EFV concerns

[Tracrat1]

I'm always amazed by how much the EFV is praised, but nothing really happens to get this "critical system" to the field. As a former 1833 gunny, who has more ship time then half the current amtrackers put together, all this "talk" about the capabilities of the EFV doesn't impress me. Believe me, I would love to see this thing prove itself and put a better amtrac in the hands of our Marines, but we are also taking a career's worth of time and billions of dollars to get there. We are not talking about a new destoyer or even a new fighter jet that can engage the enemy from miles away. We are talking about an armored personnel carrier designed to get close and personal with an assigned enemy force and if need be, run them over. This vehicle needs to be robust enough to handle heavy pounding at sea and the heavy handling by PFC Smith just to get to the enemy. Why all the sophistication? How is it that a nation that put men on the moon 40 years ago or designed and flew the SR-71 in one years time, can't design and field a tracked combat vehicle without multiple layers of bureaucracy? Remember the BMP? I can assure you the Soviets did not take 15 years and billions of taxpayers dollars to field that revolutionary vehicle.
This question is for anyone who cares. Since the initial EFV's crewchiefs are not even in high school yet, what steps are we taking as a "force in readiness" to preparing our Marines for this thing? Not much, from what I've been told. The new weapon system and the act of navigating from over the horizon will be brand new to our Marines. Maybe getting our 1833's back in the ocean, ship or no ship, and new gunnery courses might be helpful in establishing SOP's so that we aren't surprised when this thing finally shows up.
Finally, I believe someone has designed this thing into the ground to the point where it will not matter how big it is; or how well armored it is; or how electronic it is or how much hydraulic fluid it needs to operate everything. IED's have taken out tanks designed to survive hits by other tanks. An IED or a simple land mine or even a 40 year old RPG won't care what we have. It will be taken out just the same as anything else has in the last 60 plus years of amtrac history. I had plenty of time to think about those things while I rode in my turret during CAX or on "float". As long as I knew that I had a good, reliable vehicle and a good crew, I could fight the enemy on my terms and achieve success. We need a good reliable vehicle and we need it now, not years from now. GySgt John Oster Ret. 1833 from 1983-2004

[aavmaj]

I agree with Tracrat. The EFV is an interest piece of equipment but is not a flesable piece of gear. Good crews with reliable equipment has always carried the day. If you want state of the art, you are in the wrong service. The Marine Corps wants reliable equipment. Consider the follow issues about the EFV.
- You are going to take a piece of equipment with more computers and hydralics (Neither react well to salt water) than a F-18 fighter and submerge it in salt water. To do the 1st/2nd echelon maintenance instead of the 150 Marines in a VFMA squadron to maintain 12 aircraft, you will get 3 wrench turners plus the 3 man crews in the platoon.

- During a amphibious assault from 25 miles, the EFV will burn 150 gallons of fuel in the high speed water transit mode (6 gallons a miles). The assualt element will have to maintain 120-150 gallons of fuel to conduct a withdrawal if required. Leaving 70-100 gallons of fuel (4-6 hours) of land operations time before a decision must be made. If the landing goes well, the BLT Cdr will have to bring ashore almost 200 tons of fuel and ammo to resupply his BLT while conducting other operations.

- There is no navy small vessel that can keep up with the EFV in high speed mode. (No recovery at sea)

- The AAV crewmen will have to learn more high perishible skills (high speed open sea water navigation) in a time where there is not enough money to maintain the current set. Most reserve units have not done AAV intensive exercises such as CAX and Amphibious Operations Training in 3-5 years and are not capable of executing amphibious operations.

The AAV\RAM RS variant is a reliable and flexible piece of hardware. It can haul a much more varied type of load than the EFV. It does need an upgraded weapons system and night fighting capability. AV Technology had developed a 30mm single man turret as a replacement for the UGWS with much of the upgrades needed already in the turret in the mid 90's. In 1997 while I was at track school, a company demonstrated a integrated night sight system with remote viewing of the drivers or the gunners sights at the TC position and in the troop compartment while we were on the range. The equipment is out there and could be procured for a tenth the cost of a new EFV without the retraining issues. Yes, I will admit that the hulls are old and need to be replaced, but a remanufacturing\recycling of the old hulls to make new hulls with some evolutionary changes would cost much less and provide the Marine Corps capability right now, vice ten years from now.