# Amphibious Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - Maybe for the SCTF?



## Albertaone (17 Apr 2007)

This is a completely unrelated topic and my apologies for shanghaing this posting.  But since all you armoured experts are here I would solicit your opinions on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that the U.S Marine Corps is adopting.   I was thinking that it might bode well for Canada to purchase some of these for arctic sovereignty patrols. (the could used in the warmer months not sure how well these vehicles could handle the harsh environment up north.)   Since the north is melting it might be wise to have an amphibious vehicle that can perform island hopping tasks.  Am I off the mark on this one?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Apr 2007)

You mean this thing?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2007)

Water ski to battle! The Marines really know how to recruit  ;D ;D ;D

How well it works is another matter, but certainly for a different thread.

This thread should now be consigned to the history bin; the question was answered with the recent anouncement of Canada's purchase of Leopard 2A6 tanks.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2007)

I'm trying to understand why they have all that det-cord wrapped around the hatches.  >

Brilliant for Aid to the Civil Power in the Gulf Islands and the Thousand Islands.  

But as Arthur and others suggest - that's a tale for another thread.....along with the HAPC, Namera et al.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm trying to understand why they have all that det-cord wrapped around the hatches.  >
> 
> Brilliant for Aid to the Civil Power in the Gulf Islands and the Thousand Islands.
> 
> But as Arthur and others suggest - that's a tale for another thread.....along with the HAPC, Namera et al.



Doesn't look like det cord to me Kirkhill.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Apr 2007)

Albertaone said:
			
		

> This is a completely unrelated topic and my apologies for shanghaing this posting.  But since all you armoured experts are here I would solicit your opinions on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that the U.S Marine Corps is adopting.   I was thinking that it might bode well for Canada to purchase some of these for arctic sovereignty patrols. (the could used in the warmer months not sure how well these vehicles could handle the harsh environment up north.)   Since the north is melting it might be wise to have an amphibious vehicle that can perform island hopping tasks.  Am I off the mark on this one?



Latest update I read on the vehicle was that in recent testing a major system breaks every 4 hours, and there's *no* way they can put it into service.


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Doesn't look like det cord to me Kirkhill.



Sorry sapper - poor attempt at humour.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Sorry sapper - poor attempt at humour.



No Problem.

Looks like the those cables might be attached to sensors, as the cable runs all the way to the trim vane.


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm trying to understand why they have all that det-cord wrapped around the hatches.  >


Probably sensors so that the scientists can get some feed back from trials conducted on a prototype model.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Apr 2007)

From DID Article

WOW

The EFV is the top land acquisition priority of the U.S. Marine Corps, with a number of new capabilities surpassing the AA7 Amtracs it would replace - along with a much heftier price tag. Indeed, the US GAO reports that it accounts for 25.5% of the Corps' total acquisition budget during FY 2006-2011.

This DID article addresses some of those capabilites, and tracks ongoing contracts related to the EFV program as it completes system design & development. The most recent contract allocates over $100 million to try and fix some of the problems covered in our November 2006 program update.

Full Rate Production was scheduled for the FY 2011-2020 period, with Full Operational Capability (FOC) was scheduled for FY 2020.


----------



## ghazise (29 Apr 2007)

The picture of the EFV is a prototype vehicle, and the it was from the prototype vehicles which had the 4 hour breakdown period.


----------



## Armymedic (13 May 2007)

Perhaps by the time that veh is actually fielded, the SCTF will no longer be dead in the water....

Possibly a purchase announcement in 2015?


----------



## ringo (16 May 2007)

Procuring some BVS10 Viking's may be a better place to start.


----------



## mudrecceman (5 Sep 2007)

I was just watching Future Weapons on the Discovery Channel, and its showing the EFV...impressive at first glance.  25 mile OTH capability...28 knots speed on water and supposedly it can go 200 miles on land without tanking up again after 25 miles in the water.  30mm cannon (200 RPM) with 7.62 coax, claimed to be accurate 2000m, day/night all weather.  Carries 17 Marines.  45 mph on land.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Sep 2007)

Remember, that's the manufacturer's claim, that the Discovery Channel team has no opportunity to independently verify.  Sort of like buying a car based solely on the manufacturer's claims in an ad or on their website, without bothering to read the fine print or take it for a test drive.


----------



## mudrecceman (5 Sep 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Remember, that's the manufacturer's claim, that the Discovery Channel team has no opportunity to independently verify.  Sort of like buying a car based solely on the manufacturer's claims in an ad or on their website, without bothering to read the fine print or take it for a test drive.



Roger that...hence why I said "at first glance"  

I noticed there was no "firepower display" what-so-ever.   

But...ya COULD ski behind the sucker!   

No mention was made about the "over the water, then on land" distances/speed WRT to dry weight/combat load...lots to pick apart but...still impressive to "watch".

The Marine Col seemed to think it was a good piece of kit...he must have shares in the company


----------



## Cardstonkid (5 Sep 2007)

If I remember correctly this whole project is under review as it is seriously over budget and had been plagued with problems. I believe there is confidence the system can be made to work. It is pretty cool , but that aside if it cannot be made to work at a reasonable price then there is no point in building it.


----------



## mudrecceman (5 Sep 2007)

Rgr that.

