Jst2fst Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Since when is their a price on safety for the men and women who fight? Well the Pentagon's thinking of canceling the amphibious tank program. All of this just to save a buck GTFO! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pentagon-Said-Poised-to-nytimes-2082896802.html?x=0&.v=1 Edited January 7, 2011 by Cdubyah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jst2fst Posted January 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Yea, I spelled Marines wrong......My bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) That particular contract wasn't going well. There will be a new contract with pretty much a blank check to design the best possible. It might be amphibious, it might not. The contract requirements so far are wide open to whatever the manufacturers can come up with. This is good. Don't forget that they already have the AAV-7A Amphibious Assault Vehicle.I also saw that the British are struggling, and might just eliminate all their existing armor forces. That is bad. Edited January 7, 2011 by ReconRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jst2fst Posted January 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 That particular contract wasn't going well. There will be a new contract with pretty much a blank check to design the best possible. It might be amphibious, it might not. The contract requirements so far are wide open to whatever the manufacturers can come up with. This is good. Don't forget that they already have the AAV-7A Amphibious Assault Vehicle.I also saw that the British are struggling, and might just eliminate all their existing armor forces. That is bad.Hell the manufactures can become very creative with a BLANK check I know I would be. Flame throwers standard of course Sucks the British might have to scrap their armory for tanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 that sounds good and fine, but it's just going to Lockheed, GD, BAE or one of those guys. Which I guess is fine but they rape the shit out of their contractors. whatever, I'm not bitter or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 that sounds good and fine, but it's just going to Lockheed, GD, BAE or one of those guys. Which I guess is fine but they rape the shit out of their contractors. whatever, I'm not bitter or anything.Boohoo millionaire lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Boohoo millionaire lollol i wishon the other hand, the big primes are really the only ones that are capable of effectively making the thing. i'm just hatin' cause they are fairly ruthless with cost cutting, which is the sign of a good business... but they also rape the government on pricing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 who storms a beach anymore anyway? is it 1942 again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 come on, brah. they use these all the time in iraq and afghanistan. cause they have lots of... beaches... and bodies of water... oh fuck it. i dunno, just think of them as deadly rubber duckies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohdaho Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 All of this just to save a buck GTFO!Thats not really how DoD acquisitions work. Far from it really. Theres no blank check DoD acquisitions...so Im not really sure what yall are talking about. Besides what wars are we storming beaches like its Normandy? The battlefield has changed drastically since those days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 that sounds good and fine, but it's just going to Lockheed, GD, BAE or one of those guys. Which I guess is fine but they rape the shit out of their contractors. whatever, I'm not bitter or anything.General Dynamics is the one developing it now and will lose the contract as a result.It's funny that we really didn't learn much that stuck from WW1, we're still trying to fight the last war; WWII, Cold War, whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jst2fst Posted January 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yea, but if they need to be scraped and then redesigned its good. So that they have equipment that well equipped for future engagements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagr Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 Floating tanks are good. Flying Tanks is better. We already have those. Harriers and Hornets. I'm biased but IMO an up armored LAV would be tits. A company of LAV has destructive powers even Odin would envy. But yeah. A floatin tank would be cool. Amtracs are creepy cool though. You know you're underwater riding in them. RPGs chew em up unfortunatly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) In regards to the blank check statement I made. The request for proposal doesn't have many requirements. Not even the caliber of weapons to use, type of engine, fuel, wheels vs tracks, etc. The manufacturers are without limit in creating a new weapon system. That's a rare request. From what I've seen, about 10% of the think tank stuff will go on into consideration. 10% of that might get further funding. 10% of that gets developed. 10% of that gets a serious contract later on. A lot of stuff never gets off the drawing board, or past the cartoon stage. I'll see if I can find more details.edit: Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle Stirs Confusion In Industry - January 2011It's actually a USArmy proposal, but I'm sure the USMarines can get in on it or a variant.This is what they asked for: force protection against a classified list of threatsa nine-Soldier capacityfull-spectrum-operations capability .....a series of growth requirements .....some open architecture requirementson-time delivery within seven yearsfit on C-17, but didn't list C-130Everything else is open.Original plan was to build 1,874 GCVs Edited January 8, 2011 by ReconRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Besides, who wants a swimming tank anyway, when an assault landing hover craft can haul the tanks and all your stuff over water, beach, and far inland...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I have family they may lose jobs over this and some that are laid off right now that are supposed to be coming back to gd but this may prevent that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I have family they may lose jobs over this and some that are laid off right now that are supposed to be coming back to gd but this may prevent that.nothing against your family's situation, but GD eff'd the wut wut in the butt out of that project, if it is the one I am thinking of.I did some rudimentary research on it some time back when I quoted on a very small inconsequential part for the project. They were in trouble back then already (this was at least 8 months ago) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jst2fst Posted January 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I hop that this works out for the best and people are put back to work nothing to really do except. Play the waiting game.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 The thing is just too Damn expensive and no real use. The navy could cover any beach front warfare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beegreenstrings Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 who storms a beach anymore anyway? is it 1942 again? funny... But true...After knowing the outcome of Normadey would any of you storm a beach like that again, now a days? That answer should be F'ing NO...Call in the A10's to flatten that place first! Then go in with brooms and clean the shit up...There is always a use for a amphibius vehicle... Now are the building a new tank or a combo of sorts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagr Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 A10s can't land on Carriers. It's been brought up alot lately that Marines need to go back to their roots as Amphibious troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 A10s can't land on Carriers. It's been brought up alot lately that Marines need to go back to their roots as Amphibious troops.and I agree, to a point. We aren't doing much amphibious assaults, especially with the landlocked Afghanistan. Iraq was a possbility, but no longer.At the risk of starting up another inter-DoD shitstorm, it seems to me that the first wave of most invasion forces in modern-day war (Vietnam, Desert Shield/Storm, OIF, OEF) have been Marines, regardless of the terrain or territory. Why is this, is it a readiness issue? Training issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) funny... But true...After knowing the outcome of Normadey would any of you storm a beach like that again, now a days? That answer should be F'ing NO...Call in the A10's to flatten that place first! Then go in with brooms and clean the shit up...There is always a use for a amphibius vehicle... Now are the building a new tank or a combo of sorts?What role are the current amphibious vehicles not filling that necessitates going completely back to the drawing board?And also, why would you use A10's to soften defenses when there's a perfectly good body of water right next to it? Park a few destroyers and let the guns and guided missiles go to town, you can get a lot more damage done without worrying about losing a plane due to AA fire.I'm putting way too much effort into thinking this through. Edited January 10, 2011 by Cheech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 At the risk of starting up another inter-DoD shitstorm, it seems to me that the first wave of most invasion forces in modern-day war (Vietnam, Desert Shield/Storm, OIF, OEF) have been Marines, regardless of the terrain or territory. Why is this, is it a readiness issue? Training issue?Their overall training exceeds that of the other branches. Marines are all infantry first and foremost. Then they act on their specialty. Army is geared more towards the soldier's specialty, not infantry. MArines mentality is also totally different. In a sense they don't want to let the corps down and will do anything to keep that from happening. They have the longest basic training and go more in depth on tactics right off the bat. Whereas the Army just cover just the basics in basic. Once a Marine, always a Marine. I'm sure Jagr could answer better, that's just my take.Look at that, no Marine jokes were thrown in there. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.