Alternatives to USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)?

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
151
Website
cluttonfred.info
SecDef Gates and the MC Commandant (some say under orders) recommended in budget hearings last month that the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program be cancelled in favor of a cheaper alternative. That may not be the end of the story as General Dynamics is lobbying hard that it would actually be cheaper to finish the design than to cancel.

In the meantime, though, what are some existing vehicles, proposed variants or new designs out there that could be considered as alternatives to the EFV? For that matter, is the EFV even necessary, or could the Marines get by with marinized conventional IFVs and perhaps an improved landing craft?
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
219
Reaction score
162
GTX said:
it would actually be cheaper to finish the design than to cancel.

They may well be right, though I don't fancy their chances.

Regards,

Greg
I might be cheaper to finish, but from what I've heard of the thing it will probably be a maintenance nightmare. So the real question is, will cancelling it be cheaper than actually using it.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,061
Reaction score
2,411
EFV now AFV from Defensetech.org

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos today shed some much anticipated light on when the Corps could see a replacement for the cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, telling lawmakers he expects to drive its replacement by the end of his tenure as commandant.

“There are two answers to that, one is as Commandant of the Marine Corps’s answer which is Before I leave leave office four years from now … we’ll have a program of record, we’ll have steel, there will be a vehicle and I’ll be able to drive it,” Amos said responding to lawmakers questions during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. “I’m trying to pressurize industry, I’m trying to pressurize the acquisition folks, I want the word to get out. If we followed the standard acquisition timeline, which in some cases got us to where we are today, it’ll be 2024.”

To avoid such a fate, the general said the Department of the Navy will be using a model similar to the one it used to quickly buy and field thousands of MRAPs during the height of the Iraq war.

“Something probably that resembles the sense of urgency that we had for the MRAP but probably a little bit more scheduled, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

Now that’s not saying that Amos will necessarily be driving the production model EFV replacement, dubbed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, but it will will be some sort of early version ACV.

The EFV was cancelled earlier this year after it was predicted that its rising costs would swallow up waaay too much of the Marines’ procurement budgets. The craft was first conceived in the 1980s and has taken billions in development cash over the decade yet remained stuck in development purgatory.

It’s replacement will draw on the lessons learned from EFV development while using available technologies to field a 21st Century armored personnel carrier for the Corps, according to Amos.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/03/01/amos-ill-be-able-to-drive-efv-replacement-within-four-years/#ixzz1FO7hRod1
Defense.org
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,937
Reaction score
5,501
Why do I think this is not going to end well?


USMC Expedites EFV Analysis Of Alternatives

Jun 10, 2011

By Michael Fabey


The U.S. Marine Corps is looking to cut down the time it takes to complete its analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the replacement for its Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) by at least half, according to Marine Lt. Gen. George Flynn, deputy commandant for combat development and integration and commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command.

Traditionally, an AOA of this type would take about 18 months, Flynn said June 9 at an event in Washington sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“We’re trying to get to six to nine months,” Flynn says, adding that he hoped the aggressive schedule would “energize the acquisition process” for the vehicle.

The EFV is considered the signature vehicle for the Marines, ferrying them and their equipment from ships to land and providing that link that highlights their expeditionary nature. The Marines have embarked on a campaign in the Pentagon recently to underscore the importance of retaining those expeditionary roots and ability.

Part of the Marines’ expeditionary refocus has been the development of the EFV. But the Pentagon recently canceled the $15 billion development program, saying the vehicle needed to be scaled down in both requirements and costs. The corps is doing just that, Flynn says.

Marines are using data from the EFV development — and still conducting further tests on the vehicles for even more information — to fast-track a more complete analysis of what is really needed for such a vehicle, he says.

The corps is using the current EFV prototypes, for example, to design better “habitability” inside the vehicle, looking to develop items like an artificial horizon. The Marines also have reached out to shipbuilders, Flynn says, to help develop a better hull design. “We’re trying to get a fix on the requirements side,” he says.

While the Marines are trying to get a bead on a better and more affordable EFV, the corps also remains concerned about the number of amphibious ships being planned for the fleet. While the Marines say they need 38 and could manage with 33, Navy fleet plans call for 29. The reduced number of ships will mean more maintenance, which will cut into training time.

“What do you think is going to change,” Flynn asks, “that will reduce the need for these ships?”


