Marines Looking for a Ride

Marines Looking for a Ride

It doesn’t have a budget yet and the public can’t learn much about the still evolving requirements but we can tell you that the Marine Personnel Carrier will be lighter than its brethren the MRAP, JLTV and EFV.

Just reciting that vegetable soup of rides for the Marines can get confusing. But this isn’t just an academic exercise. Marines need vehicles that can handle varied terrain, provide ballistic protection and are substantial enough to carry combat rigged Marines. MRAPs work pretty well in nice flat desert places like Iraq but, as Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway reminded us, they ride pretty high and can tip over fairly easily. Plus, while MRAPs offer excellent protection against bombs planted in the ground, they are big and heavy and not as mobile as the Marines would like.

Humvees aren’t bad but they don’t provide enough protection and they are coming to the end of their production line. And, of course, the Marines’ own EFV was the poster child for botched Pentagon buying during an April 30 hearing held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The $13.2 billion Marine Corps program — meant to produce an updated AAV — started in 1996 when the Marines issued a contract to General Dynamics. Initially, the program won plaudits for its innovative management and it passed through the program definition and risk reduction phase in mid-2001. Then things began to fall apart. The Marines issued a contract for the next phase of the program which was supposed to cost $712 million but quickly rose by the end of 2006 to an estimated $1.2 billion.


The EFV weighs too much to carry combat-ready Marines and still go as fast as it should. It operated only four-and-half hours before requiring major maintenance instead of the planned 47 hours. It is so loud that Marines cannot speak to each other and have to wear ear plugs. But Conway told reporters he thought that the program was moving ahead smartly and making improvements. Of course, it’s not too hard to do a better job when your program has been pared way back, as it was by John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition technology and logistics. Young signed a June 18 acquisition decision memorandum that allows the Marines to build only seven prototypes of the EFV over the next four years. How hard can that be? Still, Conway was optimistic. “I mean, it was having some issues earlier but we think those issues are substantially resolved. We’ve gotten some good reports in recent weeks and months on the progress of EFV,” he said Wednesday.

But, as Conway conceded, even a robust EFF program wouldn’t be enough. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle was supposed to help a lot. “But we still have a shortfall in terms of a mounted capability for our Marines with regard to the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle or making up the shortfall really in the EFV. You know, we needed a little over 1,000 to be able to provide everybody a conveyance in the same vehicle. That buy was essentially cut in half so there’s a need out there for what my guys at Quantico are calling an MPC — a Marine Personnel Carrier. And so we’re going to try to sort out just what that vehicle needs to look like.”

There is one knowledge point (the folks at GAO would love that reference) we have from the Marines System Command: “Two MPCs will lift a reinforced rifle squad permitting a greater degree of tactical dispersion.” And it will be able to swim. So far, there’s only one industry team pursuing the MPC. Lockheed martin teamed with Patria, the Finnish defense company, to offer their Armored Modular Vehicle 8 X 8.

The Marines have too little money, too many wars and too many other fires to put out to pay for MPC any time soon so the first milestone decision on MPC was pushed off until 2010 a few months ago.

In the meantime, Conway said the Army and Marines “are still waiting for that technological breakthrough that’s going to give us the amount of soldier and Marine protection in a vehicle that is lighter than what’s on the market right now. So we — you know, we continue to wait.”

So that’s what we’ll do while this crucial piece of the Marines procurement needs get hammered out.

Join the Conversation

The Canadians have found that the LAV was too weakly armored for either RPG attacks or IEDs in Afghanistan. They also found poor off-road mobility and high incidence of rollover. The LAV only withstands 7.62mm and the EFV only .50 cal/14.5mm.…as does Stryker.

In contrast, the Army Bradleys withstands 30mm as will the FCS manned ground vehicle. Obviously, both heavier vehicles will also fare better against IEDs and will have better off-road mobility with tracks.

Perhaps the Marines should look to the Army and Canadian forces for lessons on armored vehicles. Marines should also consider coming on board with JFTL with a 30 ton lift capability to complement the V-22…instead of the CH-53K.

Obviously Cole is uninformed. LAV II’s have an add on package that will take .50 cal AP, while Stryker comes factory ready to defeat 14.5mm AP. Bradley was originally protected to 7.62 AP (aluminum chassis), but with an add on armor package increased to 14.5MM AP. All have add-on capability for reactive armor (RPG & ATGM defeat), but it weighs a bunch, thus limiting payload.

MEP, look near the bottom of this link under survivability:

http://​www​.globalsecurity​.org/​m​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​/​s​y​s​t​e​m​s​/​g​r​o​u​n​d​/​i​a​v​.​htm

Point remains, the LAV cannot swim in the sea and with .50 cal armor applique cannot be carried via CH-53E. Seems to me that I spelled out that the big-target-with-lots-of-Marines, overly complex EFV only protects to .50 cal/14.5mm…just like the Stryker. Where was I misinformed?

The Marines would do well to come on board with the FCS manned ground vehicle family and use LCAC to get to shore.

The LAV has its place. So does the tank as well as A-tracks. Marines should be able to hit fast and hard then move on. Let the Army use the Bradley. Let the Marines be Marines. Kill hard and fast, and go home and drink beer.

During WW2 we developed a vehicle that is stil used by the Isralies, call the half track. wasent desighned to take a tank hit, or RPR but the survival rate was 50% In it’s day it cost a whopping $2800 you could mount a 81mm or 4–2 on it. Would acomadate a 105 howster. You could mount a series 50cal. on all four corners. It was not fast for it day, but but that has changed. It could travel sand and mud and desert rocks. with little trouble. The main draw back is it was not cost effective, it did not cost a million dollars.
Anyone intreste I am working up a deal to build 30,000 of the out dated pecies of history to kick a cuntry sxx that I will not mention. Seem they are short of cash but have lots of gold

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement