Is the EFV a fighting vehicle in the mold of the Bradley or simply a high speed connector? The reason I ask is borne out by a quick examination of the pictures above. Notice the AAV's above. Not only are provisions made for the stowage of gear on their surface but they are also quite comfortable living with the infantry out in the field.
On the march, the Infantry can fight heads out. Or more precisely they can gain situational awareness because they're able to open the upper hatches to gain visibility.
Provisions are made for the carrying of rucksacks on the sides and tops of the vehicle. Even water cans have mounts made for them.
What we do see is a high speed amphibious armored vehicle, able to transit rapidly from ship to shore. We see less emphasis on its end state role. Fighting with the Infantry once the landing has been completed. We see a vehicle with a formidable cannon. But even that has to be called into question. If our EFV's are engaging ground vehicles with its cannon then something has gone wrong (and yes I know things go wrong but you catch my meaning). In an assault against an objective do we really want a 30mm airburst rounds hitting it or would Javelin, SMAW, TOW or Hellfire missiles be more appropriate? If we have EFV's in the assault would we have our M1's with them? Or even the LAV-25A2? What about our artillery or Marine Aviation?
The problem and the reason why I ask these questions is because we've been down this road before in Marine Corps history. After the Korean War, the Marine Corps felt a need to get "feet wet" again. The Marines fell into the role of Second Land Army and decided that its equipment should be tailored to amphibious operations.
Understandable but the result was the less than impressive LVTP-5.
| LVTP-5 Specifications | |
|---|---|
| Weight | 37.4 t |
| Length | 9.04 m |
| Width | 3.57 m |
| Height | 2.92 m |
| Crew | 3+34 passengers |
| Armor | 6-16 mm |
| Primary armament |
.30 caliber MG |
| Engine | Continental LV-1790-1 V-12 gasoline 704 hp |
| Power/weight | 19 hp/tonne |
| Suspension | Torsilastic |
| Operational range |
306 km (road), 92 km (water) |
| Speed | 48 km/h, in water 11 km/h |
The LVTP-5 was a star in the water but history indicates it was much less than stellar on land. The war in Vietnam exposed all of its weaknesses.
Are we about to make the same mistake with the EFV? A vehicle that's a technological marvel but has proven to be maintenance intensive with an unfriendly Infantry interior? I wonder.
But back to the high speed connector issue. Is the role of the EFV simply to be a high speed connector from the Sea Base? If so then V-22's and LCAC's would be better options. Heck even the forth coming CH-53K would be a better option. How does the EFV fit into Distributed Operations? I have yet to read how the Marine Corps mechanized forces are to be utilized with that concept. Until all these questions are answered, maybe we should simply buy product improved AAV's instead.
As I understand it, the EFVs onboard 30mm was meant to be a light assault cannon, essential the key to the EFVs cavalry role.
ReplyDeleteBeing a child of OMFTS, which proposes a mechanized strike hundreds of miles inland, EFV has a cavalry strike role to either seize objectives or reinforce (V-22) landed troops, beyond the range of immediate CAS or NGFS - which would still be too occupied dealing with known enemy defenses. OMFTS is (was?) a radical change - more Inchon than Normandy, as it were.
Speed is key, as OMFTS kind of accepts that by-passing known defenses is allowed to seize objectives deep inland. The suprise of hitting and tearing up the enemys rear with deep striking, and cannons blazing EFVs and MV-22 from way over the horizon is a totally different tactic compared with AAV7 APCs, which had to rely on aviation or heavy tanks to deal with enemy armor or fortifications. Which meant that they had to wait and link up with M-1s or depend on always overtasked AH-1s and Harriers.
Way back when, there was a USMC officer giving a lecture at the RNLN KIM who even proposed discarding the fuel hungry M-1s to free up LCAC/LCUs in favor of more EFVs - the gas-turbine M-1 was in his opinion too slow (!) and would forever play catch-up.
I happily accept what you're saying but at the same time as OMFTS was being pushed we had a slight push on another front...Distributed Operations.
ReplyDeleteI know they're not mutually exclusive but the equipment set is totally different. The logistics support required to support each is totally different and I don't see how we can support both operational concepts.
If its OMFTS you're doing then yes...roll with the EFV. If its distributed ops then maybe updated AAV's might get the job done.
Well you hit it on the head, as OMFTS (and the USNs "From The Sea") are apparently loosing favour.
ReplyDeleteDistributed Ops (DO) and small unit (Marine company) tactics are rising stars, and how the EFV will fit in that scheme is still to be debated I guess.
As I see it, DO still has a role for the EFV, especially as a 'mothership' for distributed troops. The EFV is (planned to be) networked with all kinds of gizmos which is key during DO. So the wiring and on-board power is there already to operate jammers, Satcom and the various networks.
Now if only the EFV wasn't so God-awfull expensive...
but that brings up the other point. the EFV is terrible inside! cramped doesn't describe it. and if we've learned nothing else from the Army and the Stryker its that you can add electronics to any vehicle.
