NEWS BULLETIN:

Through nonlinear dynamics and the science of Quantum Mechanics, we have developed a new motor that runs on common lead acid batteries the batteries will run several years before needing replacement.
It has enough torque to power an army tank, and unmanned aircraft that could stay on station for several months. Helicopter that stays aloft until crew fatigue. A semi truck could run several years before replacing the batteries. A car, power; hand tools, heat pump to heat and cool a home, office buildings and other commercial and industrial uses. Installed in a laptop or any hand held device, will run years without recharging. Ships, Submarines, Aircraft Carriers that can cruse several years without changing batteries.
This motor runs by teasing the 2 – permanent magnets in 3 – rotors, fixed to the shaft between two stator’s containing 5 – electro magnets. It’s a timing accomplishment as the permanent magnet comes near the electro magnets, we change the polarity, repelling the permanent magnet and attracting the next.
With this we generate tremendous torque and RPM’S (10,000)
The electro magnets have a secondary windings, whose electrons are excited by the changing polarity, which recharges the batteries and significant other uses(1,000+ volts).
This motor emits NO, Co2, and does not burn oil or gasoline. This solves the oil and gasoline crisis, eliminates refueling logistics and eliminates greenhouse gases.
This motor “CHANGES EVERYTHING” and is a “Nobel Prize” type development. This is a great development for our country. Young men in our area developed it. We have several working pro to types, soon will have working model that will power a US Army Tank.
We would welcome the chance to show this to you.

Sincerely
Henry Johnson, Agent
TWM Technology LLC
3490 E N Union rd.
Bay City, MI 48706,
989 684 7050

Too far from shore to reach it in a timely manner. With new air-cavitation torpedoes and missiles, even the mother landing craft ship are highly vulnerable anywhere near shore. Many opponents have diesel-electric subs. Unattended sea vessels are coming.

Combat engineer bridges cross rivers. In both OIF I and recently against the Taliban, our 12Bs build bridges rapidly under potential fire. Ribbon bridges cross larger spans.

Landing craft air-cushioned, joint high speed vessels, and larger rotorcraft are the partial solution. Pulling up to the dock in a neighboring friendly country is the main solution. Then fight with a smaller, better armored, more capable vehicle.

Come on board with FCS manned ground vehicles.

It is true that WWII style landings are a thing of the past and never to be repeated. The problem is that with our sights focused on warfare in the deserts, we lose sight of warfare in other environments. River operations in a jungle environment as well as other water operations in a multitude of environments is still a reality for the Marine mission on a world-wide view. This capability must be maintained else we hamstring our strategy when this option is the correct one.

It is true that the current needs of the Marine Corps is for a different platform than the EFV, but this could change tomorrow or in a year. Better to have the technology in your pocket for when needed.

The second major problem is that the companys making the subject programs lack proper direction and oversight, allowing them to waste time and money.

If the government would just put in charge someone who has a technical background that has the power, insight and willingness to call “bullshit” when the programs are going off-track, most programs could be brought to conclusion years earlier.

The Marine Corps mandated several handcuffs that have handicapped the EFV program from the beginning, such as using an engine that they had developed rather than allowing other alternatives which would have reduced weight, increased troop space and made a much better vehicle.

The company itself is mostly responsible since they didn’t say, “No” to costly add-ons that add years to the deployment runway and focused on “getting the prototypes built” for some progress payment deadline instead of getting the engineering finished correctly first before wasting time and energy (read money) making prototypes that have to be modified over and over again during the initial builds.

The $22M quoted by many on this site is not a per vehicle cost post development. This cost includes all development and NRC associated with the program from initial contract award to present. When the decision to buy half the original number of vehicles was made, the developmental/NRC cost doubled. And contrary to some peoples believe, when you cut program funds to support wars, program cost do not go down.

BAE is not the prime contractor; General Dynamics is the prime contractor.

The EFV has no problem obtaining plane (necessary for high speed water mode) in all sea states in which it would be launched. This KPP was achieved years ago and only four years after the award of the initial contract. Recent design changes have made that capability even more robust. On land, the EFV will out run nearly all armored vehicles and will keep pace with the M1A2 Main Battle Tank (another combat vehicle built by GD that was chastised on Websites such as this; its legacy speaks for itself).

