Marines Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
EFV Battles For Survival
   Next Article → INTELLIGENCE: Americans Speak In Tongues

October 15, 2008: The U.S. Marine Corps has gone back to the drawing board with its new EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle). It has made changes in the electronics, waterproofing of electrical elements, the gun turret and the stabilizers (for when it is moving in the water). Seven new prototypes are being built, and will be ready for testing in about 18 months. If those tests are positive, production could begin in six years, but large numbers of the new vehicle would not reach marines for another ten years. Under the original plan, the EFV was to enter service this year.

The new prototypes are the result of Congress refusing to provide money for mass production until reliability and protection (against roadside bombs) issues were taken care of. So far, existing prototypes EFVs have had one failure, on average, for every 4.5 hours of operation. The marines insist they have fixed the reliability and protection issues, and this persuaded Congress to provide money to build seven of the modified EFVs to confirm that. The seven new EFVs will be used to test reliability, as well as roadside bomb protection. If the tests are successful, Congress will allow development to continue.

 Two years ago, it was decided that, instead of buying 1,013 EFVs, the order would be cut 44 percent, to 573 vehicles. High development expenses have resulted in per vehicle cost of over $12 million. Costs have continued to climb, and each EVF will now cost over $22 million. That's more than twice what the most recent model M-1 tank costs.

The marines ordered the first 15 production models of its EFV in late 2005. Tests with these vehicles did not go well. Initially, the high-speed water-jet propulsion system feature was the cause of most of the problems. Since the EFV is an amphibious armored vehicle, the water propulsion feature had to stay.

The EFV was previously called the AAAV (Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle). Weighing nearly 36 tons, the EFV is 10.5 feet tall, 12 feet wide and just under 30 feet long. It's armed with a 30mm automatic cannon (MK34 Bushmaster) and a 7.62 mm co-axial machine gun. The EFV also has better armor protection and electronics than the AAV7 is replaces.

The EFV has been in development for over a decade, and has been delayed largely because of a complex water-jet propulsion system which allows it to travel at 60 kilometers an hour while in the water. This capability was specified to reduce the danger (from enemy fire) when the EFVs were moving from their transports to shore, a distance of 30-50 kilometers. The additional gear required for the water jet system made the vehicle less robust and reliable, and fixing those problems has taken a lot of time. Otherwise, the EFV is basically a truly amphibious Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), similar to the army's smaller M-2 Bradley. The EFV has a crew of three, and carries 18 passengers.

The current force of 1,057 AAV7s entered service three decades ago and are falling apart. Moreover, some two thirds of the AAV7s saw service in Iraq, where they got as much use in two months as they normally did in two years of peacetime operations. In response to this, most of the AAV7s are being refurbished, so they can still be used until the end of the decade, when enough EFVs will be entering service to replace the older vehicles.

The EFV is about 25 percent heavier than the AAV7, and somewhat larger. It now costs nearly ten times as much as the $2.5 million AAV7 (taking inflation into account). The marines apparently feel they can get by with half as many amphibious armored vehicles because future wars are likely to be more dependent on delivering troops by air, or moving them around in armored hummers.

Next Article → INTELLIGENCE: Americans Speak In Tongues
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
doggtag    I'm not even going to make the predictions on this one...   10/15/2008 11:16:44 AM
So if the EFVs were looking to come off a production line at upwards of $20M a piece,
unless there are some drastic new changes in procurement management, production techniques, and the technologies going into the "EFV 2", offering a cheaper vehicle than this EFV would've offered,
I just don't see the USMC getting this program in the numbers they'd like.
 
Between their hopes for an armada of F-35Bs,
more CH-46s being phased out in favor of new V-22s,
and a replacement for the aging LAV series,
plus that little jeep-wannabe that's been built around V-22 internal carriage (called EFSS when coupled with its towed mortar),
and a score of other equipment upgrades and replacement programs,
I think the USMC is going to get as rude an awakening as the other 4 branches (Army, USAF, USN, USCG) when the painful reality sets in that budgets only go so far, money for these programs is finite, and new administrations don't necessarily desire the same military strengths (everything that will or won't be purchased) as the exiting administration.
 
In a perfect world, it'd be nice to see the USMC get both major programs fully funded: EFV 2 and LAV replacement.
 
But the cold hard reality is, both are very unlikely to, in the end, satisfy what the USMC leaders would like to have happen.
Coming on the tails of the just-passed (Fiscal) 2009 Defense Budget requesting funds to increase the USMC to 202,000 personnel, it leaves one wondering just what vehicles those additional personnel will be using...
It's possible such a move, increasing personnel end numbers, could use up the remaining hours on some equipments' useful lifetimes a lot faster, thus worsening the situation by necessitating the need for replacement even sooner.
Antiquated equipment that's wearing out even faster can only be repaired so much until it becomes more of a liability than an asset.
 
Quote    Reply

newjarheadean    Third times the charm   10/15/2008 7:03:22 PM
AHOY, I can see it now the EFV-3 equipped with a dolly wheel frame work on top that drops down around the base that the vehicle then rolls onto for high speed road capabilities. For get any LAV replacement. Remember the hover craft carages that the F-15s where going to be coupled with as a counter to createred runways LOL.  Its all like the MRAPs situation they well figure it all out and make up our minds and let us know where at least some of the houndreds of billions of trillions of oh who cares gose. G-day! 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       10/16/2008 2:38:39 AM

So if the EFVs were looking to come off a production line at upwards of $20M a piece, unless there are some drastic new changes in procurement management, production techniques, and the technologies going into the "EFV 2", offering a cheaper vehicle than this EFV would've offered, I just don't see the USMC getting this program in the numbers they'd like.
 
