Marines Unveil EFV; Gates Takes Aim

[[R_H]]

DoD Buzz

Under sunny skies at Quantico, with a crowd of several hundred well wishers and the Marine Corps museum as a backdrop, the Marines displayed the latest prototype of their swimming armored personnel carrier, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). They unveiled it not quite 24 hours after Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly questioned the very need for the costly new vehicle.

In one of his now trademark policy shifting speeches, this one at the Navy League’s annual conference, Gates pointed to the tracked amphibian as one of two examples, the other being carriers, of weapons that fall into a yawning gap “between the capabilities we are pursuing and those that are actually needed in the real world of tomorrow.” His view is that real world is unlikely to see the need for the very niche capability provided by the EFV: transporting Marines at high speed from over the horizon onto heavily defended beaches.

It’s difficult to overstate how important the EFV is to the Marine’s traditional mission and self image as an amphibious assault force, rather than as a second land army, as it’s been operating over the past eight years. It is designed to enable maneuver from the sea, a key concept in Marine operations. “The EFV creates places where it’s simply impossible for an enemy to defend against, so you can find those gaps and exploit those gaps, so that we don’t relive an Iwo Jima, a Tarawa, a Normandy,” said Marine Col. Keith Moore, EFV program manager.

The prototype displayed today at Quantico is one of seven the Marines have bought from builder General Dynamics that will be shipped out to the service’s amphibious test center at Camp Pendleton, outside San Diego, Ca., where they will be evaluated over the next two years. The plan is to field the first operational EFVs beginning in 2015, Moore said. When asked to respond to Gates’ comments about the EFV, Moore said the Marines are doing everything they can to drive down the vehicle’s costs, which currently stand at just over $16 million a copy. The planned buy is 573 vehicles.

There is little question that the EFV is a technological marvel. It is a massive armored vehicle weighing 40 tons that can reach water speeds in excess of 25 knots and 45 mph on land, all while carrying 17 Marines, oh and it has a 30mm auto-cannon as well. It’s also probably the Marine’s most controversial program, says Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments’ Dakota Wood, which, given the development history of the V-22 Osprey, is saying a lot.

The EFV was designed to meet the requirements of a very different era, when an armored amphibian was needed to land the assault echelons of a Marine division and hold that beachhead and beat back the Soviet motorized counterattack. It’s difficult to envision the scenario where that same niche capability is needed. “We have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious landing again – especially as advances in anti-ship systems keep pushing the potential launch point further from shore,” Gates said.

If the Marine’s amphibious ships get pushed too far out to shore, then the EFV wouldn’t even launch, as it would run out of gas soon after landing on the beach. Yet, that’s exactly what today’s ever more capable anti-ship missiles are doing, says Wood. He points to the Chinese made C-802 anti-ship missile that Hezbollah used to hit an Israeli corvette; the C-802 has a range of nearly 75 miles. Anti-ship missiles are “now reaching a level of performance that will push Navy ships away from the coastline three to four times the distance the EFV was originally intended to traverse,” Wood writes in a white paper on the future Marine force.

Col. Moore said that if the EFV is launched from 25 nautical miles out to sea, it can move about 120 miles inland before it must refuel. But push that launch point too much further out and the EFV’s onshore mobility drops pretty quickly.

Yet, the EFV’s vulnerability once on land, not water, may prove its undoing. The vehicle’s flat bottom (necessary to reach high cross water speeds), low ground clearance (16 inches), and very flat sides, are precisely the design features armored vehicle builders have sought to avoid, says CSBA’s Wood. In recent years, the land forces, including the Marines, have spent billions of dollars buying up MRAP vehicles with hull’s designed specifically to withstand IED blasts.

Moore confirmed what sources had told us already, that recent tests showed the EFV was vulnerable to large underbelly IEDs that penetrated the hull of older prototypes. The plan is to fit the EFV’s flat bottom with modular appliqué armor kits, “when the vehicle is operating for extended periods inland in the type of threat environment where you would see a proliferation of IEDs.” The standard armor kit provides protection against 155mm high explosive fragments and up to 14.5mm direct fire; the vehicle’s armor held up well against IED hits from the side, Moore said.

