By Bryan Mitchell - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Dec 7, 2008 9:44:18 EST

Scrap the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, scale back plans to buy hundreds of MV-22 Ospreys and add variants of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Those are some of the key recommendations from a recent think tank report on preparing the Corps for the future, authored by a former strategic adviser to Commandant Gen. James Jones.

“You have invested institutional capital and reputations on these programs,” said retired Lt. Col. Dakota Wood, senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington and author of the report. “If … threats have changed, though, does the Corps have the ability to reassess and adjust its programs accordingly? That’s the question for the Marine Corps.”

The Nov. 17 report, part of the group’s “Strategy For The Long Haul” series, is one of 16 papers commissioned by the think tank aimed at providing President-elect Barack Obama’s administration a comprehensive understanding of the challenges facing national defense.

The Corps, meanwhile, said it’s pushing ahead with plans to field the EFV, expand its fleet of MV-22s to nearly 350 and stick strictly with the JSF’s short-takeoff variant.

The report examines a number of items, including threats facing the nation, the cost of replacing the Corps’ equipment and possible changes in unit leadership, but its most radical recommendations focus on acquisition programs.

• EFV. In the paper, Wood argues that emerging threats make the 38-ton armored infantry carrier a less attractive option for ferrying Marines from sea to shore.

The Corps plans to spend $14 billion to buy 573 EFVs at roughly $22 million each, the report states.

CSBA contends that the threat posed by improvised explosive devices bodes poorly for the vehicle, with low-ground clearance and lacking the V-shaped hull critical to the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle.

Wood recommends the Corps seek two vehicles to accomplish what the EFV was designed to do. He favors an armored combat vehicle, combined with a high-speed, shallow-draft, ship-to-shore connector.

“This approach would better address the evolving anti-armor and precision-guided weapons regimes that will threaten naval forces at increasing distances at sea, and Marine Corps ground forces ashore,” the report states.

David Branham, spokesman for the EFV program, said there are no plans to scuttle the vehicle after nearly 12 years of development. The program was restructured in 2007, which included studies on its cost, its contribution to national security and possible alternatives.

“It has been certified as essential to national security,” Branham said. “The Department of Defense has said we looked at everything, and there is no other way to get Marines from over the horizon to the shore. There are no alternatives.”

A design review is slated for December, followed by a defense acquisition board, which will be key in determining if prototypes are started in January, Branham said.

• MV-22 Osprey. Wood asserts in the report that the Corps should scale back plans for the MV-22 Osprey. Cost and operational concerns drive the recommendation to augment the Osprey with a contingent of medium-lift helicopters.

“I can buy two or three helicopters for the cost of one Osprey,” Wood said.

The Corps plans to spend roughly $42 billion on 345 Ospreys, which equates to approximately $119 million for each aircraft, the report states. The Osprey’s advantage in speed and range translates well in certain conditions, like moving Marines across Afghanistan, but Wood contends a rotary-wing aircraft — larger than a UH-1 Huey but lighter than a CH-53 Sea Stallion still has a role in the Corps.

“In urban environments, aboard ships and in operations near the littoral, a helicopter seems to be better suited for that,” Wood said.

The Corps said that 17 studies refute the think tank’s recommendations.

“The Marines Corps’ optimum force mix of MV-22s and CH-53Es is the most efficient and most effective means of carrying the required combat troops and equipment into battle, allowing for the most rapid build-up of combat power,” the Corps said in response to the report.

• STOVL JSF. In the report, Wood argues the Corps should procure both the short takeoff/vertical landing version, also called the F-35B Lightning II, and the Navy’s carrier-based F-35C.

Wood said range and compatibility are the biggest challenges facing a fleet of STOVL-only JSFs.

The Navy’s version has a range of 700 nautical miles, while the STOVL is limited to 450. However, the Corps has favored launching the aircraft from amphibious ships and austere combat environments over increased range and weapons capabilities.

Wood contends sailors and Marines might face compatibility difficulties launching a conventional fighter jet and a STOVL model simultaneously from the same aircraft carrier deck. The Corps says the JSF program will reduce costs and enhance interoperability with the Navy, as well as allied forces.

“Marine expeditionary air-ground task forces have always had to be light enough to deploy but heavy enough to win,” the Corps said in a statement. “Only the F-35B will be capable of fulfilling all aspects of the strike-fighter mission while operating from every available basing environment. This versatility makes the F-35B useful to the war-fighting commanders and cost-effective to the American taxpayer.”

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/12/marine_report_120708w/