EFV replacement...another view.

DOD Buzz has a different take on the EFV replacement program that has to looked at...

In an ideal world, then, the Marines would be able to take the things they know worked well about the EFV, including its weapons, for example, or engine and other components, and graft them onto a new, more reliable swimming hull. But that goal of reliability may mean the new vehicle doesn’t have the transforming bow ramp that the EFV had, and as such may not be able to skim over the water at its same high speeds.
What’ll be interesting is whether the Navy and Marines update their amphibious doctrines to make room for their new vehicle, or whether they’ll keep the same assumptions and try to somehow get a cheaper EFV Lite. The Navy and Marines believe that in tomorrow’s amphibious operations, the proliferation of guided anti-ship missiles will make it too dangerous for Navy assault ships to stand very close to the coast. So the Marines needed the high-speed EFV to get to shore quickly on the assumption the fleet would take station over the horizon, far away from the beach.

What has me spinning is that I thought the discussions were over.  That the threshold had been breached and that Navy ships would move closer to the beach.

That one requirement will make or break the EFV replacement.  This definitely bears watching.

EFV will come back...

This story by Fabey illustrates a private thought that I've had and one that is being confirmed by HQ Marine Corps.

The EFV will be stripped of it complex drive system will be fitted with current but high tech jet pumps for its amphibious mission and will come online stripped down, and renamed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.

The whole story is worth a read but this caught the eye...

Traditionally, an AOA of this type would take about 18 months, Flynn said June 9 at an event in Washington sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“We’re trying to get to six to nine months,” Flynn says, adding that he hoped the aggressive schedule would “energize the acquisition process” for the vehicle.

A speedy acquisition process isn't how things are usually done and points to a single sourced program.  Another tidbit that caught my attention is that the Congressional delegation has suddenly stopped it protests and holding up of the Defense budget.

All this points to General Dynamics winning the project through a sole sourced program probably to be announced either late this year or early next.

BAE fans shouldn't be too depressed though.  If I was a betting man then I'd lay every cent in my pocket that they'll win the upgrade contract...which leads to the wildcard in this whole thing.  If BAE is able to design an attractive enough upgrade package then it could essentially make the expense of a new EFV/ACV moot.  The AAV could theoretically continue in service --- just with new built vehicles.

Found her!

Remember my thoughts yesterday on the EFV and that a lady named Sharon seemed to be one of the 'bashing elite' yet didn't know much about the program?  Well you can read her take on things here.

One serious question raised about the vehicle -- in light of events in Iraq and Afghanistan -- is its inherent vulnerability to improvised explosive devices, the homemade bombs that have proved so deadly to U.S. forces in current military operations. The thin, flat bottom of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle would be particularly susceptible to such bombs.

Moore says the Marines are addressing this concern by adding to the vehicle's underbelly armor that "significantly enhances its capabilities" to withstand such an explosion.

However, Moore also pointed out the downside to this reinforcement: The armor adds several thousand pounds to the vehicle, which means that it can't travel at the high speeds it's supposed to reach. "It's just not going to be going 25 knots with that [armor] kit on," he said.

EFV Podcast.

Here ya go.  One stop shopping. Be patient. There is a long gap at the beginning of the recording.
DoD Live: Blogger Round Table on the EFV.

EFV Blogger roundtable notes.

I'm listening to the bloggers roundtable ---initial impressions.....Col.  Moore made the statement that the EFV will be the most capable Infantry Fighting Vehicle in US service and that it will surpass many of the attributes of the Bradley.

That's all well and good but I wonder about the employment of the vehicle.  With the Bradley there was always a tension between its being a fighting vehicle and it being a battle taxi.  A 30mm cannon makes the idea of hunting enemy vehicles and troops rather attractive.

But back to the roundtable...Bettina Chevania from Aviation Week and Greg Grant from DoD Buzz asked really good questions and I'll get a copy of the podcast up shortly.  BUT!  Remember my saying that "haters" would show up to simply bash the program?  Well a person named Sandra filled that role nicely.  It was quite obvious that she hadn't kept up with the program and knew little about it.

Bloggers roundtable on the EFV.

DoD Live is going to have a bloggers roundtable on the EFV on the 27th of this month.  If the "professional" blogosphere is up to snuff then we should get some visibility on the state of the program.  I'm not holding my breath, most of the "professionals" are Navy centric.  If they comment on the EFV its to engage in more of a bash session rather than an information seeking exercise.  But we'll see.  Follow the link above and you can sit in on the discussion --I know I will.

EFV is it a fighting vehicle or a high speed connector?

Is the EFV a fighting vehicle in the mold of the Bradley or simply a high speed connector?  The reason I ask is borne out by a quick examination of the pictures above.  Notice the AAV's above.  Not only are provisions made for the stowage of gear on their surface but they are also quite comfortable living with the infantry out in the field.

On the march, the Infantry can fight heads out.  Or more precisely they can gain situational awareness because they're able to open the upper hatches to gain visibility.

Provisions are made for the carrying of rucksacks on the sides and tops of the vehicle.  Even water cans have mounts made for them.

Even at this late stage of the EFV's development we see no such provisions.

What we do see is a high speed amphibious armored vehicle, able to transit rapidly from ship to shore.  We see less emphasis on its end state role.  Fighting with the Infantry once the landing has been completed.  We see a vehicle with a formidable cannon.  But even that has to be called into question.  If our EFV's are engaging ground vehicles with its cannon then something has gone wrong (and yes I know things go wrong but you catch my meaning).  In an assault against an objective do we really want a 30mm airburst rounds hitting it or would Javelin, SMAW, TOW or Hellfire missiles be more appropriate?  If we have EFV's in the assault would we have our M1's with them?  Or even the LAV-25A2?  What about our artillery or Marine Aviation?

The problem and the reason why I ask these questions is because we've been down this road before in Marine Corps history.  After the Korean War, the Marine Corps felt a need to get "feet wet" again.  The Marines fell into the role of Second Land Army and decided  that its equipment should be tailored to amphibious operations.

kr.blog.yahoo.com

Understandable but the result was the less than impressive LVTP-5. 

LVTP-5 Specifications
Weight	37.4 t
Length	9.04 m
Width	3.57 m
Height	2.92 m
Crew	3+34 passengers
Armor	6-16 mm
Primary armament	.30 caliber MG
Engine	Continental LV-1790-1 V-12 gasoline 704 hp
Power/weight	19 hp/tonne
Suspension	Torsilastic
Operational range	306 km (road), 92 km (water)
Speed	48 km/h, in water 11 km/h

The LVTP-5 was a star in the water but history indicates it was much less than stellar on land. The war in Vietnam exposed all of its weaknesses.

Are we about to make the same mistake with the EFV?  A vehicle that's a technological marvel but has proven to be maintenance intensive with an unfriendly Infantry interior?  I wonder.

But back to the high speed connector issue.  Is the role of the EFV simply to be a high speed connector from the Sea Base?  If so then V-22's and LCAC's would be better options.  Heck even the forth coming CH-53K would be a better option.  How does the EFV fit into Distributed Operations?  I have yet to read how the Marine Corps mechanized forces are to be utilized with that concept.  Until all these questions are answered, maybe we should simply buy product improved AAV's instead.