Marines want new expeditionary vehicle

[Ericsson]

Corps eyes new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

SysCom seeks alternative designs by Friday
By Kimberly Johnson - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Feb 22, 2007 15:42:05 EST
The Marine Corps is looking for new designs to replace the assault amphibian vehicle and may soon consider a new manufacturer for the beleaguered Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program.

The Corps has already devoted 10 years and $1.7 billion to General Dynamics’ amphibious-assault EFV prototype. But the test vehicles are old and unreliable — so much so that seven new test vehicles must be built, Marine officials said. The new vehicles will add three years to the program, along with a $300 million annual price tag.

While Corps officials — all the way up to Commandant Gen. James Conway — have professed commitment to the program, Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., has invited companies to submit alternate EFV designs by Friday.

“This request is for information only and is intended to identify companies that can develop and produce a reliable amphibious capability that is self-deploying, high-water-speed, amphibious, armored tracked vehicle and is capable of seamlessly transporting Marines from ships located beyond the horizon to inland objectives,” the request for information said.

Change is on the horizon and could include a new manufacturer, Navy Secretary Donald Winter told lawmakers recently.

“We have a DAB, a Defense Acquisition Board, meeting coming up here in March, at which time we will propose our program restructuring, which will include the reinvestment and the redesign activities, as well as the funding of a second source to look at a competitive design,” Winter told House appropriators at a Feb. 13 hearing.

Still, said one Corps official, the fate of General Dynamics’ role in the program has not yet been determined.

“We have not made any recommendation to terminate our contracts with General Dynamics,” said David Branham, spokesman for the EFV program.

The EFV prototypes meet all design mandates, including water speed, the ability to carry a reinforced rifle squad, compatibility with Navy amphibious ships and ability to punch through surf zones. However, there are design flaws, such as unstable steering. And the vehicle cannot go more than eight hours without breaking down, Branham said.

“It just doesn’t perform well enough, long enough,” he said.

“Reliability is an engineering challenge, it’s not a technological challenge,” Branham said. “In restructuring the program, we must consider the broad range of technical and business strategy alternatives to provide a reliable EFV to the war fighter. We must also continuously consider opportunities for competition in the program. Market research is a tool to help us do both of these things.”

While the open bid for competing EFV designs could have General Dynamics on edge, “realistically, the solicitation for alternate designs doesn’t mean much,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute.

“EFV is a decade down the road, and there just is not enough time to start over before the existing amphibious vehicles bite the dust,” Thompson said. “The Corps has spent so much time and money in developing EFV and its existing amphibious vehicles are so antiquated, the notion of starting over seems improbable.”

Calls to General Dynamics for comment were not immediately returned.

Related reading:

[Rakki]

Hmm, in Tom Clancy's "Marines" it was billed as the most reliable thing since the bread slicer.... guess it was just too good to be true :(

[Ratamacue]

It's a shame that the program ended up FUBAR, but I'm glad that the Corps is recognizing it and taking action instead of going forward with an unsafe, ineffective design.

[exarmyguard]

It should be interesting to see what other companies come up. I recall an M113 made in Italy with an amphibious bolt-on components that looks cool.

[Noble713]

Or we could get KNIFV (Korea Next Infantry Fighting Vehicle). Brand-new design with up-to-date tech and amphibious capability.

[Ratamacue]

Or we could get KNIFV (Korea Next Infantry Fighting Vehicle). Brand-new design with up-to-date tech and amphibious capability.I don't know anything about the KNIFV. Can it travel at 25kts over water?

The EFV program has some pretty demanding requirements involved, so while it's easy to say "oh well they should get such-and-such vehicle because it's cool," in reality I doubt that there's anything out there at the moment (aside from the current EFV design) that reaches all of the USMC's specifications.

[Durandal]

This program was doomed from the start. For the time being it will be impossible to have a self deploying vehicle capable of fighting, amphibious operations, over water speeds of 25kts+, and be self supportable.

