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.
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.
