One of the decisions not yet made by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is the future of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), the new “amtrac” being developed for the Marine Corps. The EFV program was initiated in 1996 as a “high-speed” combat vehicle to carry Marines from amphibious ships offshore to the beach and, once ashore, operate as an armored personnel carrier.
But speaking at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, on 17 April, Secretary Gates said, “[W]e have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious action again. In the 21st century, how much amphibious capability do we need?” The U.S. Marine Corps has not made an opposed amphibious assault in more than half a century — since the landing at Inchon, Korea, in the fall of 1950.
The Marine Corps has operated “amtracs” — amphibious tractors — since 1942. Production and the introduction of new types of LVTs for landing vehicles, tracked (with those mounting heavy guns called LVT(A) for “armored”) continued, with the last model being the LVTP-7 (the “P” for personnel), introduced in 1967. The designation was changed to Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAV-7) and when its successor was initiated it was designated as the Advanced AAV. On 10 September 2003, the planned AAAV was changed to EFV, according to the official Marine Corps web site, “in keeping with the U.S. Marine Corps cultural shift from a 20th century force defined by amphibious operations to a 21st Century force focusing on a broadened range of employment concepts and possibilities across a spectrum of conflict.“
While the gobbledygook explains little, the Marine leadership continues to give the EFV a high priority, saying that it is vital to provide an amphibious capability into the 21st Century. As recently as 12 March of this year, Lieutenant General George J. Flynn, the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration, wrote that, “This nation requires the ability to rapidly project combat power ashore from U.S. Navy ships to ensure our security against international threats. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle remains a vital capability to accomplish that amphibious mission and is the commandant’s top ground combat priority.“
But after more than a decade of development and the expenditure of many millions of dollars, the prime contractor, General Dynamics, has not yet produced an operational vehicle. The principal difficulty is in making the EFV a high-speed water vehicle, that is capable of traveling from ship to shore at just under 30 m.p.h., and upon climbing onto the beach become an armored fighting vehicle, capable of 45 m.p.h. speeds on good roads.
It has a complex configuration to achieve those speeds in water and to then “transform” into a land vehicle. The vehicle’s diesel engine produces 850 horsepower through a complex transmission in land mode and an impressive 2,700 horsepower through twin pump-jets in the water mode.
The EFV is intended to carry 17 combat-laden Marines and is operated by a crew of three. It would be armed with a 30-mm Bushmaster II M242 cannon and a 7.62-mm M240 machine gun.
The question must be asked, however, is how does the EFV fit into modern “amphibious” operations? The Marine Corps speaks of over-the-horizon assaults as the key component of its Operational Maneuver From the Sea. Several Department of Defense, Defense Science Board, and Naval Research Advisory Committee studies indicate that amphibious forces must stand off some 50 miles from hostile beaches because of the increasing threats from land-launched missiles, low-flying aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Thus, Marines could be afloat in EFVs for almost two hours in reaching the beach. And the word beach is significant — EFVs come across a beach, they do not “land” at the objective, which could be an inland airfield, government building, or crossroads. Even a port that is critical for capture may not be suitable for EFV landings.
In contrast, at the same time as the EFVs are moving through the water toward the beach at about 25 m.p.h., other Marines will be landed at the objective by helicopters and the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, which have much greater speeds. Further, once ashore, the EFV may not be an effective combat vehicle because of (1) its high noise level, (2) height of the vehicle, (3) treads that are vulnerable to heavy land use, (4) slow speed over certain terrain, and (5) relatively light armor.
These factors, coupled with the low probability of the need for across-the-beach landings — which should not be confused with the potential viability of air-landed amphibious operations — demand that the EFV program be carefully scrutinized.
The fate of the EFV will most likely be decided by the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review, a major assessment of military programs and policies, that will shape the Pentagon’s fiscal year 2011 budget. Indications are that if the review takes an objective look at the requirements for future amphibious operations and the relative costs of retaining over-the-beach assault capabilities, the EFV will receive its long-delayed scuttling.
