Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

[BlackMoria]

I saw a segment on the AAV7 replacement, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) on the show Futureweapons.

According to the segment, it is scheduled to enter service in 2011 (not that far off). It is 4 times faster than the AAV7 on water and nearly twice as fast on land. It carries 17 Marines + 3 Crew. More heavily armored than the AAV (Global Security website states specification is to stop 14.7mm rounds, something the current AAV armor cannot without apply armor mods.

Armed with a 30 mm cannon and 7.62mm coaxial machinegun.

I sure would love to see this added to a future patch so we can use this puppy in the game. (blantant hint to Battlefront....hint*hint*hint)

[MikeyD]

From what I hear EFV is a DOG. Nothing's gone right in its design and testing. Makes the old DIVAD AAA program look like a model of project management in comparison.

[Sergei]

WASHINGTON: Poor management by the Defense Department and General Dynamics Corp. has led to billions of dollars in overruns and years of delays for a key Marine Corps tank program, a congressional panel said Tuesday.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that major development flaws have pushed up the cost of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program by 168 percent per tank and pushed the production deadline back by eight years.

.

.

According to the House Oversight report, the program has suffered from a lack of effective oversight and unrealistic expectations. The report also noted that General Dynamics often fixed problems after they were discovered "rather than anticipating them through a comprehensive design process."

Operational problems discovered during an assessment in 2006 included frequent breakdowns, structural flaws with the turrets, leaking hydraulic systems and excessive weight that prevented the tanks from reaching cruising speed unless important equipment was removed.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/29/america/House-Hearing-GAO-Report.php

According to everything I've read, due to the delays and increased price the Marines will now only be buying 500-ish EFV's instead of twice that, and they will only enter service by 2015.

[-Eddie-]

Apparently the EFV is also slipping behind schedule due to the USMC not being happy with it. For every four hours of operation, the EFV has one breakdown. Now you may say this is a military vehicle, it undergoes some very tough punishment. The fact is, if it's a military vehicle; it should be reliable.

And having the EFV in Marines wouldn't really make sense to me. We'd have to replace the AAV-7A1 with the EFV. Now, an armoured LAV-25 with 25mm and a more armoured but still relatively weak EFV with 30mm wouldn't really suit me, or many people I'm sure.

We'd lose the 40mm and 12.7mm GMG and HMG for a 30mm cannon, a 7.62mm GPMG and a huge troop and storage capacity for slightly more armour, which doesn't do much for me.

[Sergei]

We'd lose the 40mm and 12.7mm GMG and HMG for a 30mm cannon, a 7.62mm GPMG and a huge troop and storage capacity for slightly more armour, which doesn't do much for me.

It ought to swim three times as fast as AAV, which has some importance for the vehicle's intended special role. That doesn't do much in counter-insurgency patrolling, though.

[-Eddie-]

I see your point, but unless we're going to be doing beach assaults from ships this doesn't have much impact on CM:SF really. Also, you're right, swimming faster and having a 30mm cannon doesn't do much for COIN ops.

[Apocal]

It ought to swim three times as fast as AAV, which has some importance for the vehicle's intended special role. That doesn't do much in counter-insurgency patrolling, though.

Unfortunately for all involved, that special role is bull**** to begin with. If the littoral threat is that great*, you're going by helo from much further out than even an EFV can hope to cross.

*Great enough to justify an OTH amphibious assault. If not, you can just wade ashore with what we have right now.

[bardosy]

http://www.efv.usmc.mil/photos.asp

[BlackMoria]

I think some posters are missing the point.

It is not if the EFV brings anything new to the game. It is the AAV7 replacement either in 2011 or 2015 and so for some of us who like to try to stay with an accurate TO&E for scenarios, it would be nice to have in the game for simulating Marine scenarios in the 2011/15 plus time frame.

[Sergei]

But then you would also have to include everything else, both equipment and organizations, that may or may not enter service in United States, Syria, Britain, Germany etc. within that time frame. And that's a lot of extra hassle for a game that is supposed to model a war taking place in 2008.

[BlackMoria]

But then you would also have to include everything else, both equipment and organizations, that may or may not enter service in United States, Syria, Britain, Germany etc. within that time frame. And that's a lot of extra hassle for a game that is supposed to model a war taking place in 2008.

Point made. Adding equipment in patches (or modules) would ensure CMSF keeps its legs though. But I will concede the point at it would add more work to the developers. And patches don't pay the bills for the developers.

Maybe in the hinted at CMSF 2....

[Dietrich]

I saw a segment on the AAV7 replacement, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) on the show Futureweapons.

According to the segment, it is scheduled to enter service in 2011 (not that far off). It is 4 times faster than the AAV7 on water and nearly twice as fast on land. It carries 17 Marines + 3 Crew. More heavily armored than the AAV (Global Security website states specification is to stop 14.7mm rounds, something the current AAV armor cannot without apply armor mods.

Did Future Weapons make any mention of the fact that the EFV's flat hull bottom (which is necessary for the vehicle's good sea performance) is more mine- and IED-friendly than the other armored vehicles fielded by the US Armed Forces? Didn't think so.

Future Weapons is fun to watch, but the info it presents should, I think, be taken with a grain of salt. A case in point: in a segment about the Alexander Arms .50-cal Beowulf (basically an über-bore AR-15), Richard "Mac" Machowicz states that the Beowulf offers superior anti-vehicle capability than the standard 5.56m round. The show illustrates this by having him in a Chevy Suburban being tailed by some masked AK-47-wielding guys in (of all things) a Ford Taurus station wagon. Mac and his driver stop, jump out, bring their Beowulfs to bear on the station wagon and blast it...from only 20m away. At that range, would an M4's or M16's bullets really not be able to penetrate the body panels and windshield? Sure, heavier punch is better, but it's not like the five-fifty-six is all that much less effective -- especially when the Beowulf has 20 fewer rounds than a standard M4/M16 and is effective only within 200 meters.