But the EFV may well fall to Gates’ axe for the same reason the Army’s FCS vehicles did: he wasn’t convinced they would provide sufficient protection to the troops inside. The current wars show that the character of war is evolving, as it continually does; new enemies are searching for novel and unconventional means to best the American military’s high-tech arsenal. Today’s enemies have developed inexpensive yet very lethal IEDs and EFPs designed specifically to destroy American armored vehicles.

In many respects, the EFV makes the enemy’s job easier, says a leading national security analyst who has served as a key consultant to OSD officials and Marine leadership, and who requested anonymity because he still works closely with the military. “The adversary doesn’t have an unlimited number of EFPs, IEDs, precision rockets or modern ATGMs. He seeks a good chance for a first shot kill in an ambush to get the most for his buck. As the Marines deploy ashore in a smaller number of high value targets, with 20 Marines apiece inside, they dramatically abet the enemy’s targeting problem. For a $1,000 round, he gets a $20 million vehicle and possibly 20 KIAs. This equation needs to be rethought,” he said.

[Commander 598]

Seems it was a good enough idea to China.

[D.Turtle]

So, when was the last time the Marines actually engaged in their specialized mission of landing on a heavily fortified enemy beach? The examples cited in the article are all from WW2 - and even then the biggest one (Normandy) was conducted by the Army and not the Marines.

If you haven't needed a capability in 70 years, maybe its time to finally admit that you do not need it.

[Serafina]

So, when was the last time the Marines actually engaged in their specialized mission of landing on a heavily fortified enemy beach? The examples cited in the article are all from WW2 - and even then the biggest one (Normandy) was conducted by the Army and not the Marines.

If you haven't needed a capability in 70 years, maybe its time to finally admit that you do not need it.

That would apply to the whole marine corps (well, most of it). Guess how likely it is that they will follow train of tought.

[Norade]

As much as this is a waste of time couldn't they add a V shaped hull under a flat plate designed to help with hydrodynamics? The same goes for adding a slopped side screen to the side that can be deployed by something like hydraulic rams. You start to come ashore and you deploy the angled slats that deflect incoming projectiles.

[Captain Seafort]

So, when was the last time the Marines actually engaged in their specialized mission of landing on a heavily fortified enemy beach? The examples cited in the article are all from WW2 - and even then the biggest one (Normandy) was conducted by the Army and not the Marines.

If you haven't needed a capability in 70 years, maybe its time to finally admit that you do not need it.

The last major amphibious assault by a western power that I'm aware of was thirty years ago at San Carlos, the threat of an amphibious assault was one of the things that kept the Iraqi army pinned during the First Gulf War, and IIRC an amphibious landing was considered for the assault on the al-Faw peninsular in 2003. I'm not sure if that ever happened, or if it was replaced by an airborne assault. End result - it's a capability that modern expeditionary forces need to retain, even if there's no immediately identifiable target.

[MKSheppard]

“The EFV creates places where it’s simply impossible for an enemy to defend against, so you can find those gaps and exploit those gaps, so that we don’t relive an Iwo Jima, a Tarawa, a Normandy,” said Marine Col. Keith Moore, EFV program manager.

You dumbshit. You were never at Normandy. That was a Army Operation, with some Navy Support.

[MKSheppard]

EFV is I think crippled by it's frankly unrealistic requirements -- we want it to maintain 30 MPH speeds in water; which requires a lot of horsepower -- and thus a bigger vehicle -- as opposed to the older LVTP7's 10~ MPH.

It would be simpler to just take a Bradley, and land it by LCAC; and spend the money buying more LCACs.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Buy more CVNs and see if they throw in an LCAC for free. I hear they have a two for one offer on right now.

[Temujin]

Seems it was a good enough idea to China.

Yeah, but some in China probably still think their going to get Taiwan back someday.

[Captain Seafort]

Yeah, but some in China probably still think their going to get Taiwan back someday.

They probably will. Not in the next decade, and maybe not in the next fifty years, but as the next great power sooner or later they'll cross the strait, and there'll be bugger all anyone else can do about it

[[R_H]]

As much as this is a waste of time couldn't they add a V shaped hull under a flat plate designed to help with hydrodynamics? The same goes for adding a slopped side screen to the side that can be deployed by something like hydraulic rams. You start to come ashore and you deploy the angled slats that deflect incoming projectiles.