To start off with, BritTankie, Jack of all trade vehicles have worked in the past, I have 3 examples without even giving serious thought to them, the C-130 which has been turned into Electronics Aircraft, Airborne and supply platforms, in air refuelers, fire fighting vehicles, gunships, etc. The next would be the original all encompassing vehicle, the venerable Jeep. It was used as a scout, troop transport, command car, anti-tank platform, machine gun platform, medevac, and the list goes on. Same can be said for the HWMMV and also the Blackhawk helicopter. Sometimes a one size fits all approach does work.
As to the inclination Gates has with us not having done an uncontested landing for many years. That may be true, but do we really want to get rid of the ability to do so? The AAV was good for the past few decades but it has shown problems in Iraq when it has been used in combat there in non-amphibious roles. The EFV would be able to give the marines the ability to bring firepower the M2 bradley has afforded the Army for years, while still maintaining the ability for amphibious operations. It also means that an enemy can’t just cross a river on us and expect to get away if there is no bridge near by for our armored forces to get to him. The EFV has the ability to quickly cross and continue to pursue the enemy, limiting their ability to find sanctuary.
I think the Defense Secretary is forgeting one of the principles of Sun Tzu, continuing methodolgoies of the past in the pursuit of victory in the future.
The EFV program is one that Congress should hold hearings on. Supeona the government side(lower tier employees, engineers, etc) and then the contractor side. They will discover how the acquisition process and so called oversight is done and why it is a dismal failure. The pentagon is the only company that puts the government PMO in the engineering offices to haggle over how to design something, the same is going on on the FCS program. You do not see consumers in the design offices of Honda, catapillar,telling them what bolt to use and fight over it!!! Excellant articles including this one at DefenseTECH show the problems of getting it designed, and what it will be used for and why the Army and Marine civilians and military program leaders can’t get it to work. THIS WOULD BE A CLASSIC EYE OPENER FOR CONGRESS TO EXPOSE ON PENTAGON MIS MANAGEMENT.
The flip side is that a number of Navy ships designed to serve Marines were designed with the EFV in mind.
The EFV is a wonderful vehicle.
If only it could fly.
Where on God’s green earth would we conduct a contested amphibious assault? I understand the mind set of not giving up an ability, but I am not talking about some video game/war game scenario with country X. Where are we going to conduct this type of Op, and why wouldn’t an air assault be just as effective? If Eisenhower had Chinooks and Ospreys we wouldn’t have landed on Normandy’s beaches I bet, at least not until after the air assault forces cleared the fixed defenses.
Gates comment on how we havent made a opposed landing and are not likly to do so again is ridculous. I dont know the complexities of the EVF but if it cant do the job we still need to be working on other newer and better amphibious fighting vehicals. If Marines cant land on a beach effectivly they’re just the Army.
I think people are getting confused. I don’t think Gates is talking about the USMC not having the ability to move forces ashore. He is talking about needing the capability to conduct a contested landing. That’s my question. Where on the planet Earth would that happen? Why haven’t naval artillery and stand off strikes from the USN and USAF annihilated any sort of defenses prior to landing? That’s what we are talking about. It’s essentially conducting a Normandy type landing. We aren’t going to do that, we aren’t going to have to. That’s why we haven’t done one since Inchon, we don’t need to.
Uh, no, amphibious capabilities are *not* something we need to take a look at. It’s the conceptual basis for the Marine Corps and a vital part of our expeditionary fighting capability, whether we’ve used it recently or not. Didn’t we use non-combat amphibious landings to get marines onto the Iraqi coast in Gulf One, too?
I realize my comment is not going to be well-received by the Marine Corps, but here goes: As a Navy vet of 12 years, I love the Marines, but just as the article pointed out, the Marines haven’t done a serious landing in combat for 50-odd years. The reason is simple: we don’t need amphibious landings anymore. It is an outmoded idea that has outlived its usefulness, IMO.
I think our Marines are the best fighting force in the world with no peers, period. But let’s make them an adjust force of the Army instead of part of the Navy. Let the Air Force carry the soldiers and the Navy can still carry their tanks and equipment, just like they do for the Army already. We need the fighting capabilities of the Marines.
I love the Army too (I’ve got a daughter in the Army), but it just can’t match the Marines training level, good as they are.
