Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Of course we don't have the EFV yet. This navy doctrine is the reason why the Commandant says we need the EFV in the first place.
|
That's not true.
Honestly, right now, the USMC and the Navy are in sort of a strange position of having adopted a doctrine that nobody has really tested, namely Ship-to-Objective-Maneuver (STOM), and when you start really looking at the documents describing STOM with a critical eye, you start to find contradictions.
For example, it's not really clear whether they intend to prepare for an opposed landing or an unopposed landing. If it's opposed then they need more EFVs, but if it's unopposed then LCACs are fine. It's also not really clear in STOM why they need an MV-22 to go 200 miles inland either. There's OTHER stuff out there I can imagine that range is good for, but supposedly STOM is the whole justification for the MV-22 and the other stuff is pretty much unaddressed.
I'd argue that STOM's a bad case of the devil being in the details like most of these vague doctrinal documents.