Comments on: Gates Opaque on EFV Call

By: jason spears

jason spears — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:58:07 +0000

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

By: Slab

Slab — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:32:19 +0000

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.

By: STemplar

STemplar — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:21:23 +0000

@ 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.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:30:25 +0000

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.

By: solomon

solomon — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:44:40 +0000

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!

By: CavRider

CavRider — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:31:24 +0000

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.

By: conlad

conlad — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:16:13 +0000

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.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:41:35 +0000

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.

By: STemplar

STemplar — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:40:07 +0000

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.

By: leesea

leesea — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:05:52 +0000

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.