I say put both as equal branches of a Land Service, and use the Air Force and Navy to help both Army and Marines do what they do best: fight on land. The Marines can do specialized missions, just as they do now. The Army can do the long-haul fighting, just as they do now. The main point is take the Marines out of the Navy: they don’t need amphibious landing ships, Amtracs, and all the rest of it IMO.
I fully expect to get blasted, but go right ahead; I’m interested to know what you think. Semper Fi.
I misspelled “adjunct” as “adjust”. My bad.
It seems to me that helicopters have pretty much made beach landings obsolete, at least large scale landings. The article said that the last major opposed beach landing was 1950, during the Korean war, before the advent of the helicopter.
Isn’t the point of assaulting a beach to obtain access to the land behind it?
I can see the reason why you might want a few of these vehicles though, if a situation (I can’t think of one) would call for it.
I hear lots of talk about canceling the EFV, but I don’t see alternatives on the table. Upgrading the AAVP-7A1 which are falling apart is not an option, and I disagree with the idea that the Marines don’t need such an amphibious assault vehicle. In WWII amtracks proved service that no sort of armored landing craft could hope to match. We should still have that capability, even it if means going with a different vehicle. If size is such a concern a smaller version capable of only seating 10–12 could be developed. That would mean more would have to be bought however, and increased costs.
I am not going to argue about whether the USMC needs to do amphibious assualts that is much higher than my paygrade, BUT it makes NO sense to have a vehicle like the EFV because:
The EFV spends 80% of its operational life ashore in a modern IED environment for which it is NOT designed to cope,
AND there is far too much cost and systems to make the EFV get from ship to shore very fast.
The argument about hiding from enemy gunners is bogus in this day and age any vessel can be locked onto and fired at if it is on the surface.
The solution is simple, put modern replacements for AAVP on a fast lighter aka assualt craft and send them ashore. Before someone suggest the 40 year old LCAC design, I suggest one looks up the CNIM L-Cat fast assualt craft coming into French Navy service.
I am not going to argue about whether the USMC needs to do amphibious assualts that is much higher than my paygrade, BUT it makes NO sense to have a vehicle like the EFV because:
The EFV spends 80% of its operational life ashore in a modern IED environment for which it is NOT designed to cope,
AND there is far too much cost and systems to make the EFV get from ship to shore very fast.
The argument about hiding from enemy gunners is bogus in this day and age any vessel can be locked onto and fired at if it is on the surface.
The solution is simple, put modern replacements for AAVP on a fast lighter aka assualt craft and send them ashore. Before someone suggest the 40 year old LCAC design, I suggest one looks up the CNIM L-Cat fast assualt craft coming into French Navy service.
What would it take to build a better version of the LCAC?
HMM accually could you make smaller and faster ones but better armed hovercraft might be realy good for patroling waterways like coastline. One could park on the coast hidden then when it sees a target if its equiped with the right weapons?
First, the Army never got rid of troops on horseback. It just evolved. The horse now weights 70 tons and carries a bigger gun. There is nothing wrong with using modern tech to update an old tradition.
As far as the suggestion of losing the amph ability for the Marines is plain ridicious. Thats just makes the stereotypical beach assaulting Marine a ground pounding Army Ranger. Marines excel at assaults and securing beachesheads/LZs/DZs/and airfields among other things. When you start taking away their fighting options and restricting them to one form of manuver your screwing the Marines over. And as everybody learns in day two of basic tactics, how do you gain the advantage in a fight…RESTRICT YOUR ENEMY’S FREEDOM OF MANUVER. Now we’re just the giving the advantages away.
Just use helicopters and planes to move Marines ashore right? Why not go one step futher and just fly them from CONUS. Don’t even bother with helicopter/amphibious assault ships? Ridicious? But that is exactly what your asking. What do we do after someone designs a better counter to helicopter/aircraft assaults? How do we move troops ashore then? Waste time and lives playing technological catchup?
I’m not going to even touch the price issue. Yes its astronomical the cost this thing has accrued. Yes, the design is flawed. All those things stem from other reasons. But do we need a new amphib vehicle for the Marines? Yes, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn’t get a new one. Not saying it has to be this one, but atleast something.