ReplyDeleteheck even my truck can be turned into a networked marvel if you want to drop that kind of money into it.
so back to the issue at hand. is the EFV the better mother ship or is it a modernized AAV?
Not just modernized - superior to the AAV. The high water speed and increased mobility on land, not to mention the (supposedly) better IED protection, better firepower and especially armor protection lets the EFV outclass the AAV hands down - or so I'm told.
ReplyDeleteThe high speed water kit does make it heavy, complex (vulnerable?) and cramped internally, and if that is acceptable once the EFV is on land is something I can't judge from over here.
Again it all comes down to doctrine and strategy. Both EFV and MV-22 had their roots in OMFTS. But if this deep maneuver/strike plan is outdated and the new doctrine will focus on objectives closer to shore/the littorals (within range of naval support), then the gazillions poored into EFV may be better spent on cheaper, slower IFVs - like Stryker MGV variants carried by more LCACs.
Stryker is trash.
ReplyDeleteWith its new armor package its going to be well over 30 tons. Its cross country mobility is a joke and its only good on roads.
People rave about its networking and electronics but you can stuff them in anything.
Lastly remember with the RAM/RS upgrade the AAV is suppose to be able to keep up with the M1. An upgraded AAV with a 1500 horsepower compact Europack engine, a RWS weapon station and upgraded armor with raised suspension should be a monster.
I'm just saying to lets check it out and see what can be done.
Hehe, meant to say Stryker-like (wheeled) ;).
ReplyDeleteIf the AAV7 with 30mm RWS and all the whiz-bang connectivity works, great.
But the driving argument nowadays is IED protection, and the EFV is supposedly well protected despite its flat bottom.
I'm not so sure if that also counts for the AAV7, even with raised suspension.
I am wondering if it would be good to relegate the EFV to a connector role and upgrading the AAVs (like your picture above), the AAV is a combat proven vehicle and with upgrades and maybe building some more, it would be capable for another generation of marines.
ReplyDeletesoloman, where did you get the end picture?
ReplyDeletehey Joe, that's straight from BAE's website. i'll send you the link.
ReplyDeleteRegarding wheeled or tracked, how about something weird like this?
ReplyDeletehttp://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/2009/06/evil-strange-rotating-running-tank-of.html
couple of interesting links for you
ReplyDeleteHow about the Korean method of providing amphibious AFV capability, the k21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuJxdtpD08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XPNz2r0dxc
http://shutwho.blogspot.com/2010/03/k21-ifv-aka-nifv.html
not sure how it would cope with the swell though!
or
Give the AAV a serious weapon, the M230LF, a link fed derivative of the Apache's 30mm chain gun in a semi remote weapon station
http://www.atk.com/customer_solutions_armamentsystems/cs_as_gs_m230lf_30mm_cg.asp
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/Cannon.pdf
The Viper Gun System is an interesting half way house between a basic mount and a RWS if the cost needs to be kept down
http://www.cantinearmament.com/wp/?p=1
I don't like the K-21. It seems like a poor man's Bradley or Warrior. Its amphibious capability is a joke and I'm just not impressed by the weapons fit.
ReplyDeleteThe Viper Gun System is very interesting though.
As far as offerings from ATK I am aware of what they have to offer and I covered a compact 25mm Cannon in an RWS mount that looks promising.
Whats the 30mm weapon and mount in your picture of the AAV, looks impressive
ReplyDeleteHave a look at what the UK did with the decades old FV430 series (M113 equivalent); upgrading engine, transmission, armour, comms and other systems.
ReplyDeleteThe resultant Bulldog is actually a reasonable vehicle, in the right circumstances, for a bargain basement upgrade price.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http://www.mod.uk:80/defenceinternet/defencenews/militaryoperations/bulldogvehiclesonpatrolinbasra.htm
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/fighting-vehicles/1478.aspx
You can definitely squeeze extra utility out of older vehicles and it means you can free up the cash for other, perhaps more pressing, needs.
I'M A HUGE FAN OF THE BULLDOG!
ReplyDeleteIt was a common sense solution in every way. I don't like the extra add ons that both our countries have been doing but I feel good about the Light protected patrol vehicle (either the Ricardo or Supacat version) and I like the idea of improve the SA80 instead of buying HK36's that don't provide that much of an improvement in performance.
But (and I'll add my question on your site) what's the deal with the springer???? My ATV has as much protection.
Te concept of improving what you have, evolution rather than revolution, seems eminently sensible and very Russian!
ReplyDeleteI am rather puzzled with the Springer myself Solomon, it has replaced the All Terrain Mobility Platform, which is miles better.
Covered it here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/why-have-we-bought-the-springer/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/light-strike-vehicles-update/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/05/light-strike-vehicles/
i must agree about evolution rather than revolution, while some times we have to have revolution (i.e. f22 and f35) i think alot of times we can just take what we have thats been combat proven and make it better (f18 super hornet is a good example, while its quite different it still shares alot of things of the older models). thats what i had concerns about LCS and DDG-1000 zumwalt, we have the burkes, why not just try to adjust that design for other purposes?
ReplyDelete