The thing is an engineer's nightmare, a mechanics nightmare, and a logistical nightmare.

I mean, think about it, you have to sacrifice sooo much stuff to be able to get a vehicle that can disembark, travel FAST (25kts is WAY fast for an APC in water), travel OVER the horizon, land.

I'd wager we won't see one at all, even ten years from now...not 20, hell, probably not 50.

Oh, you might see one, like we saw the Comanche or the Osprey, but they'll be so many sacrifices made to make it work that the final vehicle will look nothing like the original they REALLY wanted.

[Sabre]

To be honest, opposed landings are a nightmarish concept. What is wrong with a large capacity landing craft/hovercraft and larger landing ships? Hovercraft can reach high-ish speeds and can be armed for beach assaults.

[Ratamacue]

Oh, you might see one, like we saw the Comanche or the Osprey, but they'll be so many sacrifices made to make it work that the final vehicle will look nothing like the original they REALLY wanted.What kind of sacrifices have been made with the Osprey?


To be honest, opposed landings are a nightmarish concept. What is wrong with a large capacity landing craft/hovercraft and larger landing ships? Hovercraft can reach high-ish speeds and can be armed for beach assaults.One good hit on a hovercraft or LCT and every man and vehicle onboard is rendered ineffective. One round on an individual APC, and you've only lost that one vehicle and the men inside.

From what I'm seeing (admittedly very little), the problem with the EFV isn't so much the concept as General Dynamics' execution and engineering. Hopefully another company can come up with something better, or General Dynamics gets their ass in gear and is able to modify the existing EFV design to eliminate these issues.

[Hellfish]

Even if its never used, I think its important for the Marines to be able to swim their vehicles ashore, under fire or otherwise. Its an important option for them. Maybe 25+ knots is excessive, but certainly the Marines need an AAV replacement. Ideally, also something smaller than the AAV.

[Ratamacue]

Even if its never used, I think its important for the Marines to be able to swim their vehicles ashore, under fire or otherwise. Its an important option for them. Maybe 25+ knots is excessive, but certainly the Marines need an AAV replacement. Ideally, also something smaller than the AAV.I wouldn't count on it being any smaller than the AAV. They want a vehicle that, like the AAV, can transport a reinforced rifle squad of 13+ Marines, and that would be very difficult to accomplish in a vehicle smaller than the AAV or EFV.

[Hellfish]

I wouldn't count on it being any smaller than the AAV. They want a vehicle that, like the AAV, can transport a reinforced rifle squad of 13+ Marines, and that would be very difficult to accomplish in a vehicle smaller than the AAV or EFV.

You've seen an AAV, right? They totally dwarf any other vehicle. Its pretty impressive, and unfortunately makes them really vulnerable.

If the Army can fit 11 dismounts into an M113, I don't see why its all that difficult to fit 13 in something a little bigger.

[szr]

To be honest, opposed landings are a nightmarish concept. What is wrong with a large capacity landing craft/hovercraft and larger landing ships? Hovercraft can reach high-ish speeds and can be armed for beach assaults.Don't put all your eggs in one basket is one truism that fits well here. You want to compartmentalize your forces as much as possible because you're going to lose vehicles in the movement from ship to shore durring a truly opposed landing. It's one of those things that you've got to expect as a given.

If you load all your guys onto LCUs and you lose a few, you're losing a lot more Marines than you would have if you lost the same number of EFVs instead of LCUs, for example. Even a mobility kill of a landing craft at sea means all those Marines and that equipment are stuck out at sea instead of on the beach where they're needed. Losing an LCU vs. losing an EFV means losing several squads of Marines instead of one.

The LCACs are large so you can only bring so many with you in your well decks. That means you'll have to trickle forces ashore by ferrying those few LCACs back and forth to move your BLT from ship to shore. That prevents you from unleashing that critical mass of forces in a solid thrust that would be needed to muscle your way onto a contested beach.

