After chronic problems with technology and cost overruns, the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle may actually have been steered onto the right path.
Existing prototypes suffered significant hydraulic and electrical problems, and there were issues with the feed and eject systems of the main gun, EFV Program Manager Col. Keith Moore told a group today at the Navy Leagues Sea Air Space symposium.
For all intents and purposes, however, the EFV was bascially put back on the drawing board as designers sought to tackle issues that put its costs up and its schedule behind.
Its a complicated vehicle, with a lot of high-pressure hydraulics, Moore said. We had a lot of problems with leaks and contamination and so there was early failure of hydraulic parts. The electrical system being developed for the problem prototypes was too much of a reach, he said: some cutting edge technology that just wasnt ready for prime time.
The prototype now under development will rely on some earlier, reliable technology aided by software modifications. The hull to the prototype being built to the new design will begin detailed integration and assembly at the end of this month, he said.
Highly accelerated vibration and heat testing has been performed on the new systems, he said, and thus far they show great promise, lasting two or three times longer than reliability predictions indicated they would.
The problem-plagued EFV was supposed to reach its demonstration phase by 2001. It finally went to operational assessment in 2006, but suffered a number of failures and breakdowns. Moore said the EFV now will go into Initial Operational Testing and Evaluation sometime in 2015.
Marine Commandant James Conway made a strong pitch for the EFV on the first day of the Navy League, arguing that the service needs the speed and range of the system to ensure the Marines can still kick down doors their primary mission.
...
.…and the last time the US made an opposed beach landing was
And in the cast the US has to make an opposed beach landing, they’ll do what without the EFV?
GREAT-13 YEARS, BILLIONS SPENT AND THEY HAVE TO START ALL OVER, SPEND BILLIONS MORE OF MY TAX $$. “PUT ON RIGHT TRACK” JUST MEANS MORE MONEY FOR TEH CONTRACTOR BUILDING IT AND SENS GETTING KICKBACKS.
Marines/Navy= 0
Contractors= Golden Parachutes for all my buddies! And another “strategy” meeting in Hawaii!
God. I have to get a job with these people. They bought all the right people.
When was the last time we made an opposed beach landing?
Sorry…ddin’t mean to post that rhetorical question twice.…first time I got an error message but I guess it took my post anyway.
I wouldn’t necessarily rule out the possibility of an opposed amphibious landing in the future. After WW II everybody said we would never make an opposed beach landing but we did just that at Inchon during the Korean War. While we haven’t really done it since then the threat of an amphibious landing was enough to keep Saddam worried and tied up a good number of his troops during the first Gulf War.
Given how much coastline there is in the world I’d say that it’s only a matter of time before we have to make another opposed amphibious landing. Maybe not WW II style Normandy or Pacific Theater style landing but something along the nature and size of the Inchon landing could be a definite possibility. Just looking back at what the Inchon landing accomplished I’d say that it would be foolish to rule out an amphibious landing as a viable tactic.
We should probably separate the design requirement for “long range ship-to-shore” and “shore vehicle”.
Maybe make a specialized boat that the EFV mounts to and then drives that to shore. Beach this boat and then the EFV rolls off. EFV would retain some degree of amphibious ability, but hopefully could be made cheaper than trying to shoehorn long-range sea-to-shore and land fighting vehicle into the same platform.
Good Morning Folks,
The EFV is exactly the weapons program that I think Sec, gates is referring to, as the big problem with the current Pentagon process of development and fielding of a weapons system.
Several problems, no set design before metal was cut, an impossible mission, to long in development and hugely over budget at $10 million cost per unit, have sunk the EFV program. When prototypes were finally ready they turned out to be garbage, shoddy workmanship along with design and tech. problems were so bad the test EFV’s couldn’t be tested and evaluated.
The lesson learned form Iraq with the fielding of the AAAV7 is that these thin skinned amphibious vehicles are not Infantry Fighting Vehicles in an environment where IED’s, EFP’s or RPG’s are present, in short anywhere the U.S. may be fighting for the next 100 years or so. The Bushmaster II 30mm main gun, or the newer Bushmaster III 35MM gun, is great gun system and should be put into the Bradleys but they are a waste on the EFV which should never get off the beach.
I personally agree,with the intent of CR’s post that a major opposed over the beach amphibious landing in the future is mostly speculative and problematic. In the case of small limited incursion such as Granada was the Marines with the CV-22 and their other air lift can handle the situation handily.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
.…and the last time the US made an opposed beach landing was
I believe:
Mayagüez incident 1975
@CR
The last time we dropped a nuclear bomb was???
That is stupid logic. So don’t prepare for the unexpected because it hasn’t happened in 60 years. O
Dont let Marine pride over-ride common sense. Any possible target beach will come with the mass of threat weapons that will turn your personel carrier into a 3000 degree blast furnace.
The only weapon that can’t take it out will be the corpsman’s pistols as they untangle the burnt bodies in the now charred beyond recognition EFV.
Munzon,
Then dont allow those targets to remain. If a air assualt isnt possible use Naval heavy fire support.
But wait we dont have anything that can do the job now.
Time for either a Heavy crusier or battleship meant for heavy saturation fire on multiple targets. With good armor and defenses and heavy long range guns or missiles. And one of the most important parts here. Able to fire over and over and over again.
The navy is going to put off getting the firepower needed until it will cost alot of marines lives.
If we were serious about figuring out how to do contested beach landings, we’d have serious amphibious tanks, etc.
But nooo…just amphibious troop carriers. :/
What will happen first.??? The Marine Corp adopt a very lightly armored EFV ‚that would not survie in Iraq, Afganistan,and the North East African Coast …OR US Navy building and fielding fire support ships with cannons??
We all know the answer. The EFV will be fielded and will be policing the streets of some new hot spot. Then the old reliablies will come out to greet us;RPGs,roadside bombs , suicide car bombers,and technical trucks with 14.5mm’s.
It is maddness to buy a platform that would not make it across Mogadishu in 1993,2003 or 2013.
I still can’t figure out why they think this vehicle is so key to the Corp’s future. Even if we did conduct an opposed landing, we wouldn’t be doing it like Normandy or Iwo Jima, we have a few more toys these days, cruise missiles, better air support, and maybe pickking a beach that isn’t so opposed. Too many people have a vision of this vehicle leading the way on a beach assault like WW2 or Korea, times have changed.
What kills me is after all this time and money wasted, they finally say we need more money and time to totally redesign it. Here’s an idea, build more LCACs and LSTs and buy Strykers or some other PROVEN vehicle instead of trying to make a vehicle do everything and nothing really well.