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/06/10/05.xml&headline=USMC
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
914
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
General Dynamics Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) data sheet found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EFV-FROM-GENERAL-DYNAMICS-DATA-SHEET-/160622029500?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2565d1aabc
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqR,!hgE3vjSSY6nBOIzSjckow~~_3.JPG
    $(KGrHqR,!hgE3vjSSY6nBOIzSjckow~~_3.JPG
    65.3 KB · Views: 489

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,937
Reaction score
5,501
Russia appears to want it's own version of the EFV, the BMMP: http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/35822/ (article in Russian, h/t GunshipDemocracy over at MilitaryPhotos.net)
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,937
Reaction score
5,501
ImpliedFacepalm.jpg


http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ie/2013/07/aavs-end-of-life-now-2030.html
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
6
Oh Sols blog. ::) I don't think they are actually going to run AAVs out to 2030, there will be a replacement between now and then, but there is only so much money to do so much right now, and the Marines are worried that a misstep will cost them big, so its slow and steady wins the race for the next few years. If we can get other countries to buy into an AAV replacement that would go a long way.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,061
Reaction score
2,411
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/future-us-marines-need-speed-to-cover.html
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
531
Re: Alternatives to ?

I'm sorry, but this is another explicit expensive example of the U.S. Military bungling and stupidity - Sorry :(
I truly think that the U.S. Military has become incapable of being responsible for managing its own programs!
I'm an ardent anti- Military Industrial Complex fan. The days of the U.S. Military being accountable for its actions long gone. But I'm really beginning to question if the U.S. Military can be trusted to formulate its own Request for Proposals (RfP's) anymore, without non-military transparency. The supposed checks and balances of the House Armed Services Committee, are just as much a joke!
I'm angry, because the poor bastards that are expected to go into harms, are once again forced to compromise and be at risk. They deserve better!
How is it that the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) was ever allowed to become so complicated, so expensive and so behind schedule?

I've personally come to the conclusion that America's war-fighting aspirations and wet-dreams are becoming way too aspirational, which is clearly outstripping technological reality. I've come to the conclusion with so many failed .....and or cancelled U.S. Military weapons programs, that American lawmakers should be enforcing either a reality check test, pre comittment to a program, and or enforce an incremental-type program, which enforces the concept that technology has to be properly tested and proven before a given program can enter production. This ideological rubbish that America has to retain a qualitative edge over potential enemy's is a self-infatuated disease! Try as it did, with the immensely expensive F-22 and still to be fixed and proven F-35, the Soviet/Russian 'Flanker' series is still an actual tested and proven fighter-bomber design which has proliferate - and hence in reality a success in terms of actual combat capability and numbers! Another serious thing America really need to work out, is how to get its shit into one sock. Whilst its been obsessed with its fanciful 'war on terror', Real players like China, Russia know where they're going and know what they want in terms of conventional warfighting. At present the USAF is hellbent on killing the A-10, for a troublesome F-35 that is behind schedule, over cost, not in operational service, and if and when they enter service, they'll have imposed limitations.
In my opinion, the U.S. lawmakers should say to the USMC (in this case): 'You know what gents, you cant be trusted to devise and manage your own Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program, you've told us you cant function or do without, and yet in truth you've literally destroyed the exacted vehicle that you wanted all by yourself, without a shot being fired!' So be bestow upon you these ready designed, ready operational ZBD2000's!'

Cynical I know. But reality is often cynical - especially when your that poor Marine storming a beachhead under fire :eek:

Regards
Pioneer
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,061
Reaction score
2,411
Pioneer said:
I'm sorry, but this is another explicit expensive example of the U.S. Military bungling and stupidity - Sorry :(
I truly think that the U.S. Military has become incapable of being responsible for managing its own programs!
I'm an ardent anti- Military Industrial Complex fan. The days of the U.S. Military being accountable for its actions long gone. But I'm really beginning to question if the U.S. Military can be trusted to formulate its own Request for Proposals (RfP's) anymore, without non-military transparency. The supposed checks and balances of the House Armed Services Committee, are just as much a joke!
I'm angry, because the poor bastards that are expected to go into harms, are once again forced to compromise and be at risk. They deserve better!
How is it that the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) was ever allowed to become so complicated, so expensive and so behind schedule?

I've personally come to the conclusion that America's war-fighting aspirations and wet-dreams are becoming way too aspirational, which is clearly outstripping technological reality. I've come to the conclusion with so many failed .....and or cancelled U.S. Military weapons programs, that American lawmakers should be enforcing either a reality check test, pre comittment to a program, and or enforce an incremental-type program, which enforces the concept that technology has to be properly tested and proven before a given program can enter production. This ideological rubbish that America has to retain a qualitative edge over potential enemy's is a self-infatuated disease! Try as it did, with the immensely expensive F-22 and still to be fixed and proven F-35, the Soviet/Russian 'Flanker' series is still an actual tested and proven fighter-bomber design which has proliferate - and hence in reality a success in terms of actual combat capability and numbers! Another serious thing America really need to work out, is how to get its shit into one sock. Whilst its been obsessed with its fanciful 'war on terror', Real players like China, Russia know where they're going and know what they want in terms of conventional warfighting. At present the USAF is hellbent on killing the A-10, for a troublesome F-35 that is behind schedule, over cost, not in operational service, and if and when they enter service, they'll have imposed limitations.
In my opinion, the U.S. lawmakers should say to the USMC (in this case): 'You know what gents, you cant be trusted to devise and manage your own Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program, you've told us you cant function or do without, and yet in truth you've literally destroyed the exacted vehicle that you wanted all by yourself, without a shot being fired!' So be bestow upon you these ready designed, ready operational ZBD2000's!'