Amphibious vehicles like the AAV and EFV also allow Marines to maneuver inland and expand the held area needed to flow in follow-on forces, which can't be done with LCUs and for practical purposes can't be done with LCACs, either.

[deagle]

i think another viable alternative is to develop ways to prolong the longevity and survivablility ... kinda like those fence things on strykers

[Durandal]

What kind of sacrifices have been made with the Osprey?

Lifting capacity (weight), interior dimensions (cargo size), an alternative to a helo at LZs in terms of vulnerability, armed, and the best part...self-deployable.

Biggest current money pit we have, one of the longest running failures that has a done a good job killing good men.


From what I'm seeing (admittedly very little), the problem with the EFV isn't so much the concept as General Dynamics' execution and engineering. Hopefully another company can come up with something better, or General Dynamics gets their ass in gear and is able to modify the existing EFV design to eliminate these issues.

There a whole lot more to it than that...pat of the problem is that Marines want EVERYTHING and DYNAMICS is actually promising it...both are severely flawed but neither care. You have a defense contractor getting paid cash and you have the Marines nabbing tax dollars...both win even if it does not work.

[Sabre]

Don't put all your eggs in one basket is one truism that fits well here. You want to compartmentalize your forces as much as possible because you're going to lose vehicles in the movement from ship to shore durring a truly opposed landing. It's one of those things that you've got to expect as a given.

If you load all your guys onto LCUs and you lose a few, you're losing a lot more Marines than you would have if you lost the same number of EFVs instead of LCUs, for example. Even a mobility kill of a landing craft at sea means all those Marines and that equipment are stuck out at sea instead of on the beach where they're needed. Losing an LCU vs. losing an EFV means losing several squads of Marines instead of one.

The LCACs are large so you can only bring so many with you in your well decks. That means you'll have to trickle forces ashore by ferrying those few LCACs back and forth to move your BLT from ship to shore. That prevents you from unleashing that critical mass of forces in a solid thrust that would be needed to muscle your way onto a contested beach.

Amphibious vehicles like the AAV and EFV also allow Marines to maneuver inland and expand the held area needed to flow in follow-on forces, which can't be done with LCUs and for practical purposes can't be done with LCACs, either.

My point regarding opposed landings is not that they should be conducted with landing craft/ships/hovercraft, but rather that they should not be conducted at all. Efforts should always be made to find an unopposed landing site.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

My point regarding opposed landings is not that they should be conducted with landing craft/ships/hovercraft, but rather that they should not be conducted at all. Efforts should always be made to find an unopposed landing site.

A valid point....but, there are ties when you need to enter by force, whether that be by airborne/air assualt operations, or amphibious operations. p-)

And that is why our military practices both techniques to conduct operations.

[Hellfish]

The scenario that keeps popping into my head is something like Liberia - where you've got to either insert Marines into a city to protect and embassy or evacuate civilians from that city, which is crawling with militias or governmental forces that preclude the safe use of helicopters. How're you going to get those Marines in, or how are you going to get those people out?

One option is to swim in your AAV/EFVs - they're armored and don't need a secure beach (whereas one guy with an AK and/or an RPG can theoretically ruin an LCAC) and can make the run into the city with sufficient protection and firepower. While we may not be storming Tarawa here, it certainly isn't a safe beach head. The benefit of the EFV, as I see it, is that you can park your LHA/LHD pretty far offshore and still swim in the armor. With AAVs, you'd have to have your amphibs pretty close to the coast, and who knows if some idiot with an 82 or 120mm mortar wants to see if he can hit a big ship.

[Sabre]

Yep, the need is there. Certainly the USMC would not want the capability for opposed landings taken away from them.

