Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon Is Poised to Cancel Marine Landing Craft (EFV)
The New York Times ^ | January 5, 2011 | CHRISTOPHER DREW

Posted on 01/06/2011 5:16:58 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki

Pentagon Is Poised to Cancel Marine Landing Craft

By CHRISTOPHER DREW

It was supposed to be a tank that swims, a new way for the Marines to storm hostile beaches.

The vehicle was conceived to carry Marines ashore and move inland without pausing on the beach. It has faced problems in combining its land and sea technology. But as military budgets come under pressure, the 38-ton landing craft that turns into an assault vehicle seems destined to be the next bit of high-tech wizardry to bite the dust.

Pentagon and industry officials say the defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, is poised to cancel the long-delayed $14.4 billion program on Thursday, when he is expected to announce a new round of belt-tightening at the Pentagon. The hybrid vehicle, being built by General Dynamics, is the most expensive weapons system to be cut since Mr. Gates canceled or trimmed three dozen programs in April 2009.

Mr. Gates is also likely on Thursday to approve a two-year delay in the Marine Corps version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, the military’s largest program, and spell out how he plans to save up to $100 billion on the Pentagon’s operations.

The military is facing intensifying political and economic pressures to restrain its budget, and Mr. Gates has sought to contain the demands by ending troubled weapons systems and squeezing more efficiency out of the Pentagon’s bureaucracy to pay for other programs. But Congress will have the final say on many of the decisions, including the fate of the hybrid Marine vehicle, and it remains hard to tell how it will balance the fiscal demands with

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: efv; ifv; marines; usmc

Gregory Bull/Associated Press

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle in a test run off the coast of Oceanside, Calif. The $14.4 billion program has been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

1 posted on 01/06/2011 5:17:01 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

These globalists have been using “cost cutting” as an excuse to destroy our military, even though 57% of our tax dollars go to medicare/medicaid/social security.

Our military will be that of a 3rd world country in 10 years. Pathetic.


2 posted on 01/06/2011 5:27:25 AM PST by kingpins10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

They can save even more money by cutting perks and allowances for the General Staff and senior officers.


3 posted on 01/06/2011 5:30:48 AM PST by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
What! They've forgotten how to build World War II LVT-2 Water Buffalos?

Landing Vehicle Tracked


4 posted on 01/06/2011 5:36:26 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The EFV program is a disaster both in terms of the requirement, and the execution of the program, and should have been canceled LONG ago.

Of course,FR today is going to be filled with clueless knee-jerk comments by people totally unfamiliar with the EFV and its problems, though.

Major military procurement programs were canceled under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

The idea that EVERY military program is good and canceling ANY of them is treason is intellectually unsustainable.


5 posted on 01/06/2011 5:55:34 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
I can only guess at the EFV's developmental problems. But they would be educated guesses since I am a former Army infantry officer as well as a systems engineer who has been working for several years in developing complex systems.

EFV seems to fundamentally suffer from overambitious requirements. They want a vehicle that can operate on land as an APC but do 25 knots in the water and carry half a platoon of jarheads. Good grief!

6 posted on 01/06/2011 6:01:32 AM PST by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru

Well, basically the idea is to move the amphib ships further offshore during an opposed assault.

However, advances in anti-ship missiles, etc. mean that that movement further offshore doesn’t really help anything.

And indeed trying to create an amphibious vehicle that was that fast in water basically was beyond the ability of technology to do so affordably.

And then you have added on that the EFV, once on land, is basically helpless against IEDs, and can’t really be modified to be resistant to them.


7 posted on 01/06/2011 6:04:20 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Why not hovercraft? that technology has been around for years


8 posted on 01/06/2011 6:09:44 AM PST by artificial intelligence (Your data will be processed by me for future input. Thank you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

I’m reminded of the floating Shermans they tried to use in the Normandy invasion. Those things were floating coffins.


9 posted on 01/06/2011 6:21:27 AM PST by popdonnelly (Democrats = authoritarian socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: artificial intelligence

And what do you do when you’re on land and need to fight?

Hovercraft are not fighting vehicles.


10 posted on 01/06/2011 6:24:28 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

And they’re still pulling them up from the ocean. Good show on TLC or History about a crew that pulled one up and restored it.

No thanks.
I’ll swim.


11 posted on 01/06/2011 6:26:31 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

What kind of administration is it that will spend it’s
money feeding unproductive voters, but protecting
some poor shit scared jarhead assaulting an armed
foreign shore in the deployment of foreign policy
gets his protection cut in the name of “Budget”?


12 posted on 01/06/2011 6:30:07 AM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: artificial intelligence
Why not hovercraft?