Weight and complexity would likely be an issue.

[Sea Skimmer]

Seems it was a good enough idea to China.

[img]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/ ... nk.jpg[img]

Actually no. That is a picture of a normal amphibious APC, which would not be able to swim more then a few thousand yards. The Chinese have no dedicated amtracks, nor does anyone else on earth besides the US, except a few nations which use small numbers of the current USMC LVPT7 amtrack. Additionally the Philippines still has some really old LVPT5s. No one but the US has ever built proper armored amtracks.

As much as this is a waste of time couldn't they add a V shaped hull under a flat plate designed to help with hydrodynamics? The same goes for adding a slopped side screen to the side that can be deployed by something like hydraulic rams. You start to come ashore and you deploy the angled slats that deflect incoming projectiles.

Sure you could add a V shaped hull under the flat bottom, if you made the thing three or four feet taller to hold it, which means it then has to be wider for stability. It also may need to get longer as it gets wider or else it wont turn very well. This will add so much weight and drag that a much more powerful engine will be required, which eats more fuel (the EFV engine already makes over 3,000hp in the water, twice the power of an M1 tank) which pushes up size yet again by a whole lot. Doing this would could double the total weight, and it'd basically mean designing a whole new amtrack as you go along. Given how long EFV took in the first place that could be 10-12 years of work.

The reality is anything shaped to float, let alone float and have a planing hull is just going to suck in protection terms. A better idea then a V-shaped hull, if you were going to do a massive redesign, would just be to make it smaller so fewer people die when it gets blown up. That's be more realistic anyway, because I don't think a V-hull can ever work to a worthwhile degree (you either need a damn sharp angle, or enough space to use more then one blast pan which shallower angle). The Marines were ordered to study adding one years ago, and the conclusion was they shouldn't even bother trying.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hmm looking around the ZBD2000 seems to have more amphibious capability then I thought, but its still very hard to see how it could be more then moderately faster then normal amphibious armor because the tracks don't retract nor are they screened. So the thing is towing an anchor along with it, and a extending bow can only do so much alone. But then that just points back to the fact that EFV is just so absurdly complicated and specialized. It does what it was designed to do well, but not much else.

[Norade]

Seems it was a good enough idea to China.

[img]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/ ... nk.jpg[img]

Actually no. That is a picture of a normal amphibious APC, which would not be able to swim more then a few thousand yards. The Chinese have no dedicated amtracks, nor does anyone else on earth besides the US, except a few nations which use small numbers of the current USMC LVPT7 amtrack. Additionally the Philippines still has some really old LVPT5s. No one but the US has ever built proper armored amtracks.

As much as this is a waste of time couldn't they add a V shaped hull under a flat plate designed to help with hydrodynamics? The same goes for adding a slopped side screen to the side that can be deployed by something like hydraulic rams. You start to come ashore and you deploy the angled slats that deflect incoming projectiles.

Sure you could add a V shaped hull under the flat bottom, if you made the thing three or four feet taller to hold it, which means it then has to be wider for stability. It also may need to get longer as it gets wider or else it wont turn very well. This will add so much weight and drag that a much more powerful engine will be required, which eats more fuel (the EFV engine already makes over 3,000hp in the water, twice the power of an M1 tank) which pushes up size yet again by a whole lot. Doing this would could double the total weight, and it'd basically mean designing a whole new amtrack as you go along. Given how long EFV took in the first place that could be 10-12 years of work.

The reality is anything shaped to float, let alone float and have a planing hull is just going to suck in protection terms. A better idea then a V-shaped hull, if you were going to do a massive redesign, would just be to make it smaller so fewer people die when it gets blown up. That's be more realistic anyway, because I don't think a V-hull can ever work to a worthwhile degree (you either need a damn sharp angle, or enough space to use more then one blast pan which shallower angle). The Marines were ordered to study adding one years ago, and the conclusion was they shouldn't even bother trying.

Thanks, I figured it wouldn't be that simple, but figured that if I threw it out at least I'd know for sure.

[adam_grif]

From the impression that I'm getting from reading all this stuff, at this stage they may as well just try to build a landing vehicle that sprouts fucking wings and flies ashore. But then they would whine that it's not amphibious.