[BadKarma26]

edit: as you were found out this was an AT mine. however AAVs dont stand that well up to RPGs



14 marines were killed in this AAV

[szr]

My point regarding opposed landings is not that they should be conducted with landing craft/ships/hovercraft, but rather that they should not be conducted at all. Efforts should always be made to find an unopposed landing site.Least opposed landing site.


i think another viable alternative is to develop ways to prolong the longevity and survivablility ... kinda like those fence things on strykers
edit: as you were found out this was an AT mine. however AAVs dont stand that well up to RPGs

14 marines were killed in this AAVAAVs don't stand up well to much of anything except some small arms fire from the front. Marines know this. Even with all the slat armor and ERA in the world, an AAV is just about the last vehicle in the world I'd want to be riding in down the roads of Anbar. People who've seen them from the outside but have never been in one get the impression that it's some behemoth tracked battle fortress or something--they forget that it has more in common with a boat than with anything pupose-built to face the threats of a modern battlefield.

[exarmyguard]

Buy some off those russian ekranoplanes. Fill the cargo holds with Bradley's and offload them right on the beach. Forget having a tank swim to shore.

[Ratamacue]

Buy some off those russian ekranoplanes. Fill the cargo holds with Bradley's and offload them right on the beach. Forget having a tank swim to shore.You haven't even read any of the conversation that precedes your post, have you?

[Durandal]

Amphibious vehicles like the AAV and EFV also allow Marines to maneuver inland and expand the held area needed to flow in follow-on forces, which can't be done with LCUs and for practical purposes can't be done with LCACs, either.

Except that's the problem right now. The AAVs flat out suck defending troops against even small arms fire and the ability to maintain an EFV would be an absolute nightmare.

I mean, think about it.

How do you get up to 25kts?

You pull the tracks in our run out a surface to reduce drag. Then you need a MASSIVE power source, which, no doubt is a fuel hog (keep in mind these things are going to be traveling several miles from off shore) and the propulsion for the vehicle in water (since its not using tracks) takes up a MASSIVE amount of space.

Now, it has to be hardened against salt/water/sand, the single worst environment for any vehicle.

On top of that the Marines want to be able to deploy and take ground with them. Vehicles that are easy to kill, easy to immobilize, fuel hogs, AND have a massive logistics footprint....meaning, it takes more people to support each armed marine than ever before and in return you get a "combat" vehicle with the survivability of a Humvee and the maintenance schedule of an AH-64.

Sounds like a great idea...

[szr]

And wars are hugely expensive in money and in human life, yet we still manage to find ourselves involved in them from time to time, despite the fact that we're certain that peace is better than war in every way.

It's too bad the EFV isn't working out as hoped because we need it. Period.


You have a defense contractor getting paid cash and you have the Marines nabbing tax dollars...both win even if it does not work.The Marines don't win anything if it doesn't work. The Corps gets 6 cents of every defense dollar--money that filters to it through the Navy. Far from a blank check; if the Corps can't justify how it's spending its money it'd have its R&D wings trimmed. There's no shortage of people in the Pentagon, particularly in the Army, who'd like nothing more than to see that money going into the colossal Army programs instead, with Marines getting the hand-me-downs.

[Noble713]

I don't know anything about the KNIFV. Can it travel at 25kts over water?

The EFV program has some pretty demanding requirements involved, so while it's easy to say "oh well they should get such-and-such vehicle because it's cool," in reality I doubt that there's anything out there at the moment (aside from the current EFV design) that reaches all of the USMC's specifications.

http://www.korea.net/News/News/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20050518004

Ehhh, looks like it's amphib abilities are more "river crossing" rather than "beach assault". You aren't going to find anything like the EFV because the program's requirements are outrageous.

[exarmyguard]

You haven't even read any of the conversation that precedes your post, have you?

:| I sort of read them...I was skimming through them...

[Andy-M]

edited because it was a bad idea

[mrf2]

BadKarma26-

That AAV was destroyed by 15 155 Arty rounds, not an RPG.

