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.

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.

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.

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

***

And once again Coles demonstrate he knows nothing of what warfare (either today or in the future) is like.

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.