Hooah
WE HAVE ONLY 3 FORMS OF FORCIBLE ENTRY!
if as Mr. Polmar suggest we lose the ability to conduct amphibious assaults against fortified beaches or even the ability to bypass those fortifications with Marines in an armored vehicle then that leaves only Airborne and Air Assault forces for that mission. he (Polmar) also ignores the upgrades and improvements that have made the EFV a much more robust vehicle than his reporting is implying. Tracks wearing out and vulnerable? seriously sir! improvements are being incorporated! lightly armored? please! you refer to the IED threat…not only is extra armor being added to the belly of this brute but its designed to be where the enemy ain’t and if they are there then the additional armor has been shown to be as effective as a v-hull form! update your research and get back to us with a non-biased article sir! Ground forces need support too~!
Max, as a Navy vet of 12 years it seems like you would know that the Marine Corps is not “part of the Navy”. Pretty hard to take you comments/observations seriously when you don’t even know that.
—————-
I realize my comment is not going to be well-received by the Marine Corps, but here goes: As a Navy vet of 12 years, I love the Marines, but just as the article pointed out, the Marines haven’t done a serious landing in combat for 50-odd years. The reason is simple: we don’t need amphibious landings anymore. It is an outmoded idea that has outlived its usefulness, IMO.
I think our Marines are the best fighting force in the world with no peers, period. But let’s make them an adjust force of the Army instead of part of the Navy. Let the Air Force carry the soldiers and the Navy can still carry their tanks and equipment, just like they do for the Army already. We need the fighting capabilities of the Marines.
I love the Army too (I’ve got a daughter in the Army), but it just can’t match the Marines training level, good as they are.
I say put both as equal branches of a Land
Service, and use the Air Force and Navy to help both Army and Marines do what they do best: fight on land. The Marines can do specialized missions, just as they do now. The Army can do the long-haul fighting, just as they do now. The main point is take the Marines out of the Navy: they don’t need amphibious landing ships, Amtracs, and all the rest of it IMO.
A new vehicle is needed, but does this EFV really work? Wat are the options?
13 F***ING YEARS IN DEVELOPMENT??WTF-This is nothing but a money maker for GD and their senator friends. I agree that we need amphibious landing capabilities-just look at first gulf war even being used as a distraction saved lives on the ground. I just don’t see how more than a decade of funding is needed for any system to be developed, you should know by then that IT AIN’T GOING TO WORK!!(OSPREY included) Meanwhile, some small engineering firm has probably solved most of these problems with a better vehicle, but can’t get funding or notice because of big firms having friends in congress. Think of the first LTV built by a small florida company as a hurricane rescue vehicle.
Marines are not part of the Navy? Ah ha ha ha ha!!!! No disrespect dude, but whether you knew it or not, it is true. I know the Marines never like to admit it, but come on.
I agree with Sec Gates who said more helos for all branches of service to include the USMC HLR aka Ch-53K.
I think the USN is ignoring other types of lighterage to focus on more “exquisite” assualt craft which then become too costly (e.g. LCAC). Does that sound familiar
To answer the question: “What would it take to build a better version of the LCAC?” NAVSEA needs to be told NO FOLLOW ON DESIGN of LCAC is acceptable. They need isolate the LCAC mafia whihc is sucking up tens of millions in support contract dollars. They need a COMPLETELY new design out of new materials like composites built to normal marine building practices (not the British aviation design which current LCACs are).
In other words change course.
We did use the threat of an amphibious assault as a diversion in the Gulf War as a diversion, but no one honestly was going to storm Marines ashore. I’m not sure in these times of budget shortfalls we have the luxury of spending 20 billion dollars to be able to maintain the capability to bluff.
I think the USMC needs to be able to move forces ashore, I just don’t see why we would even bother with a contested beach. A limited capability for a forcible entry in some scenarios might be needed, but 600 EFVs? To take what stretch of beach? What on any beach exists in this world? We assaulted the ones we used to to establish a beach head to begin the logistical train for follow on forces. We don’t need to do that anymore.
My counter to the cavalry became armor argument would be that we used to land on the beach, now we fly over it and fast rope down.
