via Information Dissemination (note, this along with an article from the Conservative Wahoo are REQUIRED reading!)...below is the statement from the Commandant as presented on the I.D.'s website...my comments are in bold type.
Gen Amos' Statement on Cancellation of EFV Program
Topic: CMC Press Release - EFV TerminationReally Sir? The Air Wing is gobbling up the damn budget...the AH-1Z, UH-1Y, F-35B, CH-53K, and the MV-22B...yet we can't get the grunts an adequate Infantry Fighting Vehicle? Sir, you've got to be shitting me!
Today the Secretary of Defense announced the termination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. I support his decision. After a thorough review of the program within the context of a broader Marine Corps Force Structure Review, I personally recommended to both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy that the EFV be cancelled and that the Marine Corps pursue a more affordable amphibious tracked fighting vehicle.
So in other words Sir, what you expect your Warfighters to do is to ride in an updated 40 year old vehicle? Again Sir, you've got to be shitting me! Even if we follow the US Army's example and get new build AAV's dressed with uprated engines, blue force tracker, GPS, battlefield internet and perhaps ATK's compact 25mm cannon, we're still operating an uprated old vehicle. Damn Sir, you're making the idea of having only Grunt Commandant's make more and more sense!
Despite the critical amphibious and warfighting capability the EFV represents, the program is simply not affordable given likely Marine Corps procurement budgets. The procurement and operations/maintenance costs of this vehicle are onerous. After examining multiple options to preserve the EFV, I concluded that none of the options meets what we consider reasonable affordability criteria. As a result, I decided to pursue a more affordable vehicle.
With all due respect Sir, you're busting Sunshine off my ass! You're saying that we need to maintain an Amphibious Tractor in our Corps yet you didn't fight for this vehicle. A cheaper vehicle will be a less capable vehicle. High Speed? Kiss it good bye. A capable IFV defeating cannon? See ya! Hey Sir, be advised, you can't bullshit a bullshitter!
Our Nation’s amphibious capability remains the Corps’ priority. In the complex security environment we face, the execution of amphibious operations requires the use of the sea as maneuver space. A modern amphibious tracked vehicle is the means towards this end. It enables the seamless projection of ready-to-fight Marine rifle squads from sea to land. It is thus the key to allowing ship-to-shore operations in permissive, uncertain, and hostile environments; assuring access where infrastructure is destroyed or nonexistent; and creating joint access in defended areas. It is also central to the entire Marine tactical vehicle strategy for operations ashore. Once on land, an amphibious armored fighting vehicle provides the Marine rifle squad with the protected mobility and firepower to maneuver to a position of advantage to rapidly close with, engage, and defeat the enemy.
See the above.
The Marine Corps remains committed to develop and field an effective, survivable and affordable amphibious tracked vehicle. To bring this capability to the force sooner rather than later, we intend to capitalize on the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s recent efforts to streamline procurement and to rapidly accelerate the acquisition and contracting processes in developing our new amphibious tracked vehicle requirement.
Ya know what Sir! If you weren't ready to issue the RFI the day after this announcement then you're already late. The Air side is covered. Your ground forces are hurting. MRAPs are not IFVs. The AAV is not an IFV. The US Army has gone through the M-113, Bradley A1, A2 and A3 and now the Stryker! We've soldiered on with the AAV. You've got to get this together.
Shortly, we will issue a special notice to industry requesting information relative to supporting our required amphibious capabilities. We look forward to working with industry in meeting this challenge to field a modern and affordable amphibious tracked vehicle that will support our Nation’s needs.
WE NEED AN IFV! WE DON'T NEED THE IAR! SIR, GET IT TOGETHER SIR!
Gates runs a tight ship and does not allow any of his underlings to publicly contradict his choices -- not even to say I disagree, but will fully support the Obama/Gates policy -- Gates allows internal private dissent, but then forces his underlings to publicly attest to their agreement with the new policy.