All-
The EAAK armor fitted to all vehicles in Iraq or on MEUs will stop 14.5mm MG fire on down. All parts of the vehicle will stop 7.62. EAAK armor also reduces the effectiveness of RPGs that do strike the vehicle.

I have some experance with the EFV program and the current AAV (much more experance with that). For comparison's sake, the AAV is rated to carry 21 Marines in addition to the 3 crew, the EFV will carry 17 infantry Marines in the back, however it will be a tight fit. Most of the time the AAV will only have 15 Marines manifested in the back plus the crew. I expect the EFV (if and when it makes it to the fleet) to be loaded the same way. The vehicle (EFV) has some awsome capablities, it's just a matter of getting them all to work at the same time.

mrf2

[Durandal]

The EAAK armor fitted to all vehicles in Iraq or on MEUs will stop 14.5mm MG fire on down.

This is a completely false statement.

[oldsoak]

Not entirely convinced that a CIWS equipped LCAC ( as per the Russians ) isnt a better and cheaper alternative.

[martinexsquaddie]

you can either have something that goes across water at 25 knots
or something that has decent amount of armour and firepower not both

[Durandal]

you can either have something that goes across water at 25 knots
or something that has decent amount of armour and firepower not both

Yep, and I think that is the conclusion that they will come to at some point unless there is a massive technology breakthrough in energy production where power to weight ratios are irrelevant.

[mrf2]

This is a completely false statement.

Durandal-
I am an AAV platoon commander, the statment is not false. I am not going to post the exact spec, but it will stop pretty close range 14.5mm fire.

mrf2

[Durandal]

Durandal-
I am an AAV platoon commander, the statment is not false. I am not going to post the exact spec, but it will stop pretty close range 14.5mm fire.

mrf2

I have shot at sections of the stuff. 8mm API surplus penetrated it. I never shot at it with 14.5mm...though smaller, I would imagine .50 BMG API and AP would do the same as the even smaller 8mm.

Now maybe 8mm would bounce around between the applique and the standard hull, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

Its a big target with a WHOLE lot of nice fat, flat surfaces...not the best thing when trying to stop kinetic energy.

But hey, its the best we can do right now. You go to war with what you have and you procure what you can build (which is my point in this thread).

[mrf2]

You shot actual EAAK? Was it one of the laminate pannels or one of the regular AL spacer pannels? Was it the newer wavy stuff or the older flat stuff? Was it new or corroded? Corrision will kill EAAK, which is why new sets are sealed and referbed every year. The reason I am skeptical is that I know that 7.62 will not pentrate EAAK first hand and have seen the data for the tests with 14.5mm. I have Marines who have been in vehicles shot up with .50cal that did not penetrate, along with close range mortar bursts (within 10m). I am interested in exactly what peice you shot to say the least.

[Durandal]

You shot actual EAAK? Was it one of the laminate pannels or one of the regular AL spacer pannels? Was it the newer wavy stuff or the older flat stuff? Was it new or corroded? Corrision will kill EAAK, which is why new sets are sealed and referbed every year. The reason I am skeptical is that I know that 7.62 will not pentrate EAAK first hand and have seen the data for the tests with 14.5mm. I have Marines who have been in vehicles shot up with .50cal that did not penetrate, along with close range mortar bursts (within 10m). I am interested in exactly what peice you shot to say the least.

Its was the flatter stuff (never seen the wavy stuff) with enough height to give us three complete "angles"...one had a sort of ballistic kevlar type cloth behind it the other one (that I did not get a chance to shoot) had a sort of hard rubber or plastic. Yes, they were slightly corroded.

Mortar bursts shouldn't effect the stuff at all other than scratch the paint.

Don't ever trust the data. Never believe what you read. You should have seen the ballistic data on the cartridges being develop for the M16 in the 60s. According to the data penetration was at desired performance levels at 1000 yards, yet there was high speed gun camera footage that showed rounds bouncing off nylon ballistic cloth (used as high contrast background...impact area).

