that Texas’ then-pending campus carry law would allow guns in fraternity houses, off-campus parties, and football stadiums, is now blaming that law, which allows licensed adults to carry concealed handguns on college campuses, for last week’s mass shooting by an unlicensed minor armed with a shotgun at a Santa Fe, Texas, high school.

Everytown, which also funds the conspiracy-peddling online magazine The Trace, recently purchased a full-page ad in the Houston Chronicle and used that premium ad space to publish an open letter to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, signed by 41 student gun-control activists. In the letter’s opening paragraph, the signers criticize Abbot for having “signed dangerous policies to force public colleges in Texas to allow guns on campus.”

Texas is currently one of six states that allow the licensed concealed carry of handguns in public college classrooms[i]. In these states, campus carry is allowed on a total of more than 350 campuses and has been for a combined total of more than 2,000 semesters. Not one of these states/campuses has reported a resulting assault, suicide attempt, or fatality. So what are Everytown and its 41 student activists complaining about?

The vast majority of peer-reviewed studies on the issue of licensed concealed carry have concluded that it cannot be shown to lead to an increase in violent crime. Furthermore, licensing, conviction, and license revocation statistics maintained by the Texas Department of Public Safety suggest that a person on a Texas college campus is hundreds of times more likely to be assaulted by an armed student who is not licensed to carry a handgun than by one who is. So, again, what are Everytown and its 41 student activists complaining about?

It speaks to the cogency, or lack thereof, of Everytown’s arguments that they were forced to pay for a full-page ad in order to make their case to the public. Students for Concealed Carry (SCC), which lacks even one-tenth of 1% of Everytown’s massive and often misspent budget, has traditionally used op-eds, which cost nothing but do require well-articulated arguments, to get its message in front of Houston Chronicle readers.

Quinn Cox, Southwest regional director for SCC, commented, “The purchase of this full-page ad is par for the course for Everytown. After an impartial poll by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas Tribune found more Texans in support of campus carry than opposed to it, Everytown spent a small fortune commissioning their own internal poll with the purpose of getting the opposite result. Suffice it to say, we’re not exactly shocked that they’ve chosen to address the problem with cash rather than facts.”


ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus. For more information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com or tweet @CampusCarry.

The post Everytown for Gun Safety Continues to Ignore the Facts appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

Read more from AmmoLand…

United States takes aim at Russia with resurrected Navy fleet

In yet another indication of the return of great power politics and the cratering U.S.-Russian relationship, the Defense Department announced last week the return of the historic and venerable Second Fleet, which has traditionally guarded the Atlantic approaches to the continental U.S. The fleet was disestablished in 2011 in an attempt to save money and free up funding for new ship construction. That decision proved shortsighted.

Read more from Theodore Roosevelt …

Democrats ramp up efforts to turn more red seats blue in the South in the wake of recent successes

National Democrats say they are ramping up their efforts in the South to pick up seats, even in traditionally red districts. The victory by Sen. Doug Jones in Alabama has spurred greater interest in helping candidates in the South Democrats ramp up efforts to turn more red seats blue in the South in the wake of recent successes National Democrats say they are ramping up their efforts in the South to pick up seats, even in traditionally red districts.

Read more from Deep State…