While the Marines still need amphibious landing capability, I can’t see this vehicle being the solution. While I agree the vehicle is cool, they’re trying to make it do too much. I would think it would be a better use of assets to develop newer landing craft than trying to make an armoured vehicle that can swim at 40kts. Getting the vehicle to shore is a very very small part of it’s operations, the focus should be on the vehicles land capabilties. It really bugs me that so much of the Marines aquisition funds are being wasted on this when the USMC has enough trouble getting the funds it needs.
I agree on the comments that call for a change of route. This vehicle has been outdated by the joint tactics, after all. Come on, imagine a beach storm scenario. Obviously the US will pound that beachhead to hell with air power and missiles, and in order to prevent an enemy from regrouping you would need to get in fast, which this vehicle can’t do.
For that you need helos, and preferably helos that can take some heat. And, of course, the grunts who are the true mighty asset the MC have. I say put your money on helos and grunts, instead of old designs of limited value.
Helos have neither the armor nor the loitering power to support and hold a beach. When Attack Helicopters were all the rage they said tanks would go by the way-side, yet 30 years later tanks still roam the plains with plans to develop next gen tanks. Any kind of air asset is an enabler to an operation, not a replacement for ground vehicles.
all the airpower zealots and helo fans remember the AH-64 raid during the opening days of Iraqi Freedom??? Air strikes had been ongoing for days and the Apache’s still got mauled. remember all the helo shoot downs during OIF 2–10??? helicopter ambush teams were able to setup and shoot down our birds with impunity. now you want to go to two forms of forcible entry AIRBORNE AND AIR ASSAULT AND YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT THOSE FORMS ARE SURVIVABLE???? i really wish that you would send me whatever you’re drinking or smoking. i need to have it tested!
Havent we already heard on DT and other sites the idea is NOT to go into hot LZ?
I do agree the marines will need some new aviation assets one for escorting the osprey the other is i guess the f35b varient i believe correct me if im wrong.
But yea definatly rethink some things.
@ Solomon,
Why on God’s green Earth would you choose to enter any sort of hot DZ or LZ? I’m also not talking about attack helicopters being used on tanks.
I would like you or anyone to lay out a plausible beach that we would storm anywhere in the world in a contested entry and why. A real place. Not some silly tabletop scenario from the War college against country X. I want a country and the stertch of beach.
I for the life of me cannot imagine a single stretch of sand that could not be bypassed. We took beaches in the past out of strategic necessity to a wider campaign, that situation does not exist any longer in the world. Our logistical capabilities have surpassed that need.
I can see maintaining some BN sized assault elements on the floats, in case some 3rd world country with an embassy near the harbor needed to be evacuated. A BN sized element in that scenario probably would still not meet a real contested landing.
The EFV buy they are proposing can carry in the neighborhood of 8500 marines. I simple do not see how that much capability is needed.
Now, given the state of the helicopter issues the marines are facing now, I can easily say that rolling those cost savings into additional HLV buys would make nothing but good sense for the corps. They will get for more use and value out of additional heavy lift assets, than they would 600 amphib assault vehicles.
I love the armchair quarterbacking. A couple of things, folks — the intention of the EFV is not to “storm” a heavily defended beach. The Marine Corps is not putting a 30mm gun in the turret so it can blast away at beach fortifications from the water on the way in. With the high speeds over water, a rifle company embarked in EFVs can avoid heavily defended beaches and land somewhere more lightly defended. For those who think we should just use “assault boats” or LCACs, I can “splash” a company of Marines and get them ashore much faster in AAVs or EFVs, and they have the ability to immediately go into the fight. There is no need for them to wait for vehicles to come ashore by LCAC. For those who have been involved in on and offloads, using LCACs and LCUs to move vehicles ashore is a lengthy and time-consuming process.
There are many flaws with the program, but the underlying concept of a vehicle that can rapidly move ashore and then provide infantry Marines with armored protection and direct fire support is sound.
Also, some of you are trying to use military history to support your criticisms without the requisite knowledge. Inchon was the last amphibious frontal assault, but amphibious landings have been used to provide strategic and oeprational mobility to ground forces in Vietnam, Grenada, and the Balkans. While opposed landings on defended shorelines have gone by the wayside, amphibious forces are still an important part of our strategic mobility.
we need impoved land power as well! a faster stonger,harder hitting machine for the land fighter is a must! as for the light armor go reactive go efv