Posted on 05/18/2010 8:20:18 AM PDT by AJKauf
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has signaled that the long-awaited and seriously over-budget Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) may be the next high-profile project scrapped — the latest in a series of moves meant to streamline the Pentagon’s budget and refocus the military on future challenges.
The EFV, an amphibious armored troop transport, was designed to replace the tired AAV-7A1, a 1970s-era vehicle that has had its service life extended several times as the Marine Corps has sought a replacement.
Both vehicles occupy a specific niche that few vehicles in the world can (or try) to match. They are purpose-designed to transport Marines from the well deck of amphibious assault ships — “swimming” out the back of these massive carrier-like ships and carrying Marines ashore to conduct assaults on defended beaches. Once ashore, the Marine infantry pile out the back of the vehicles to conduct ground operations, while the armored amphibians use their tracks to crawl off the beach and provide close-in and mid-range fire support for the infantry through turret-mounted weapons systems. After the amphibious landing is over and the beach is secured, these tracked vehicles are used much as traditional armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.....
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
“SCRAP MURTHA!”
Damn, that is a wicked looking vehicle. Are there problems with it?
I agree with most of the article, but are our current forces able to Amphib Assault Taiwan? I do agree that Over Horizon vessels are a bit much. You aren’t going to Amphib a beach you don’t have Air Control nor Sea Control on.
Unless it’s Robots doing it
Or say Japan if the Chicoms really get froggy
Other than cost and the fact that it’s worthless in places like Afghanistan or Iraq, where Marines are more likely to be sent.
I think the Marines spent too much on the Osprey development. There is no money.
This is a very complex vehicle - probably the closest thing in the world to a real transformer.
Good. Buy more LCAC’s instead. Cheaper AND better.
Now if he’d just see the light on the F-35...
I worked on both the LAV’s and the EFV.
The EFV is much better protected, much faster and amphibious, and better armed. Also, once ashore, it’s able to keep up with the M1 tanks.
Too, I think tracks are better than treads.
But it is complex, which increases costs. It’s still an impressive piece of machinery to me, but then, way back when, I was just a grunt.
I did know that it’d die, though regardless of performance or utility: military preparedness isn’t important in the socialist line.
A good soldier will use every tool available to the best advantage possible, if permitted to do so. I'm not sure it's wise to cut another tool out of the Marine's arsenal.
EFV has had a lot of development problems, way over budget and schedule delays. IMO, its way too big, it makes a M1 tank look tiny. It also has a flat hull designed for performance on the water, but makes it very vulnerable to IED's once ashore. I think that the ultimate problem is the over the horizon requirement. That requirement also drove Osprey development and causes cost and design problems. Do we really need an over the horizon capability? The Army had the same problem when it insisted that the Stryker be C-130 transportable. Did we really need that capability, and what did we have to give up to get it?
Last employed in 1950. Not true. Vietnam, Desert Storm, and Iraq Freedom. We have not used Nukes since the 1940’s, should we get rid of them too?
Easy to kill at sea with smart munitions. Most of the stated treats are systems only the U.S. possess in any reliable form. Every military vehicle (sea, land, or air) can be killed. Not a valid argument. Besides he forgets that the target beach will be preped before the landing force is landed.
He uses the Hezbollah strike on the HANIT as an example. That was a surprise to the IDF and since then any radars turned on from Lebanon have been destroyed. Two missiles were launched, only one hit. Also the anti missile system was turned off at the time of the attack. A lucky hit.
As to the flat bottom, it is my understanding that recent testing has shown that the EFV is as survivable as an MRAP. MRAP’s are mine RESISTANT, not mine proof. So is the EFV.
Rowboats are cheaper and stealthyer too.
The military mind is very susceptible to the fighting the last war syndrome. But sometimes you keep an old capability because it always works or as a threat to you enemies, even if you never use it. Like nukes or the bayonet.
“and the fact that it’s worthless in places like Afghanistan or Iraq, where Marines are more likely to be sent.”
The current Amtracs were bought around 1970,, please tell us where the fighting will occur in 2050. For bonus points, tell us why you are certain we wont need any Amphibious capability.
The truth is that these are purchased under USN shipbuilding funding. Inside each one is a metal plate relaying the NAVSHIPS contract # etc,,,
The Navy could give a rats a$$ about landing craft for the Marines.
The Marines are the single most effective and cost efficient formations we field in the USA. And THAT is where they focus their knife. Navy careers are not made by procuring things useful to the USMC.
Funny too,, i remember the *dire warnings* from GAO about how the Bradley was nothing but a deathtrap, and how the M-1 Tank was more prone to breakdown than a Yugo.
And now, a case of the vapors over this. Silliness,,,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.