Note: Well ain't this a kick in the teeth. The US Army Rangers are about to get a capable, proven, highly mobile, off the shelf, internally transportable (in a MV-22) mortar carrier and ammunition vehicle at a fraction of the cost of the US Marine Corps EFSS(Expeditionary Fire Support System). Oh and it does away with the need to tow it which means that they'll have even greater off road mobility. Nicely done.
A potential problem. The vehicles, unless I am mistaken, are NOT SUPPORTED in the USMC logistics system. So the true cost of acquiring this "system" is much greater than one might think it is. EVERYTHING the USMC does MUST be logistically supportable by the USMC and "compatible" with the Navy's ship transportability requirements. “one of a kind” solutions are often inexpensive to acquire and extremely EXPENSIVE to logistically support over the long term. I am NOT saying that is the case in this situation, I am just saying it MAY be the case. All too often we forget that “when we want something real bad, we get it REAL BAD”!
ReplyDeleteI think the Polaris design will always come out cheaper. They should have a better and cheaper parts supply since many parts should be common with the civilian version. I'm sure once you throw on radio equipment and the such the vehicle price goes up, but come on the Growler is almost $300k each. You should get 10 Polaris vehicles for every 1 growler. I bet it would be cheaper to send a brand new Polaris from the production line into a war zone than to replace the engine in a growler.
ReplyDeleteIf you think it would be cheaper, then you have never seen what it takes to add an item to the logistics system. You have to have training, operator, and repair manuals, (and while you may not like it, military tech manuals are extremely well written; they are designed to be read by “idiots”), training courses, field tests, spare parts, etc. All of this costs $$$$. Lots of $$$$ This is an absurd example but it shows the point. It is cheaper to buy a $1M truck already in the system then to buy a $30,000 vehicle AND then spend $2M to logistically support it! That of course assumes you have the ability to haul around all the extra spare parts, tools and manuals needed for that new item. For want of a nail, a war was lost and logistics is all about how to not be short that nail. Fewer items means less nails. I will grant you that the solution appears to be cheap and works. All I am saying is that I suspect that the logistics issues make the choice far, far less attractive than it appears at the surface. When deployed, you can only take so much “stuff” with you and when talking about logistics and supportability, fewer different items is MORE! The Army has the $ to buy special gear for units like the Rangers. The USMC doesn’t!
DeleteJust for your info; I am the prototype fabricator for Military Systems Group and I consider it a priveledge to build these vehicles. They have been tested by several units already and have recieved rave reviews from the users. I do hope that the end user gets these because it will give them capabilities that they do not have. I know these inside and out since I built them and they are pretty tough. I love my job and company and believe in our products. Check us out at milsysgroup.com
DeleteYou are comparing apple to orange here. EFSS is a breech loading rifled mortar system, much heavier than Army's smoothbore 120. I doubt it can be towed by ATV. Yes, it's harder to move around, but in return you get better accuracy and distance coverage. The lethality is the big difference between army and marine mortar. That's why marine deploys its 120 as artillery weapon, whereas army treats M120/M121 as infantry support weapon.
ReplyDeleteI do believe you are confusing original Dragon Fire (mounted in a LAV or towed) with the EFSS.
Deletehttp://www.gd-ots.com/efss.html
I am not a mortar man but have been watching the ITV saga (how to get a mortar deployed from an Osprey) for sometime now. I believe the Expeditionary Support Vehicle aka "mortar puller" is an entirely unique vehicle supplied from a small company which produces only that vehicle? Pls
ReplyDeletecorrect me if am wrong.
That said buying a modified vehicle from a large company which already has field engineers and a massive logistics base HAS to be a more cost effective especially in the long term.
I am betting the current EFV will be replaced by one of about ten ITV designs to be procured by SOCOM in the near future? Trying to compare all vehicles which could fit in an Osprey and could tow a USMC mortar~
BTW how long were the Mules in USMC service and weren't there engineering issues with them?
I am a ship loader and getting either of these vehicle/systems should present NO problem loading onto amphibs or sealift ships. Just saw a Navy photo of EFV being used of a Gator main deck.
I just checked the link to the complete Defense Industry Daily article on EFSS & ITV. In my above post I left out a small company from Robbins NC which has now been apparently been bought by a bigger company? Here is latest contract notice for $18.1 million from DID article (you do the math~):
ReplyDeleteOct 19/11: ITVs. General Dynamics – Ordnance and Tactical Systems in Saint Petersburg, FL receives an $18.1 million firm-fixed-price, ID/IQ contract modification, exercising the final option for 75 full rate production ITVs, together with their corresponding basic issue item kits and additional authorization hardware.
Work will be performed in Robbins, NC (39%); Forest, VA (37%); Columbus, OH (14%); and Reno, NV (10%). Work is expected to be complete by Dec12. MCSC Quantico, VA manages the contract (M67854-05-D-6014, #0033)
This does look like a good system that Polaris should be able to support quite easily. I am not a trigger puller, but if these guys want to move out of counter battery fire quickly, it might be a good diea to figure out how to raise that mortar off the ground a few feet quickly with the lift, get the hell out of dodge by a few hundred yards, and then stow everything properly.
ReplyDelete