ReplyDeleteI'm skeptical that this is good for the future of the country, but Gates is the ultimate bureaucrat.
i hear ya jim, but i still expect better from a Marine General. i mean hell, if you disagree then offer your resignation.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the sea is a viale maneuver space in the modern era but agree that the USMC is really hurting for an IFV to keep pace with US and coalition type forces for Landwarfare. EFV should have been cancelled when MGV should have been cancelled - about four years ago! As for what to do about an IFV for the Marines? Well, what does it take to get an M1 or Leopard 2 or the IDI Namer to swim? You get the point, to face an IED environment with take strong counter IED capabilities and a blast resistance hull structure - neither the MGV nor the EFV had anything close to what would meet basic requirements. GD shouldn't cry though as they have received nearly a half billion so far to upgrade the hull of the Stryker to better deal with IED environments. As for GCV, I anticipate a selection based on either the IDI Namer (GD is building parts for this) or the PUMA. This leaves the Marines with the option of procuring both more LCACs and go in with the Army on their GCV and give up on swimming in vehicles expected to be IFVs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anonymous. The Marines definitely require a new IFV and soon. The Army is getting one and so should the Marines. But the EFV is the wrong vehicle, appallingly expensive, vulnerable, and already obsolete.
ReplyDeleteThe Marines are going to have to procure A LOT more LCACs even the Mk2 SSC version to get those heavy tank all the way up the beach. I see that idea as very expensive, with larger fast moving targets going from ship to shore, AND there are NOT enough spots for them on the plannded amphibs.
ReplyDeleteSo complete the equation how? What is the real alternative to using updated AAVPs in the near term? And how (not why or should they) are the Marines going to get enought tanks and other heavy tactical equipment ashore preferrably in the first assault wave?
The Marines estimated that the EFV would spend 80% of its life on dry land. Does it need to be amphibious? Again that is not a why questiion, its how to get ashore question.
Remember that the USN was/is pushing for a reduction of large deck amphibs as well; less LPDs and more deck-less LHAs mostly.
ReplyDeleteProblem is the black hole that is slowly forming now that there is an enforced drawn-down in both Iraq and Afghanistan - the public (in the US and elsewhere) are getting tired of the wars and want out.
So again there is a big unknown looming similarly to the end of the Cold War. Are the marines having to invest in super-MRAP vehicles or will the IED-threat be reduced via speed and OTH maneuver?
OMFTS was based on mobility and surprise; not allowing the enemy to prepare (IED) defenses. That's where the V-22 and EFV came from. This turned the USMC into an OTH strike force and not a second land army, with matching vehicles and weapons.
But there's been a decade now where the USMC acted as a land army; returning to its amphib "911 global response force" is a wise move, but an expensive one as it means a total reset of the force in men, material and doctrines.
Marcase right on! The ship part of Marine force of the future WILL be less exquisite ships and more smaller hulls (perhaps less capable) for all those scaleable TEOps which Work & Hoffman talked about. I sure hope they terminated the LPD at 25 and do not buy an LSD(X) based on that design. The Navy/Marines could have more hulls for all those saved bucks?
ReplyDeleteAs an Amtracker, who has been an instructor at the worlds only AAV school (YAT-YAS!) and have been down to the EFV ramp to crawl around that POS, I can attest that IT WON'T WORK. Ita too big, too complex and too much! There are some great concepts integrated into the vehicle, but the whole package was just too focused on getting maximum speed over water. The EFV will do an honest 40knots in the water... That's great, but 25-30 wold have been enough. The troop compartment is bifurcated by the turret and the ramp is far too small.
ReplyDeleteConsider this. 1) The entire MAGTF is based on 12 AAV's hauling 24 grunts each. 2) the EFV is larger (fewer fit on each ship) and carries fewer troops (more required to love the same number of troops). 3) The AAVP7 has a ramp large enough to load an old school Jeep through (a design requirement) and cargo hatches for loading palletized supplies from overhead. The EFV can do neither. The AAV is designed to haul not only troops, but gear. There is no such flexibility with the EFV.
Has any of you seen the EFV in water drive mode? The tracks retract into the vehicle and plates cover them to form a flat bottom, like an old Jon boat. One word ..... SAND BAR.