[PSY]

I think some posters are missing the point.

It is not if the EFV brings anything new to the game. It is the AAV7 replacement either in 2011 or 2015 and so for some of us who like to try to stay with an accurate TO&E for scenarios, it would be nice to have in the game for simulating Marine scenarios in the 2011/15 plus time frame.

I think it's a CMSF2 issue. Battlefront says that when CMSF2 comes out (after CM:Normandy and CM:Western Europe late 1944-1945) they'll give us temperate climes, top-line Russian equipment, and update the US, US Marines, Brits, and NATO units to whatever is available at that time. So if the new EFV is close to deployment when CMSF2 comes out, I would expect we would see it then.

[akd]

Did Future Weapons make any mention of the fact that the EFV's flat hull bottom (which is necessary for the vehicle's good sea performance) is more mine- and IED-friendly than the other armored vehicles fielded by the US Armed Forces? Didn't think so.

Future Weapons is fun to watch, but the info it presents should, I think, be taken with a grain of salt. A case in point: in a segment about the Alexander Arms .50-cal Beowulf (basically an über-bore AR-15), Richard "Mac" Machowicz states that the Beowulf offers superior anti-vehicle capability than the standard 5.56m round. The show illustrates this by having him in a Chevy Suburban being tailed by some masked AK-47-wielding guys in (of all things) a Ford Taurus station wagon. Mac and his driver stop, jump out, bring their Beowulfs to bear on the station wagon and blast it...from only 20m away. At that range, would an M4's or M16's bullets really not be able to penetrate the body panels and windshield? Sure, heavier punch is better, but it's not like the five-fifty-six is all that much less effective -- especially when the Beowulf has 20 fewer rounds than a standard M4/M16 and is effective only within 200 meters.

Actually, that bit is partly true. 5.56mm typically has poor performance behind intermediate barriers, but that is due to its behavior after penetration. However, if terrorists in autos is your problem, 7.62mm is a much better solution.

[Dietrich]

Actually, that bit is partly true. 5.56mm typically has poor performance behind intermediate barriers, but that is due to its behavior after penetration.

I stand corrected.

if terrorists in autos is your problem, 7.62mm is a much better solution.

Which is why I say, might as well wield something AR-like in 6.8mm or 6.5mm Grendel -- better punch than 5.56mm and more ammo per mag than .50-cal.

[dischord]

And patches don't pay the bills for the developers.

They sure do. If you patch your game - I buy your next one. If you don't patch - I don't. It's purely a business decision to patch. (well maybe except Battlefront - who patches purely out of the goodness of their heart!)

[cmfan]

Future Weapons is fun to watch, but the info it presents should, I think, be taken with a grain of salt. A case in point: in a segment about the Alexander Arms .50-cal Beowulf (basically an über-bore AR-15), Richard "Mac" Machowicz states that the Beowulf offers superior anti-vehicle capability than the standard 5.56m round. The show illustrates this by having him in a Chevy Suburban being tailed by some masked AK-47-wielding guys in (of all things) a Ford Taurus station wagon. Mac and his driver stop, jump out, bring their Beowulfs to bear on the station wagon and blast it...from only 20m away. At that range, would an M4's or M16's bullets really not be able to penetrate the body panels and windshield? Sure, heavier punch is better, but it's not like the five-fifty-six is all that much less effective -- especially when the Beowulf has 20 fewer rounds than a standard M4/M16 and is effective only within 200 meters.

Future Weapons is fun from time to time but it does seem annoyingly "fanboyish" after a while. I never get the sense that we're seeing an honest evaluation of the weapons highlighted each week but rather a long series of commercials for them. I can't recall specific moments but even with my dated and limited knowledge of military technology I've heard them give weapon system evaluations that are certainly overblown or one sided. If its new, it must be good.

[akd]

I dunno. Any time someone whispers to me, I know it must be true.

[Flanker15]

There was an older show I watched that is basically the same as Future weapons except much better. The host and writing was much more mature and easier to listen too without cringing. Had a guy with a moustache hosting it.

Future weapons lost most of its cred after it went on about Dragon skin armor being the best.

[-Eddie-]

Future Weapons gets on my t*ts. It's one of the most biased programmes I've seen, it's all amazingly pro-West, pro-USA and anti-'commie'. While I agree the equipment is good, the way the show brings it across, every one of those items is like Jesus.

The tests are relatively fair, but usually don't take into account any defensive or bluffing equipment such as jammers and counter battery fire. I noticed the NLOS-C item must have been filmed a while ago as I believe it's now too heavy to carry in a C-130.

[GSX]

But then you would also have to include everything else, both equipment and organizations, that may or may not enter service in United States, Syria, Britain, Germany etc. within that time frame. And that's a lot of extra hassle for a game that is supposed to model a war taking place in 2008.

This is a good point, we already have a fair few things that werent in the inventory of the forces in 2008. For the Brits alone there are weapons and aircraft that were not deployed in Summer 2008. Then theres BMP-3 etc.

These things do add to the game, but its kind of like having the Centurion as the main UK MBT in 1944.

Im in the we have enough sci fi in the game camp for now, safe the future stuff for future games beyond 2010 or such.

[flamingknives]

GSX, I can only see one bit of equipment and no aircraft on the list that could not have been deployed in summer 2008 by the British*. Which ones do you think are wrong?

In fact, I can only see one bit of kit and one aircraft that wasn't actually deployed in that time frame.

*Technically. Politically is another issue