Any input from forum members from "the south" on this one?


----------



## evil drunken-fool (26 Jan 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Remember, that's the manufacturer's claim, that the Discovery Channel team has no opportunity to independently verify.  Sort of like buying a car based solely on the manufacturer's claims in an ad or on their website, without bothering to read the fine print or take it for a test drive.



I thought I seen this already posted in here but I guess not. This thing has a ton of cost overruns and has not performed anywhere near what it was suppose to. I can't seem to find any consistent stats on performance at all.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003265.html


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Jan 2008)

LCF aside, how much capability would this add beyond LCAC+LAV (honest question, not a challenge)?


----------



## T.S.Rea (21 Mar 2008)

Considering the vehicle has a total of 3400 hp on a gross vehicle weight of 75,000 lbs, there is enough power to weight that the craft could have been developed as a hovercraft with wheels (which requires about 25 hp/lb for a surf rateable type).

For all the cost and trouble, would be far easier to just develop one or two sizes of small assault hovercraft or a 15-30 ton payload LCAC that can fold up for stowage on the vehicle deck of American amphibious ships.

It is unlikely we will have an sort of amphibious assault battalion in the intermediate future if ever, so fortunately we will never have to pay a fortune for a really bad idea.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Mar 2008)

T.S.Rea said:
			
		

> Considering the vehicle has a total of 3400 hp on a gross vehicle weight of 75,000 lbs, there is enough power to weight that the craft could have been developed as a hovercraft with wheels (which requires about 25 hp/lb for a surf rateable type).
> 
> For all the cost and trouble, would be far easier to just develop one or two sizes of small assault hovercraft or a 15-30 ton payload LCAC that can fold up for stowage on the vehicle deck of American amphibious ships.
> 
> It is unlikely we will have an sort of amphibious assault battalion in the intermediate future if ever, so fortunately we will never have to pay a fortune for a really bad idea.



And why is having an amphibious capability a bad idea? Maybe some information in your profile would help us determine where you are coming from.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (21 Mar 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> And why is having an amphibious capability a bad idea? Maybe some information in your profile would help us determine where you are coming from.



+1


----------



## T.S.Rea (21 Mar 2008)

Never said an amphibious capability would not be useful, the discussion is about the technical aspects of the EFV.  Far easier ways of achieving a superior result.

EFV is driven by arms corporations that primarily want to make money.


----------



## Red 6 (21 Mar 2008)

The Marine Corps has spent 15 years in development of this vehicle. Yes, it's a great concept, but how much is it worth? Fielding of the MRAP vehicle was delayed, in part, to continue developmental funding of the EFV. Meanwhile, Marines were driving around in Iraq with HMMWVs as they main armored vehicle on patrols. 

Having an over the horizon capability is important for amphibious operations and the Marine Corps needs to keep its development cycle moving forward. After all, innovation has always been one of the Corps' hallmarks. But there needs to be a balance. I hate to bring this up, but that's the trouble with trying to cut taxes in the middle of a shooting war. 

On the other hand, look at the example of the M1, Bradley and Apache. All three systems were lambasted in the media during the 80s as examples of glutted defense spending. I remember one time watching a 60 Minutes expose on the Bradley once while I was a Bradley crewmember. They ripped into the Army about how wasteful the Bradley was and how under protected it was supposed to be. But after serving in a Bradley in combat, I thought it was the best vehicle for our mission. But Desert Storm and subsequent wars have all validated these three fighting systems. What's funny today is that they're called "Legacy Systems" in US Army-speak. (As in: "Legacy of the Cold War.")


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2008)

While the theory of "over the horizon" which drives the EFV and the V-22 programs seems valid, they are 1980's technology and have never really gotten over their teething problems (or seemingly never will in the case of the EFV). Considering it has taken two decades to get this far, maybe people should be given a fresh sheet of paper to redo the concept.

I suspect the desired results could be generated more effectively and possibly at a lower cost with a do-over.


----------



## Red 6 (22 Mar 2008)

Thucydides: You're absolutely right. These things cost so much and the technology is so complex, it takes decades before the thing even sees the light of day. The Osprey is definitely a great example of how NOT to develop a platform.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 May 2008)

The EFV sure looks cool and deadly with that Mk44 30mm chain gun. It is too bad it is taking so long and so much cash to get it off the ground.


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2010)

And now it seems the program is terminated. The Marine Personnel Carrier mentioned in the article seems to be based on the concepts developed by the LAV family (although it may only be based on the concept and not share much in the way of automotive components).

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gates-may-scrap-marines-ship-project-%E2%80%94-as-he-should/?singlepage=true



> *Gates May Scrap Marines’ Ship Project — As He Should*
> 
> The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is not useful against current and future threats, and should be cut.
> May 18, 2010
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (18 May 2010)

Having worked in and around the AAV-7 I would say that the Marines are probably happy to not putter around slowly in water, puking their guts out while soaked and reeking like POL.  Stick me on a helicopter please!

On a more serious note - sticking 25 dudes in one vehicle on the ground isn't a good idea anyways - one K-Kill in Iraq killed over 20 guys IIRC.

As well, there is a whole branch of the USMC - the Assault Amphibian Battalions with thier own trade of Officers and Enlisted troops, that will be out of the job.


----------

