What went wrong?

This piece of shit looks so terrible, might as well be one of those Syrian metal boxes they drive around using nothing but playstation controllers.

US doesn't know how to procure new land vehicles
On top of the marines not knowing how to procure ANYTHING

glad we're getting either Patria or Textron senpai

>>31370915
>>31370924
>>31370931

No seriously, what was the problem.

It worked fine. And it would have been a HUGE boost to the amphibious capability of the marines. It was much, much faster in the water than an AAV, and more importantly, it could travel much further as well, allow landing ships to stay further from shore.

>>31370957
It's a fantasy vehicle that was never going to work and has no reason to exist in the first place.

File: 1372365423393.jpg (265KB, 2100x1384px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 2100x1384px

>>31370886
Sup nerd

>>31370931
No you aren't its the Iveco and the Terrex.

>>31371006
What does that front part do?

File: 1474005996314.png (93KB, 250x237px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 250x237px

>Guys we need a heavily armored amphibious assault vehicle to get muhreens on the beach
>When we know for a fact beach landings under fire are a thing of the past

>>31372337
Bow plane. It's so water doesn't go over the top of the vic when it's being amphibious.

But yeah the EFV was a fucking nightmare. When I was in the AAV schoolhouse in 09 we would see the AVTB guys taking them out and have them get towed back a few hours later. They were a maintenance nightmare, especially compared to the p7a1's they were meant to replace.

Think a land based f35 that got the plug pulled because Amos was a pilot and had a bonerfor the f35 over anything the ground combat elements wanted and funded by only the marine corps.

It did have a lot of really amazing shit in it, the turret alone was great. Touch screen and tracking up to like 7 targets if I remember correctly. Hopefully the technology developed for it will live on and make it to the AAV community but who knows, the Amtrack mafia would sabotage it in a heartbeat if it threatened there post marine corps contractor gigs.

>>31370886
Obscenely expensive and unreliable due to the fucking insane engine requirements.

>>31372358

>Guys we need a heavily armored amphibious assault vehicle to get muhreens on the beach

I don't see the problem here. The AAV is out of date, and it's sub-par protection has been rightfully criticized. The EFV was to be the solution.

>When we know for a fact beach landings under fire are a thing of the past

How do you know that for sure?

>>31372413
No-one is arguing the AAV was shit. The ACV is the best solution.

>How do you know that for sure?
Marine aviation alone is larger than most country's air forces. