Home » Land » EFV Reborn, Marines Push It

EFV Reborn, Marines Push It

By Bryant Jordan Wednesday, May 6th, 2009 8:34 pm
Posted in Land, Naval

After chronic problems with technology and cost overruns, the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle may actually have been steered onto the right path.

Existing prototypes suffered significant hydraulic and electrical problems, and there were issues with the feed and eject systems of the main gun, EFV Program Manager Col. Keith Moore told a group today at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space symposium.

For all intents and purposes, however, the EFV was bascially put back on the drawing board as designers sought to tackle issues that put its costs up and its schedule behind.

“It’s a complicated vehicle, with a lot of high-pressure hydraulics,” Moore said. “We had a lot of problems with leaks and contamination … and so there was early failure of hydraulic parts.” The electrical system being developed for the problem prototypes was too much of a reach, he said: “some cutting edge technology that … just wasn’t ready for prime time.”

The prototype now under development will rely on some earlier, reliable technology aided by software modifications. The hull to the prototype being built to the new design will begin detailed integration and assembly at the end of this month, he said.

Highly accelerated vibration and heat testing has been performed on the new systems, he said, and thus far they show great promise, lasting two or three times longer than reliability predictions indicated they would.

The problem-plagued EFV was supposed to reach its demonstration phase by 2001. It finally went to operational assessment in 2006, but suffered a number of failures and breakdowns. Moore said the EFV now will go into Initial Operational Testing and Evaluation sometime in 2015.