[[R_H]]

I suppose a question to ask is whether or not the USA has the (political) will to take the casualties which would result from attacking a heavily defended beach?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I honestly don't see the point in these overly fancy amphibs. If you have heavy and light transport hovercraft or similar boat, then it strikes me as stupid to expect to have some pseudo-tank/APC abomination trying to not get blown up when departing an LPD a klick away from shore.

[[R_H]]

Defense News

Gates said he has been interviewing candidates to replace retiring Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway. His first question to them: What's your vision for the future of the Corps? The question provides a window into the secretary's thinking about amphibious operations. Gates said he is unsure just where American Marines would be asked to storm a beach in the future - especially as potential foes continue fielding more and more advanced weapons, like large stocks of missiles.

But Gates said that America "will always have a Marine Corps," and "we will need some amount of amphibious capability."

On shipbuilding, Gates cited his May 3 speech to a Navy League conference, saying, "They didn't much like what I had to say." During that talk, the secretary said the Navy must find a way to build ships more cheaply, while also thinking of new ways to use its ships against ever-more sophisticated foes.

Today, Gates said that the Navy will not reach its 313-ship fleet goal unless it cuts shipbuilding costs.

He also said he does not want a situation to occur where Washington "is dependent on a foreign shipyard to build U.S. warships."

[PainRack]

From the impression that I'm getting from reading all this stuff, at this stage they may as well just try to build a landing vehicle that sprouts fucking wings and flies ashore. But then they would whine that it's not amphibious.

Isn't that one of the reasons why the osprey was wanted?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Why not have them absorbed into the army/navy like in the UK TriForce? Why must the Marines, and even the Coastguard, be a separate entity when they are just variations of the navy or army? Is it political, or is there a genuine advantage in having the "Pentagon" set-up of five distinct forces? A lot of what I read on US military procurement and R&D involves bitching between all the arms of the entity, more so than over here.

[SVPD]

The Marine Corps is already a part of the Navy, technically speaking. It falls under the DEpartment of the Navy, the Commandant reports to the Secretary of the Navy, and it uses Navy decorations such as the Navy Cross. The Navy provides its Chaplains and medical personnel (the one guy in a bunch of marines wearing a "U.S. Navy nametape is almost certainly the medic) and Marine officers other than those that pass through OCS are trained by Navy ROTC or at the Naval Academy.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Well, yes, but I mean having them as a more distinct service that seems to think it is apart from the navy is what the issue is about. This could all be semantics, since we need a force of soldiers that need to be able to perform wet ops and guard naval bases, but whether the army simply extends itself for the navy, or the navy tries to copy the army, only for that copy to then try and become autonomous, is the problem. Or so I see it at least.

[Temujin]

Well in defense of the USCG, it always has had a strong homeland security related mission which is one of the reasons why it was rolled into the DHS. Although at times it is called upon by the USN to provide special services overseas.

The US National Guard and Air National Guard are a different matter entirely. They are set up to much along the lines of the US army and Air Force, which is a bit rediculous when you consider that there already exists a US Army and Air Force Reserve. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Army Reserve is actually better equipped to provide for the National Guard's domestic role better than the National Guard is; i.e., the Reserve has more engineer, MP, and other necessary support units to respond to disasters, terrorism, etc. while the National Guard does not. Not to mention the stupidity of calling up and sending National Guard units overseas and not having them stateside to provide support when a disaster strikes.

People will of course argue about about the state militia and tradition, but I've always advocated restructuring the both Guards into something that works more along the lines of how the USCG operates.

[Havok]

“The EFV creates places where it’s simply impossible for an enemy to defend against, so you can find those gaps and exploit those gaps, so that we don’t relive an Iwo Jima, a Tarawa, a Normandy,” said Marine Col. Keith Moore, EFV program manager.

You dumbshit. You were never at Normandy. That was a Army Operation, with some Navy Support.

You're an idiot. He obviously meant 'we' as in the US Armed Forces and in the sense that 'we' landed in a predetermined fortified spot and suffered high casualties because of it and that 'we' as in the US Armed Forces can avoid that in the future with this vehicle.

I hear that the separate branches never use each others vehicle designs. Oh wait.

It is obvious to anyone that isn't a fucking retard that he wasn't trying to take credit for the Normandy landing for the Marines.