• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Problems with USMC's Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
146
Points
710
Problems Stall Pentagon's New Fighting Vehicle
Costly Amphibious System Not Meeting Expectations

Washington Post, Jan. 07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020601997.html?referrer=email

After 10 years and $1.7 billion, this is what the Marines Corps got for its investment in a new amphibious vehicle: A craft that breaks down about an average of once every 4 1/2 hours, leaks and sometimes veers off course.

And for that, the contractor, General Dynamics of Falls Church, received $80 million in bonuses.

The amphibious vehicle, which can be launched from a ship and then driven on land, is so unreliable that the Pentagon is ditching plans to begin building the first of more than 1,000 and wants to start over with seven new prototypes, which will take nearly two years to deliver, at a cost of $22 million each.

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is one of the Pentagon's largest weapons programs and exemplifies the agency's struggle to afford a cadre of new mega-systems that are larger and more complex, but also more trouble, than their predecessors...

When it was launched in 1996, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was promoted as an example of acquisition reform as hundreds of General Dynamics and Marine Corps officials moved into the same 62,000-square-foot office building in Woodbridge to run the program, in hopes of saving time and money. The program's efforts to keep maintenance costs low won plaudits from Defense leaders and twice earned the program the Pentagon's highest acquisition award, in 1997 and 1999. In 2001, the program collected an innovation award for developing a system to keep the craft's internal components from overheating, a technology that has been adopted for other weapons...

General Dynamics defends its progress, noting that the vehicle has met many goals, including being able to reach speeds of 30 knots on the water. The vehicle is fast enough to keep up with the Abrams tank on land, it can carry 17 Marines, and its systems can communicate with other ships and tanks, all key performance criteria, the company says...

... the Marine Corps is ready to start over. The service is to present a plan to salvage the program to Defense leaders in March. In addition to buying seven new prototypes, the Marine Corps proposal will probably require at least a two- or three-year delay, adding $200 million in development costs a year, said Bryant, the Marines program manager.

The service will seek to simplify the design, "getting rid of the complexity where we don't need complexity," he said...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Some generalized problems with any large multi-year acquistion programs,

- Companies often have to sub-contract alot the design and parts acquistion in making these test vehicles.  So when you have multiple sub-contractors making parts at slightly different specs, they need to be fitted on vehicles somehow to make deadlines, and thus each of your test vehicles are unique.  Remember Congressmen want a portion of these billions R&D funds to go to their regions, in part they are helping creat the cost over-run, plus if you have 1 prime contractor and ~ 50 sub-contractors all taking a profit-share, costs are going to rise.
- With such a long running program with constant turnover of engineers, programers, technicians and mechanics, everytime this continuity is broken, time is spent on the new team getting up to speed, time = money.
- And especially at the top of the program, has GD, and Dep. of Navy had the program managers the entire time?

 
 
They did it all wrong...buy italian crap because the kickbacks are big...L(squuueeeekkk)SVW. Design...BAAH...be the first nation to buy it off the drawing board. Canadian procurement of the 1990's, how I miss it so.
 
From some posts on another forum (tanknet) The interior is U shaped with the engine in the middle, the 3 crew members are isolated from each other with one man in the turret (gunner), can’t carry much cargo and can’t take as many people as advertised.

The idea was to deploy 12 miles offshore and have these vehicle do the run in, imagine being in a high speed APC pounding through the waves for 20 minutes before landing on a hostile beach!!! Considering their Amtracs are spending far more time roaming the big sandpit than they ever have driving through the water, one wonders why they are still pursuing this idea.
 
Colin P said:
Considering their Amtracs are spending far more time roaming the big sandpit than they ever have driving through the water, one wonders why they are still pursuing this idea.

Perhaps because equipment needs to meet anticipated future needs as well as current ones?  Outfitting the USMC to operate solely in the desert would be a mistake; they need to retain a range of combat capabilities.

Besides, they'll need the amphibious capabilities to invade across the Great Lakes... ;)
 
They would be far better off, building a newer Amtrac than this toy. Even a basic model has huge challenges as they have much more internal volume to protect than the average APC.
 
The trouble with procurement systems and their mandate is that almost every project starts out with basic parameters, then they start adding the bells and whistles...pretty soon the bells and whistles have a higher priority than the basic parameters.....then they start cutting into operational functions to accommodate add-ons/revisions....pretty soon it looks nothing like the original concept, just a testament to someones empire building capabilities.

The Humvee is the classic example.
 
They would be better off buying the Swedish Combat boats to get them to the Surf-line in double quick time then buy additional LCACs to lift in their LAVs, Bradleys or whatever else they decide they need to operate on land.

Horses for Courses.
 
  The problem is not with the vehicle, or vehicle concept but the procurement system. 

  The EFV is light years ahead of the AAV and any other AFV.  And minus tanks it will be able to defeat armor threat out there.

 
 
2FtOnion, could enlighten us with some more general info of the LVTP7 vs the AAV? Give us the goods, devil dog.
 
The LVTP7 (Landing Vehicle Track Pesonnel 7) is the first variant of the our current AAVP7 RAM/RS (Amphibious Assault Vehicle Personnel 7 Reliability Availibility Maintenance Rebuild to Standard)

The EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) orginally called the AAAV (Advanced Amphibious Assualt Vehicle), this is the the vehicle you want to compare against the AAV.

AAV
http://www.uniteddefense.com/prod/aav.htm
http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/adeb1da833ced848852562b30060c5ab?OpenDocument

AAV RAM/RS
http://www.uniteddefense.com/prod/aavram.htm
http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/p&r/concepts/2004/PDF/CP%2004%20Chap%204%20pdfs/CP04%20CHAP%204%20Ground%20Combat%20Element%20-%20pp147_AAV%20RAM%20RS%20PROGRAM.pdf

EFV
http://www.gdls.com/programs/efv.html
http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/p&r/concepts/2004/PDF/CP%2004%20Chap%204%20pdfs/CP04%20CHAP%204%20Ground%20Combat%20Element%20-%20pp144_EXPEDITIONARY%20FIGHTING%20VEHICLE.pdf

Comparing on the capabilities on the critia of Shoot, Move and Communicate, the EFV is drastic increase in capabilities for the Marine Corps, and it will put ahead of any other IFV in the world.
 
Have you crawled around them yet? I have seen one of the Sea trials prototypes now in private hands, but it lacked interior and tracks.
 
Back
Top