| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Marines Unveil New Amphibious Vehicle |
| 2010-05-11 |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #16 ed: I just checked wikipedia, seems like you're more on the mark than I was. It does change the balance, doesn't it? Mobility The EFV's 25 nautical miles (46 km; 29 mi) range for amphibious landing may no longer prove sufficient, given the increasing ranges of shore launched anti-ship missiles. Variants Personnel variant The EFVP1 with a 3-man crew will conduct the signature mission of the United States Marine Corps, expeditionary maneuver warfare from seabases by initiating amphibious operations from 20–25 miles over-the-horizon and transporting 17 combat-equipped Marines to inland objectives. Maybe I was recalling the specs for the personnel variant. Horizon is usually about 20 miles away I'm guessing, way more if you are on top of a building or something. Seems though that 50km/hour is a way better speed than 50knots/hr, and range would be way less than what I was thinking. Maybe I got the units wrong. But I still think it's a very reasonable option against most 2nd/3rd world countries when combined with satellite technology and other military power. I wouldn't be too surprised if they could be fitted with some kind of anti-missile system. Reactive and slat armor might work fine. Would the cloud of water they throw up confuse anti-ship missiles? Although that doesn't sound like a lot of fun to depend on heavily for whoever is in the EFV. And there are always going to be situations where the enemy doesn't have what it takes to counter these things effectively. If they do, just take the EFV option off the table or hold it over their head while other forces do the job against an enemy that is diminished because it needs to expend resources on this enormous threat. We did that against Saddam. He had a bunch of his army poised to counter what he thought would be our main offensive from the sea. There was no amphibious landing, but the ability to make an amphibious landing an actual threat cost him dearly. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-05-11 23:45 |
| #15 Forget antitank missiles, it's expensive enough to waste cruise missiles on and come out ahead. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-05-11 23:04 |
| #14 The problem with these things isn't in the hour or two that they drive up to the beach. For that they will be great. Between air power, cruise missiles and shore bombardment, they'll make it ashore and woe betide anyone standing around on the beach when they get there. I pity the fool. The problem is six weeks later when those things are driving up the main road to the Capitol and get blown up. If we are willing to only use these things to take the beaches, and then put everyone but the driver and gunner into something else to drive around the countryside they would be ok. Kind of expensive though. These will cost the same as an aircraft carrier and all of the planes on board. Would you give up a carrier we use every day to have these things in a warehouse just in case? |
| Posted by: rammer 2010-05-11 22:40 |
| #13 But-t-t To wit, * VARIOUS > SECDEF GATES: US CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ, as due to TIGHT-N-GETTIN-TIGHTER US GOVT-DOD $$$ BUDGETS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-05-11 22:20 |
| #12 When was our last amphibious landing? When will we do another? What is the fully loaded cost of amphibious delivery? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-05-11 21:28 |
| #11 That is assuming that someone will be there waiting for them to land, without pre-assault units already on the beach, and no air or fire support. That is true. But if you have that much control of the beach, you can also drive up LCVPs and LSTs. The problem with the mobile antitank crews is they can hide anywhere - buildings, trees, debris, and unlike armored vehicles, easy to hide from sensors. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-05-11 21:01 |
| #10 Any country w/a coastline can do very little to mass entire military in order to defend every part of that coastline. The Euros used to have that problem protecting themselves from Vikings. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-05-11 20:58 |
| #9 And no matter how fast or capable, any man-portable guided weapon will sink it when it is the most defenseless, same as the AAV-7. That is assuming that someone will be there waiting for them to land, without pre-assault units already on the beach, and no air or fire support. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-05-11 20:53 |
| #8 Gents, they were not developed to throw into the teeth of an Operation Neptune style assault. The beauty about OMFTS - operational maneuver from the Sea and Over the Horizon technology is that you can pick the peice of real estate on the coastline of your choosing. Any country w/a coastline can do very little to mass entire military in order to defend every part of that coastline. Seapower 21 - which is the navy/USMC 21st century capstone concept makes the ability to seabase off shore a very real possibility. By marrying up ESG- expeditionary strike groups w/ARG - amphibious ready group you have a lot of maneuver and a whole lot of punch. EFVs are prolly the victim of the acquisitions snafu process and development but are a good concept - I will remind you Siskorsky prolly heard much of the same thing when he came up w/his crazy invention. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2010-05-11 20:48 |
| #7 I disagree gorb. Any ship that comes within 100 miles of a 2nd or 3rd world coast will be targeted by antiship missiles fired on radar bearings. No commander is going to risk loosing a bunch of 1000-3000 man ships. Even then 100 miles is much too far for an amphib assault, the EFV will run out of fuel way before then. More like 25 miles at which time the task force will be under visual observation/targeting. And even if they could, could they actually get there before the EFV? Nope. Men in civilian cars and ice cream trucks (for the dead civvie propaganda) can move a heck of a lot faster, assuming there isn't already a welcoming party waiting for the Marines behind the beach. Given the EFV speed is 25 knots, that means an EFV will be in range of a short range AT missile like the Javelin for over 3 minutes. That's probably enough for one 2 man crew to target 6-8 EFVs. They would be in range of a longer range missile, like Kornet for 7 minutes. Way too vulnerable and to lose 20 men at a pop. How many EFVs could an MEU deploy? 15-20? Enough for a platoon of antitank troops to hit them all several times before they ever make it to shore. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-05-11 20:47 |
| #6 The reason the cost/vehicle keeps going up is the production orders keep shrinking. The R&D costs get spread over a smaller and smaller number of vehicles. If we were producing them like Bradleys or Abrams, they would cost 1/10 of what they do now. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2010-05-11 19:34 |
| #5 One huge problem is the cost of $20M each. That's 4-5X the cost of a Bradley or Abrams. Hmm. Good point. I wonder if they have experimented with sending 4-5X as many Bradleys or Abrams off the ship to see how many will make it to shore. ;-) And no matter how fast or capable, any man-portable guided weapon will sink it when it is the most defenseless, same as the AAV-7. Technology may have superseded the armored amphibious assault. Gotta start somewhere. Their job isn't to be invulnerable, it's to help establish a beachhead against a bunch of folks who don't know when or where they're going to be invaded. These things travel about 50knots/hour over water. They can take off from the ship land anywhere within about 100 miles before the bad guys can even mobilize. And even if they could, could they actually get there before the EFV? Nope. You don't position the ship so this is a problem. And you can do it at night too, if I know the Marines! IOW: The bad guys don't stand much of a chance unless they have a well-developed military, which is not the kind of war we will be fighting with these. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-05-11 18:44 |
| #4 One huge problem is the cost of $20M each. That's 4-5X the cost of a Bradley or Abrams. The service wants to buy about 573 EFVs to carry Marines and another 67 to be used as communications-and-control vehicles. Program procurement costs will be about $9.5 billion, Moore said. The total program costs, he acknowledged, could be as high as $13 billion. He hopes to shave the unit costs by millions of dollars per copy. And no matter how fast or capable, any man-portable guided weapon will sink it when it is the most defenseless, same as the AAV-7. Technology may have superseded the armored amphibious assault. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-05-11 14:58 |
| #3 If this vehicle was manned by SEIU Union crews, built in Chicago and/or delivered Welfare Checks the project would be approved by Congress with a voice vote. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2010-05-11 14:37 |
| #2 I find it interesting that our exotic 'fighting equipment' is also so useful, maybe essential, at delivering humanitarian aid in places like Haiti and tsunami-damaged areas. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-05-11 13:43 |
| #1 |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2010-05-11 13:31 |