Cynical I know. But reality is often cynical - especially when your that poor Marine storming a beachhead under fire :eek:

Regards
Pioneer
While not denying issues with weapons development & procurement in the US, the inflation of Russia and Chinese practices is a little premature INHO. Flankers? What major air war with large integrated operations have 'Flankers' ever won and for that matter where are the large scale military campaigns (and I mean full scale combined arms operations) have Chinese or Russian weapons proven themselves?
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,061
Reaction score
2,411
Lockheed To Unveil Its ACV Offering Following Patria Split

Lockheed Martin will unveil its next-generation amphibious vehicle competition offering at next week's Modern Day Marine military exposition since splitting up with Finnish vehicle manufacturer Patria, according to a company spokesman.
 

Creative

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
241
Reaction score
8
http://www.gizmag.com/lockheed-martin-amphibious-assault-vehicle/39542/

The US Marine Corps's fleet of amphibious assault vehicles is over 40 years old and instead of fitting them with classic number plates, it's looking for a replacement. At this week's Modern Day Marine trade show in Quantico, Virginia, Lockheed Martin revealed its new candidate Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) 1.1. The armored eight-wheel-drive battle wagon can carry up to 13 marines over land or water and incorporates intuitive automatic systems into the design.
 

Attachments

  • lockheed-acv-1.jpeg
    lockheed-acv-1.jpeg
    174.2 KB · Views: 259

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
744
Reaction score
107
Looks to be another promising enough 8x8 APC but its specifications as an amphibious vehicle aren't all that impressive. Slower than the figures commonly given for the AAV-7 series.

Armament isn't very impressive either compared to the 30mm chain gun the EFV had.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
587
Reaction score
30
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
A big 8x8 isn't going to get ashore on most beaches anyway - sandy, rocky or steep would be a no-go.

The bet way to go was always to develop a 70 ton LCU and design it for high speed (NOT hovercraft), then use it to move normal army AFVs or two log ISO containers.

This would look too dangerous to the USMC as a bureaucracy with self-interest because it would highlight that it's a mere army substitute without terribly special skills, though (where were the marines on D-Day?).
 

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
151
Website
cluttonfred.info
Agreed, five knots is pretty darn slow considering the Navy and Marines prefer to deploy the amphibious forces from over the horizon. Then again, there may also be a sense that old-fashioned amphibious landings against a capable, conventional opponent are a thing of the past and existing hovercraft can be used for the over-the-horizon mission when air and beach superiority have already been achieved.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,180
This is ACV phase 1, which is basically a restart of the old Marine Personnel Carrier. It can swim small bodies of water and possibly swim ashore in low Sea States (SS 3) if launched from landing craft a couple of miles offshore. It's not going to replace the AAV as a direct ship-to-shore assault transport. Possibly nothing ever will actually replace the Amtrack -- the physics of marrying a high-speed watercraft to an armored vehicle are never going to be favorable.

Here's an article that lays out the current thinking (as of last year, at least):

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/marines-about-to-announce-new-amphibious-combat-vehicle-plan-our-sneak-preview/
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,061
Reaction score
2,411
Sorry for the click bait headline :eek:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/30/us-military-displays-new-vehicle-and-its-absolutely-amazing/

http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2015/acv-amphibious-combat-vehicle.html
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,180
Just noticed that BAE teased their version recently as well.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BAESystemsInc/status/647065330741833728
 

Attachments

  • CPrWfTsUkAA3gIe.jpg
    CPrWfTsUkAA3gIe.jpg
    27.2 KB · Views: 210
  • CPrWfBuUcAAwT26.jpg
    CPrWfBuUcAAwT26.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 238

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,930
Reaction score
858

Wheeled vehicles are useful for raids and recon but speed to the beach, tracked cross country capability, and heavy armor are required for any high intensity fights..
 
Last edited:

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,930
Reaction score
858
ACV-30 Amphibious Technology Demonstrator
 

Attachments

  • 1613414685990.png
    1613414685990.png
    3.1 MB · Views: 52

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
744
Reaction score
107
Some interesting kit on that vehicle, though I wonder how well some of it would stand up to sea spray and the associated abuse of an amphibious landing.
 

Similar threads

Top