The issue that stopped the EFV from going to LRIP 2 years ago was reliability. That was they only KPP that was not satisfactorily demonstrated during SDD Operational Assessment. But let me put that shortfall into perspective. 10 SDD vehicles were built for developmental testing and to perform operational assessment. Not long after the SDD contract was awarded, the Afghan war began. For the next 7 years, the EFV program experienced a number of substantial budget cuts to help support that war and then the war in Iraq. As a result, critical funding was not available. These funding cuts were felt in all areas and in particular, test vehicle support. For 4 years the 10 vehicles were literally beaten down with depleted funding for adequate overhauls and then the vehicles were turned over to Marines to perform operational assessments. For all intents and purposes, the EFVs used in OA had nearly as many hours on them as 35 year old AAVs in the fleet. Basically, the EFV had already reached the end of any rational service life model. One last comment on reliability. 4.5 hours MTBMCF is not even close to correct and falls into the same 1+1+1=2 math used to compute the vehicle per unit cost.

The question here is not whether the EFV is or will be ready to serve the Marines. It is and it can. The only question is whether the Marines still need an amphibious fleet. I am sure that many on this site believe they know the answer, but I do not. I will leave the answer to that question to the pros. What I do know is that if the answer is, “yes the Marines need an amphibious capability,” then the EFV is the correct choice to fulfill that requirement.

Anti-ship missles? Are you kidding? This thing is screaming along on the water at 30 knots, and still maneuvers with agility. Plus, there’s like 50 of them coming at once for a typical incursion. Even a well-placed sophisticated system couldn’t pick ‘em off. And that’s the point of the EFV… you can’t anticipate the location of the landing!

Also, the writer insists that the seas must be like glass for the EFV to go on plane. Nonsense! It makes the ride rougher, but the machine is fully capable of on-plane operation in very heavy littorals.

The EFV is vulnerable to RPG attack (for now), it’s true. But the point is moot for IED vulnerability. The EFV is a lethal incursion tool. IED’s are set up along known convoy routes.

So, we are to spend billions to cancel right at the end of developement! That would be wasting alot of taxpayer money!!!! Personally, you would have to show me in black and white that the program is a total failure.

Also, like one pollster pointed out! If, not the EFV what else? We going back to the drawing board and spend billions more and another 20 years.….……

So, we are to spend billions to cancel right at the end of developement! That would be wasting alot of taxpayer money!!!! Personally, you would have to show me in black and white that the program is a total failure.

Also, like one pollster pointed out! If, not the EFV what else? We going back to the drawing board and spend billions more and another 20 years.….……

You are correct in indicating that we all need to take responsibility for the way things are. At no point did you indicate that your establishment responsible for DoD procurement was responsible in any way for these fiascos.

And I don’t think the problem with a program that has taken 20 years to get to this point is a lack money. Unless you want to think about how much money has been wasted with this pig.

The problems with LCS, ARH, JSF and all other acronym projects is not a lack of money. And that is especially true in a fully Republican controlled goverment.

Congressional issues with military procurement is more focused on their need to please their constituents. That means funding military programs because they bring jobs to your district or state. It has nothing to do with a lack of funding.

Quoting what Teddy did 100 years ago is just your way of avoiding responsibility.

DC2

It shouldn’t take such an action to get Congress to do the right thing. We hold in our hands the power to make sure Congress gets it right. Don’t elect the wrong people. That’s the whole point of this writing. It’s good to point at things going wrong, and say that it shouldn’t be that way. BUT, each of us needs to take responsibility for the way things are.

Many of these same issues about the out dated approach of amphibious landings were voice by the great military minds in the 50’s until MacArthur landed in Inchon chaining the course of the Korean war. Or the threat of a landing gave pause to the Iroquois and held them long enough that by the time they knew what happened it was over.

Then there is the whole problem of where all those very large container ship are going to off load. These are just a few of the the reasons why DoD still look at AFV’s.

Another problem that is over looked is that it is a lot easier to get blown out of the water in a AAV7 doing approx. 7 knots then it is in say a EFV doing 25 knots. If you have ever ridden inside of one waiting to ass out my guess is we would not be having this conversation.

A final note, yes the Brits took a hit in the south Atlantic however two points were left out. First, they not only completed the mission quite handily. Second, MoD saw the need for carries and amphibious ships and embarked on a still on going program to build next generation LPD and CV.