Marine Commandant James Conway made a strong pitch for the EFV on the first day of the Navy League, arguing that the service needs the speed and range of the system to ensure the Marines can still kick down doors — their primary mission.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Zach May 6th, 2009 at 9:44 pm 2015? That’s 8 years of development and testing, this could be a good system by then.
	Cole May 6th, 2009 at 10:44 pm Zach the Marines have been working on this thing since the 90s. Another classic case of pursuing an idea whose time has passed…amphibious assault against enemy defenses…especially since they can no longer do it safely at 25nm. The Marines are also guilty of the same thing as the USAF F-22…throwing all their money/resources at an unlikely scenario (shore assault), that even should it occur, represents a fraction of the needs and requirements to fight the long war. The long war isn’t a matter of POTUS choice. The Marines say they won’t go where there are IEDs/mines and can add armor once they get to shore! Baloney. How is this different than the FCS manned ground vehicle V-kit that was planned with far fewer troops exposed to each IED? They say there is no alternative to EFV, yet LCAC already carries lots of their armor to shore to include M1 tanks, and the CH-53K will be able to carry JLTV as well. There is no reason for the Army and Marines to use different vehicles. They already share common tanks, JLTV, MRAP/M-ATV, and somewhat similar LAV III/Stryker. It’s time for an all new fire team vehicle shared between the Marines and Army. At a max weight of 32-33K lbs WITH permanent V-hull armor, and carrying 6-7 Marines/Soldiers, 3 such vehicles would duplicate a single EFV and 2 vehicles would replace an Army FCS Infantry Carrier Vehicle. An EFV is projected to cost $23 million now. So shoot for 3 fire team vehicles at $7.5-8 million a piece with top of the line lightweight armor. Far fewer Soldiers/Marines would be exposed per successful enemy engagement and 30mm firepower would be tripled for the Marines or doubled for the Army. I can just imagine how long it takes 17 Marines to unass an EFV under fire, and the enemy can concentrate all their fire on one area. Spread those dismounts around between 3 vehicles and carry them to a nearby friendly or unoccupied shore (not the enemy shore). Such a vehicle could be carried by the already planned CH-53K which would also be shared by the Army to decrease cost per heavy lift aircraft. It would be C-130J transportable, and 5 would fit aboard each C-17.
	pfcem May 7th, 2009 at 1:40 am Since it is SO under-reported/not-reported… The majority of the “problems” the EFVs had during tests could be contributed to the test vehicles having had a decades worth of HARD service run on them but NOT a decades worth of maintenance performed on them. *** And once again Coles demonstrate he knows nothing of what warfare (either today or in the future) is like.
	DC2 Jennings May 7th, 2009 at 8:24 am I have always thought the whole idea of the EFV was a technology reach. Leave a ship 25nm out at sea, plow through the ocean at relatively high speeds, then get on shore and do the same thing. All while having enough protection to keep the Marines on board safe. That is why we have been working on this thing since the 90s. Pfcem, I agree that the hulls have been run “hard” since they were built. But I don’t think it would be any worse than what the equipment goes through in Iraq or Afghanistan (where these things will never be used btw). If preventative maintenance had not been peformed after the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this program, then shame on the manufacturer. If they are trying to sell something that works, then do what is necessary to make sure it works. Regardless it seems that we have scrapped the old design and gone back to the drawing board. We do need to plan for the contingency of having to land marines from the beach. That was how the first conventional troops landed in Somalia back in the day. And it is no less safe than trying to land an C-130 full of FCS vehicles in enemy territory. Why not use LCACs (large and small) to put Marines on shore? They can offload vehicles to push farther inland, ferry more vehicles in, bring supplies from the ship, and carry the wounded back. DC2
	Recon-Team May 7th, 2009 at 9:10 am We should at least develop an extensive ERA (or lightweight modular composite armor) kit that be added once on-shore as well as the capability for future active defense systems. If we do develop something of a smaller EFV as Cole suggested, a v-shaped hull may not allow the high speed hydroplaning capability of the EFV. Also I would say the squad size should be 9-12 men, (I think a full Marine squad falls in that range) unlike the 18 or so men the EFV carries. I think trying to standardize the Army’s future ICV and the Marines AAVP-7A1 replacement as the same vehicle is insane. First we need to see what the Army’s “replacement” for the FCS manned ground vehicles are anyway.
	Chief Houston May 7th, 2009 at 10:23 am Speed and directional change can offset some of the up armor requirements, if we consider an additional element to the coastal assault equation that we are talking about here, team. The dispersional aspect of fire teams in 3 man low profile fast movers with automated counter fire controlling stabilized .50 Cal with grenade launching capability, can build upon the ideas you all have suggested. Prone operator controls and sled ejection could allow fast inserion of air/artillery controllers that can operate the fire controls of the automated fast movers remotely. This is the 21st Century, right? Yes, fix what is on the board as we have suggested, but force multiply with smaller equipment first.
	Cole May 7th, 2009 at 7:13 pm DC2, I hear and agree on some points, but you don’t need to conduct an amphibious or C-130/C-17 assault against CONTESTED soil. Land nearby in a friendly nation and there is no act of war the future adversary can claim. Agree with your LCAC comment but also envision as few as 4 CH-53K airlifting fire team vehicles to shore just 50nm away (safer from anti-ship missiles). The CH-53K is a feasible aircraft whereas some of the other 40 tons lift rotorcraft are..uh questionable. Discovered that a true Marine Infantry squad is just 13 men and they planned to be able to add 4 additional specialty troops plus it has a crew of 3. Thus in theory, just two fire team vehicles carrying 6 and a crew of 2 (one dismountable squad leader/vehicle commander)would carry a Marine squad. Chief Houston, hear you but you can’t get too radical or too light in an era of IED/EFV. I can imagine the body punishment lying down in an armored vehicle over rough terrain! But you can also envision two or three fire team vehicles…one with a 30mm cannon and one with an anti-tank missile capability, etc, as you mention. BTW, the Marines own website “brags” that it can dismount all 17 Marines through about a 3′ door in “under 20 seconds.” That is an eternity under fire. Time for a joint common vehicle change for both the Army and Marines. Squad-sized ICVs would better support most of the Army, but a fire team vehicle that shares a common 32,000 lb. design with the Marine fire team vehicle, recon & surveillance vehicle, ambulance, and mortar vehicle would add an airlift capability for early Army/Marine entry. It would also fit aboard the littoral combat ship which an EFV never would.
	EFVBuster December 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am This thing comes right from The Pentagon Wars. it’s amazing how things will fail and no one takes responsibility. They just keep getting their bonuses and promotions. Disgracefull!