Amphibious Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle - Maybe for the SCTF?

[Albertaone]

This is a completely unrelated topic and my apologies for shanghaing this posting.  But since all you armoured experts are here I would solicit your opinions on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that the U.S Marine Corps is adopting.  I was thinking that it might bode well for Canada to purchase some of these for arctic sovereignty patrols. (the could used in the warmer months not sure how well these vehicles could handle the harsh environment up north.)  Since the north is melting it might be wise to have an amphibious vehicle that can perform island hopping tasks.  Am I off the mark on this one?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

You mean this thing?

 

[a_majoor]

Water ski to battle! The Marines really know how to recruit  ;D ;D ;D

How well it works is another matter, but certainly for a different thread.

This thread should now be consigned to the history bin; the question was answered with the recent anouncement of Canada's purchase of Leopard 2A6 tanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm trying to understand why they have all that det-cord wrapped around the hatches.  >

Brilliant for Aid to the Civil Power in the Gulf Islands and the Thousand Islands. 

But as Arthur and others suggest - that's a tale for another thread.....along with the HAPC, Namera et al.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I'm trying to understand why they have all that det-cord wrapped around the hatches.  >

Brilliant for Aid to the Civil Power in the Gulf Islands and the Thousand Islands. 

But as Arthur and others suggest - that's a tale for another thread.....along with the HAPC, Namera et al.

Doesn't look like det cord to me Kirkhill.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

This is a completely unrelated topic and my apologies for shanghaing this posting.  But since all you armoured experts are here I would solicit your opinions on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that the U.S Marine Corps is adopting.   I was thinking that it might bode well for Canada to purchase some of these for arctic sovereignty patrols. (the could used in the warmer months not sure how well these vehicles could handle the harsh environment up north.)   Since the north is melting it might be wise to have an amphibious vehicle that can perform island hopping tasks.  Am I off the mark on this one?

Latest update I read on the vehicle was that in recent testing a major system breaks every 4 hours, and there's no way they can put it into service.


Matthew. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Doesn't look like det cord to me Kirkhill.

Sorry sapper - poor attempt at humour.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Sorry sapper - poor attempt at humour.

No Problem.

Looks like the those cables might be attached to sensors, as the cable runs all the way to the trim vane.

 

[McG]

I'm trying to understand why they have all that det-cord wrapped around the hatches.  >

Probably sensors so that the scientists can get some feed back from trials conducted on a prototype model.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

From DID Article

WOW

The EFV is the top land acquisition priority of the U.S. Marine Corps, with a number of new capabilities surpassing the AA7 Amtracs it would replace - along with a much heftier price tag. Indeed, the US GAO reports that it accounts for 25.5% of the Corps' total acquisition budget during FY 2006-2011.

This DID article addresses some of those capabilites, and tracks ongoing contracts related to the EFV program as it completes system design & development. The most recent contract allocates over $100 million to try and fix some of the problems covered in our November 2006 program update.

Full Rate Production was scheduled for the FY 2011-2020 period, with Full Operational Capability (FOC) was scheduled for FY 2020.

 

[ghazise]

The picture of the EFV is a prototype vehicle, and the it was from the prototype vehicles which had the 4 hour breakdown period.

 

[Armymedic]

Perhaps by the time that veh is actually fielded, the SCTF will no longer be dead in the water....

Possibly a purchase announcement in 2015?

 

[ringo]

Procuring some BVS10 Viking's may be a better place to start.

 

[mudrecceman]

I was just watching Future Weapons on the Discovery Channel, and its showing the EFV...impressive at first glance.  25 mile OTH capability...28 knots speed on water and supposedly it can go 200 miles on land without tanking up again after 25 miles in the water.  30mm cannon (200 RPM) with 7.62 coax, claimed to be accurate 2000m, day/night all weather.  Carries 17 Marines.  45 mph on land.

 

[dapaterson]

Remember, that's the manufacturer's claim, that the Discovery Channel team has no opportunity to independently verify.  Sort of like buying a car based solely on the manufacturer's claims in an ad or on their website, without bothering to read the fine print or take it for a test drive.

 

[mudrecceman]

Remember, that's the manufacturer's claim, that the Discovery Channel team has no opportunity to independently verify.  Sort of like buying a car based solely on the manufacturer's claims in an ad or on their website, without bothering to read the fine print or take it for a test drive.

Roger that...hence why I said "at first glance" 

I noticed there was no "firepower display" what-so-ever.   

But...ya COULD ski behind the sucker!   

No mention was made about the "over the water, then on land" distances/speed WRT to dry weight/combat load...lots to pick apart but...still impressive to "watch".

The Marine Col seemed to think it was a good piece of kit...he must have shares in the company 

 

[Cardstonkid]

If I remember correctly this whole project is under review as it is seriously over budget and had been plagued with problems. I believe there is confidence the system can be made to work. It is pretty cool , but that aside if it cannot be made to work at a reasonable price then there is no point in building it.

 

[mudrecceman]

Rgr that.

Any input from forum members from "the south" on this one?

 

[evil drunken-fool]

Remember, that's the manufacturer's claim, that the Discovery Channel team has no opportunity to independently verify.  Sort of like buying a car based solely on the manufacturer's claims in an ad or on their website, without bothering to read the fine print or take it for a test drive.

I thought I seen this already posted in here but I guess not. This thing has a ton of cost overruns and has not performed anywhere near what it was suppose to. I can't seem to find any consistent stats on performance at all.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003265.html

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

LCF aside, how much capability would this add beyond LCAC+LAV (honest question, not a challenge)?