That was Army officers screwing over their own, and the Marine officers are no different. Politics and Defense contractor money gets in the way ALL the time.

If you say the new stuff is good and you are satisfied with how it performs because you are boots on the ground and protected by the stuff in actual combat, that's cool by me.

[mrf2]

Durandal-

See attached photo of my Marines attaching EAAK, those are the pannels I am talking about. There was an older flat EAAK used in the early/mid 1990s. EAAK is a laminate of several different materals, one of which is toxic (note face-masks). Also, not all of the EAAK pannels are the same, some are just plan Alum. and are designed to be spacers and such. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. From what I have seen, it works. Btw, I take exception to your Marine officer comment, I am a Marine Officer ;).

Interesting triva- the current EAAK is designed and made in Israel. The EFV will also have the same protection of an AAV w/EAAK (14.5mm on down) as currently designed.

Now, on to the topic, the EFV. I have ridden in the back of the command variant before, smooth ride on water, worked while I was on it. However, there have been signifigant problems in testing, as you are all aware. When the vehicle works, it is the ****. If they can get the freaking thing to work it will be a sight to behold on both land and water. Until that happens the USMC is starting to look at options to augment the AAV. There is a new turret, privately developed by United Defense and Elbit systems that is awsome. I got to play with it the other day, it is freaking cool. Unmanned, low profile, thermal sights, stablized 30mm gun, 7.62 coax. I can't find it on the interent, I need to scan my pic of it, but it's good gear.

mrf2

[bilbo baggins]

Not the best but here is one turret shot.............



Interesting to see a bit of Occupational Health and Safety being practised and everyone wearing their masks! p-)

[exarmyguard]

Don't ever trust the data. Never believe what you read. You should have seen the ballistic data on the cartridges being develop for the M16 in the 60s. According to the data penetration was at desired performance levels at 1000 yards, yet there was high speed gun camera footage that showed rounds bouncing off nylon ballistic cloth (used as high contrast background...impact area).

That was Army officers screwing over their own, and the Marine officers are no different. Politics and Defense contractor money gets in the way ALL the time.

If you say the new stuff is good and you are satisfied with how it performs because you are boots on the ground and protected by the stuff in actual combat, that's cool by me.

Amen.............

[Durandal]

There was an older flat EAAK used in the early/mid 1990s. EAAK is a laminate of several different materals, one of which is toxic (note face-masks).

I guess it was the older stuff. I had assumed (having not seen the EEAK on the AAV up close) that the panel was part of the angle, but I guess not.

[/QUOTE]I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. From what I have seen, it works.[/QUOTE]

Like I said in my previous post, if you have been in combat taken rounds in it and not seen any penetrations, then I believe you, since I, obviously, have not.


Btw, I take exception to your Marine officer comment, I am a Marine Officer ;).

That's cool, I never said ALL officers. Just the ones that are politically minded and want to retire INTO a defense contractor job. Even some of those guys are good guys, which means they usually get screwed on the contracts.

Trust me, that is how it TRULY is.


When the vehicle works, it is the ****. If they can get the freaking thing to work it will be a sight to behold on both land and water. Until that happens the USMC is starting to look at options to augment the AAV.

Yeah, but the Marine Corps, literally, spent OVER 25% of their budget last year on the vehicle. My question is, they've been tweaking this thing so long what happens when they realize they need to up armor it, like everything else (show me a current day military vehicle that hasn't gone through an uparmor...sometimes to the detriment of the operation of the vehicle). You won't be able to simply drop another 10 tons of enhanced armor on it 10 years after its been in service. Its going to be pretty tight as it is from what I hear.

[ShadowSpear]

Here's a pic that I found of the whole EFV. Looks sweet and it's definately better than the current AAV7P. Faster too.

[Durandal]

Here's a pic that I found of the whole EFV.

Here are some better ones: