Alternatives to USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)?

cluttonfred

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
1,445
Reaction score
433
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?
 
GTX said:
it would actually be cheaper to finish the design than to cancel.
Click to expand...

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

Regards,

Greg
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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: 582
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)
 
ImpliedFacepalm.jpg


http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ie/2013/07/aavs-end-of-life-now-2030.html
 
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.
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/future-us-marines-need-speed-to-cover.html
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • lockheed-acv-1.jpeg
    lockheed-acv-1.jpeg
    174.2 KB · Views: 327
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.
 
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?).
 
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.
 
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/
 
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
 
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: 269
  • CPrWfBuUcAAwT26.jpg
    CPrWfBuUcAAwT26.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 289

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:
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The blood between South Korea and Japan is still so bad that the last time a JMSDF ship was invited to dock at a Korean port, the Korean government demanded that the JMSDF ship not fly the Rising Sun.
Click to expand...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/05/29/national/msdf-ship-rising-sun-flag-south-korea/\
Scott Kenny said:
Goes back to the disaster response primary mission of the JMSDF.
Click to expand...
An amphibious assault vehicle for disaster response??? The primary mission of the JMSDF being disaster response and not BMD??? Either way a turret is planned.
maav2.jpg

The US are also actively cooperating on the program and if the results are promising enough will buy some if results are promising enough. If not just stick to the ACV-30. Either way it's hardly some ultra specialized vehicle like you think it is. 163987514222160307594.jpg
 
Kota said:
An amphibious assault vehicle for disaster response??? The primary mission of the JMSDF being disaster response and not BMD??? Either way a turret is planned.
Click to expand...
Typhoons and tsunamis can easily destroy the port of an island.

Amtracks are designed to go ashore even when there's no functional port in place.

Helicopters are better for search and rescue, amtracks are better for hauling supplies in large quantities.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Typhoons and tsunamis can easily destroy the port of an island.

Amtracks are designed to go ashore even when there's no functional port in place.

Helicopters are better for search and rescue, amtracks are better for hauling supplies in large quantities.
Click to expand...
Amtracks have almost no space to haul anything. A helicopter can carry more and at a much higher rate especially considering one of Japan's most numerous helicopter is the CH-47 which can each lift up to 12t at 300kmh. I don't even think you could find enough space on an AAV to fit half that load and you would be moving it at 7kmh. If you really want to move supplies across water you can do it much more efficiently with LCACs, LCUs, LCMs. I don't see a single situation where it would be favorable to use these things as cargo vehicles.

These are amphibious assault vehicles with crew compartments, no dedicated cargo space, an autocannon, a 3000hp engine, a 46kmh top speed in water, a 40+ ton weight from the size and armor. I don't know how any of that screams "humanitarian cargo hauler" to you. Again, disaster relief is probably like 10th on the list of roles for the JMSDF, so the idea of replacing the AAV-7 with what you think is a glorified cargo hauler is pretty funny and even more so considering the US will potentially buy some.

Seriously just admit you were mistaken and everyone can move on, but I don't get why you are doubling down on this idea that the Mitsubishi amphibious ASSAULT vehicle is some humanitarian supply vehicle. The basis of your belief and argument was that it was unarmed, but it's already proven that this isn't the case, so why continue to try and argue it? maav1.jpg
 
Kota said:
Amtracks have almost no space to haul anything. A helicopter can carry more and at a much higher rate especially considering one of Japan's most numerous helicopter is the CH-47 which can each lift up to 12t at 300kmh. I don't even think you could find enough space on an AAV to fit half that load and you would be moving it at 7kmh. If you really want to move supplies across water you can do it much more efficiently with LCACs, LCUs, LCMs. I don't see a single situation where it would be favorable to use these things as cargo vehicles.

These are amphibious assault vehicles with crew compartments, no dedicated cargo space, an autocannon, a 3000hp engine, a 46kmh top speed in water, a 40+ ton weight from the size and armor. I don't know how any of that screams "humanitarian cargo hauler" to you. Again, disaster relief is probably like 10th on the list of roles for the JMSDF, so the idea of replacing the AAV-7 with what you think is a glorified cargo hauler is pretty funny and even more so considering the US will potentially buy some.

Seriously just admit you were mistaken and everyone can move on, but I don't get why you are doubling down on this idea that the Mitsubishi amphibious ASSAULT vehicle is some humanitarian supply vehicle. The basis of your belief and argument was that it was unarmed, but it's already proven that this isn't the case, so why continue to try and argue it
Click to expand...
Go read their mission statement.
 
Disaster response organizations don't normally plan for combined vertical envelopment-mechanized amphibious assault operations.

The US Navy is more of a international humanitarian relief organization than the SDF ever could be. It doesn't mean it plans in it in its procurement, although it would be a truer expression of what it does, in general.
 
Now, the JMSDF definitely does have a disaster mission, but that mission has also long been used as a justification or cover for general amphibious warfare capabilities (c.f. the Osumi class).

If they wanted a vehicle to do disaster relief, they'd get something like the LARC XV or equivalent (essentially a big amphibious truck). High-speed amtracks (with or without cannon) are definitely for doing assault landings. This is a relatively new mission to the SDF, with the initial decision to field such a capability in the early 2000s and the formation of an actual amphibious assault brigade in 2018.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom