I am constantly amazed that the critics of the EFV constantly point to anti-ship missiles as a vulnerability of amphibious assaults.Conway: New Stand-Off Doctrine Could Change EFV Requirements
PANAMA CITY, FL -- If the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is canceled, the Marines will likely start over, according to Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, but a change in the required stand-off distance from shore could alter the vehicle's requirements.
Both Conway and incoming commandant Gen. James Amos have said that an EFV-like capability is necessary to enable the Marines to carry out amphibious assaults from over the horizon. The service now has the Assault Amphibious Vehicle, which was fielded in the 1970s and can only travel a few miles from a ship to the beach. The EFV, under development with General Dynamics, is designed to travel about 25 nautical miles.
Speaking to reporters at the Expeditionary Warfare Conference here on Oct. 6, Conway said that a new program would be necessary if the EFV fails to meet the next knowledge point in its development. The Marines have vowed to do away with the controversial program themselves if it fails to show adequate improvement in reliability testing, which should take place in February.
"I think we would wind up having to go back to the drawing board," Conway said.
However, he disputed an argument Defense Secretary Robert Gates made in May, when he said that adversaries' anti-ship missiles would likely continue to push ships ever further out to sea, making an amphibious assault near impossible. Existing Navy and Marine Corps doctrine calls for ships to be 25 nautical miles away from shore for an amphibious invasion.
"There's some discussion at this point with the Navy that they might be able to get in closer than the 25 miles," Conway said. "We've got to understand that better and we've got to validate, I think, on our own end that that's viable. That's a kind of capability that could potentially change the requirement, and we'd have to look to see if other elements of industry would be interested in a vehicle that could perhaps be launched closer in."
The commandant declined to say what kinds of anti-ship missile countermeasures the Navy is working on.
"If there are programs like that, they're probably black [classified] programs," he said, "but my view is there have been anti-missile this or that ever since there have been missiles. You've got anti-tank missiles, anti-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, and yet we still build ships and tanks and satellites . . . so I don't think that you simply shut down a capability because another nation or power is advertising an anti- capability that they think will be effective."
Navy Undersecretary Robert Work told reporters here on Oct. 5 that there are other options on the table for providing the Marine Corps' amphibious assault capability, possibly including a modified EFV or an entirely new system.
"No decision has been made except for one: Within the Department of the Navy, the commandant and the secretary of the Navy agree that we should have a tractor as part of the family of ship-to-shore connectors," Work said. "Whether the EFV is the final answer hasn't been decided, so I wouldn't count the EFV out yet.
"The EFV in a slightly modified fashion might be the answer," he continued. "We might be looking at a different system, but it will all depend on a myriad number of issues." -- Cid Standifer
The argument that missiles or rather the threat of a weapon system will deny the fleet movement is a false one. Conway stated it better than anyone could.
One thing is clear and its a question that BAE hasn't answered but its becoming obvious. They (BAE) have probably developed an enhanced AAV that they will unveil once/if the EFV is canceled. I would even bet that its been pitched behind closed doors and that it will be a no bid process touted as a modernization program.
An amphibious tractor is mandatory if you are serious about forced entry. If the one you are working on fails, take your lessons learned and apply to the next prototype (have to remember these are prototypes). This shouldn't be surprising. Good to hear from the horses mouth though.
ReplyDeleteThe ant-ship missile is dangerous, but highly over-rated, especially in the hands of someone like the Iranians. It's not the voodoo fetish that protects the user from all attack, like it's made out to be. It requires intelligent employment, sustainment and training. Just like any other piece of equipment. Lots of countries skimp on the training part, it's not flashy like new gear and the benefits in the here and now are rather hard to quantify.
We need to finish EFV soon, one way or the other. It's been in development way to long.
I know this may be a moot point now, given the looming cancellation of this program (Congress will have the final word on that), but regarding the concern for anti-ship missiles:
ReplyDeleteWith the advances in technology, I have trouble understanding why this is the problem it is purported to be. It seems to me that you could put a very small radar on each EFV; each relatively weak on their own, but very powerful when linked with the radars on every other vehicle, creating one large AESA system. The data could be processed via a cloud computing system on each vehicle working on the same principle: relatively weak on their own, but powerful when linked together. The whole system is cheap and redundant; knock out one, the rest aren't even fazed, and they continue to function as a whole.
Each of the vehicles' guns would shoot down the incoming missiles tracked by the AESA network. Though one might argue that the guns are not "designed" for that role, a gun is a gun. It's the targeting system that tells the gun what to shoot at which makes the gun effective in whatever role it is assigned to perform. They could even stack rounds in the barrel, something the 'Metal Storm' company is successfully developing, for rapid fire capability during the 25 nm journey to the shore.
Lastly, to me it seems like all of this *should* be relatively cheap. If the guys on Storm Chasers can build tanks impervious to tornadoes in their freaking garages, and they can home-build a micro radar and write the associated software to record data on said tornadoes while they are *inside* them, then it shouldn't freaking cost what it currently has cost to field these things. When is the military going to realize these defense contractors are scamming them??
Of course, one could put the same type of systems on LCACs...
ReplyDelete