The truly disgusting thing about this article is that the "official" per unit cost includes the development costs spread over each unit of the initial order.  Most of the increase in per unit cost has been due to reductions in the size of the initial order causing the development costs to be spread over fewer units, and now probably represent 50% to 75% of the per unit cost.
 
The thing is, this is all a political accounting gimmick.  Development costs are a 'sunk cost', that is they have already been paid for and will not be reimbursed if the project is canceled.  Then they go and compare the "official" per unit cost of the EFV-2 to the incremental cost of purchasing a late model M-1 tank (Incremental costs only include the costs of producing an additional unit without any development costs.  In any case the original development costs for the M-1 were paid off years ago.)
 
This also means that any attempt to introduce new materials, production techniques, and technologies will inevitably result in a price increase.  In fact, the best way to bring the price down is cancel the project in order to zero out the development costs, then restart it as a new design, make some cosmetic design changes to the current prototypes, slap a new logo on it, and then purchase it at the incremental cost.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       10/19/2008 4:40:21 AM
Look, we need the USMC.  No argument from this former US Army soldier about that.  But what's likelyhood of the 21st Century USMC needing to ride amphibious tractors across a coral reef somewhere in a replay of the Cenral Pacific circa '44?  Don't talk to me about possible needs, what's the probable need?
 
Continue with the V22 and the efforts to modernize the USMC's sea based air assault capability.  No service is going to get their complete wish list and amphibious tractors (yeah, I know, the AAV is much more than an amphibious tractor) should be way down the priority line. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    amphibious "tractors"   10/19/2008 6:30:16 AM
Considering that the USMC currently has found itself involved in 2 theaters and quite removed from the surf in both instances (although they "enjoy" some limited river activities in Iraq),
I'll agree with you, longrifle, that, especially considering the shortcomings the USMC has faced in Iraq and A-stan pertaining to its armored vehicles (APCs),
they have more need for a LAV replacement and some sort of heavy-armor IFV type more than something along the lines of the EFV.
 
Considering what the Marines are involved in now, there's little extra the EFV would really bring to the table without having a lot of extra unnecessaries like its high speed water mode (even if 25 knots- not even 30mph- isn't really high speed) and all its associated components and mechanisms adding additional maintenance complications.
Mind you, the current AAV7s being used as APCs and such certainly would benefit for more firepower than just the "50/40" turret, and additional armor that provides better ballistics protection without severely altering the vehicle's center of gravity, or lessening its land maneuverability, would be some much welcomed improvements.
 
A solely-for-land adaptation of some of the EFV's capabilities would prove useful: the 30mm firepower (with growth potential), the ability to carry a large section of infantry, better armor protection than current USMC infantry carriers, and better situational awareness and networkability than what the AAV7 offers would be of much better use without all the expensive, over complicated, and especially noisy bits and pieces associated with the amphibious capability...
 
IIRC, the USMC doesn't utilize the amphib capability of their LAVs to a considerable extent in either of the two current theaters.
Since LCACs will be the primary materiel lifters of the heavy vehicles from ship to shore anyway, maybe futher enhancing the LCAC series would be the better option (although I won't say we need to pursue our own Aist or Zubr-similar platform as the Russians have done, as we're more concerned with utilizing the landing wells in our amphibious support ships).
As like you pretty much suggested: who's going to be launching WW2-type amphib assaults against contested beaches anyway, solely with EFV types without any ship-based and/or aircraft support assets?
 
So it would seem that the USMC would be better served to sink that money into its LAV replacements first.
The Piranha V series is ready for production, and offers considerable superiority in many aspects compared to even the Piranha III used as the Stryker base. It may not swim like an early Piranha/LAV, but other than training scenarios, how often has that feature actually been tactically employed to secure a time-critical objective that could not have been achieved by other means?
How often do USMC LAVs and AAV7s exploit their amphib capabilities in Iraq by swimming across rivers and other water obstacles, especially considering that their heavier armor, the Abrams, and countless support vehicles, can't.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Roles and Missions   10/21/2008 3:45:46 AM
The USMC exists to do forced entry from the sea with an ability to be supported logistically over the beach.  It might make sense within the limited reality of the existing counter insurgencies to have a replacement for the AAV7 that is better for suited for that task but the USMC can not afford to also at a future date also get a real AAV for it's actual core mission.  Frankly the Corp is going to have trouble with the EFV alone.
 
The real question is whether the USMC really does need the high water speed of the EFV and all it's associated cost and complication.  One might suggest that the Corp should have picked either V-22 or EFV and gone with a less complicated and costly alternative.  As an aside the LCAC is simply a transport vehicle.  Hopefully the USA will not ever have to assault a defended beach again but having a force ready to do that mission is insurance the nation is well served to have.  That said the nation might be better served without the 3,000hp water planing armored vehicle.


 
Quote    Reply

aidan110    LAV Replacement   12/25/2008 2:44:15 PM
Given that the EFV will probably never see the light off day in it's present form, does anybody have any idea if there is a proposed replacement in the works for the LAV that the USMC currently uses? I only ask this because currently I see all of these nice big budget programs going (ex. the F-35, the EFV, the V-22) and nobody seems to be thinking of a replacement for a vehicle that, while not as old as the current AAV series is still just as old as the current generation of Marines who man them.
 
Quote    Reply