In an ideal world, then, the Marines would be able to take the things they know worked well about the EFV, including its weapons, for example, or engine and other components, and graft them onto a new, more reliable swimming hull. But that goal of reliability may mean the new vehicle doesn’t have the transforming bow ramp that the EFV had, and as such may not be able to skim over the water at its same high speeds.What has me spinning is that I thought the discussions were over. That the threshold had been breached and that Navy ships would move closer to the beach.
What’ll be interesting is whether the Navy and Marines update their amphibious doctrines to make room for their new vehicle, or whether they’ll keep the same assumptions and try to somehow get a cheaper EFV Lite. The Navy and Marines believe that in tomorrow’s amphibious operations, the proliferation of guided anti-ship missiles will make it too dangerous for Navy assault ships to stand very close to the coast. So the Marines needed the high-speed EFV to get to shore quickly on the assumption the fleet would take station over the horizon, far away from the beach.
That one requirement will make or break the EFV replacement. This definitely bears watching.
as soon as you re-introduce SPEED into the equation of rqtms for an EFV or ACV, you start defying phyisics and adding engineering complexity - period.
ReplyDeleteA fast EFV is a dream perhaps as an AIFV which is NOT lifted to shore by lighers?
Heavy land vehicles do not float nor fly (as one USMC genl speculated),
sorry but lighterage is a joke for combat ops. an EFV without the complex drive is a no brainer...it might have lower water speed but its a winner otherwise.
ReplyDeletelighters worked in WW2, you expecting to avoid modern weapons just beause you are in a go fast OR submerged in a slow boat?
ReplyDeleteif you mean submerged in a slow boat is a reference to the amphibious combat vehicle then yes...especially if it has active countermeasures.
ReplyDelete