Good idea!

for the vehicles, we use Delorean

For our troops, Mattel can make it

13 posted on 01/06/2011 6:46:31 AM PST by greatdefender (If You Want Peace.....Prepare For War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: artificial intelligence

For our troops, Mattel can make it

(I don't know what happened but just incase it doesn't show up again)

14 posted on 01/06/2011 6:51:16 AM PST by greatdefender (If You Want Peace.....Prepare For War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
The idea that EVERY military program is good and canceling ANY of them is treason is intellectually unsustainable.

100% agree. Knee-jerk reaction is always to attack anything that 'appears' to be an 'attack' on the military. What is often lost in these stories, is that these 'technologies' are usually, in most cases, not 'fielded systems'. The military is not using them. They are being developed by civilian agencies/corporations with contracts from the military. The little known skeleton in the closet is that military-contracted civilian R&D is routinely plagued by cost overruns and delays, especially when developing 'hardware systems' (ie. vehicles, planes, ships, etc). This is why when cost cutting is done to the military research budget, hardware systems are usually the first to get the axe. Just look at what happened to the Future Combat Systems program, they were planning for 14 new vehicle platforms and they got gutted.

15 posted on 01/06/2011 6:59:59 AM PST by LoneStarGI (Vegetarian: Old Indian word for "BAD HUNTER.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: In summation, what you have before you is...
Sgt. Fanning: A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance...
Lt. Colonel James Burton: And a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow-blower, but carries enough ammo to take out half of D.C. THIS is what we're building?
16 posted on 01/06/2011 7:02:33 AM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just reload)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
I have followed the EFV program strictly from the point of view of project management. It was doomed form the start. To many requirements and too small an envelope. People have to learn to take baby steps and not throw the kitchen sink on top of every project. Running it as an old style big project also sealed it's fate. The Marines should of gone to some one like the Howe brothers for extensive proof of concept work rather than design it, build it, and find out it wasn't worth a $hit.
17 posted on 01/06/2011 7:08:43 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (V for Vendetta.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

Why not? Weapons cannot be installed on hovercraft? They were in Vietnam granted maybe not heavy weapons but with drones, aircraft, missiles, light weight, rapid fire and heavy firepower weapons today I don’t see why not.


18 posted on 01/06/2011 7:12:08 AM PST by artificial intelligence (Your data will be processed by me for future input. Thank you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kingpins10

“These globalists have been using “cost cutting” as an excuse to destroy our military, even though 57% of our tax dollars go to medicare/medicaid/social security”
****************************************************************************************************

I’m for eliminating all three entitlements. Chiefly because by the time I can get any, (25 years) there won’t be any
money left to fund them. So I get to fund the post WWII
Baby Boomers who are retiring at a rate of TEN
THOUSAND! a day for the next NINETEEN years.

So go ask them to give all that up and then we can spend as much as we like on swimming tanks.


19 posted on 01/06/2011 7:12:49 AM PST by NeverForgetBataan (To the German Commander: ..........................NUTS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: artificial intelligence

They work well on the ocean, beach, and other open areas, but they require an ungodly footprint for the weight they carry. A hovercraft APC, with ARMOR, would be insanely huge and not very maneuverable around trees, bushes, etc. They don’t turn on a dime, while a tracked or wheeled vehicle can pivot in place. Minor hits with small arms fire would degrade the lift skirts and cripple them. Not to mention the insane horsepower required to lift and move them.


20 posted on 01/06/2011 7:21:48 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: artificial intelligence

How about WHALES?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kG6Auwt81Q


21 posted on 01/06/2011 9:01:19 AM PST by wally_bert (It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Union labor will always drive the price of projects beyond a reasonable price for a finished project every time giving the libs and rinos all the ammunition they need to take an ax to any much needed piece of equipment.

Just sayin.

22 posted on 01/06/2011 10:28:53 AM PST by Anotherpunkedamerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki; Strategerist
The EFV was canceled because of the Navy's new SSC (Ship to Shore Connector) that will replace the current LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushioned). The EFV was a good idea but impractical in terms of bad weather and required farther stand-offshore distances.

The reason for launching amphibious ops farther offshore is not because of land based missiles or arty. It is because we need to be over the horizon to avoid most land-based radar detection. That's about 24 miles currently and we would prefer 40 miles.

Here's a look at the SSC:

http://www.ship2shoreconnector.com/

Also, there was no reliable way to predict cross currents and wave height in advance of the 24 mile travel time of the EFV.

Finally, having done a beach assault last year from an LCAC, I cannot imagine the rough ride you would get in a much smaller EFV.

I hope the SSC is faster and better able to handle rough water, the LCAC was a nightmare.

23 posted on 01/06/2011 10:28:56 AM PST by gandalftb (Fighting jihadists is like fighting an earthquake, harden yourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson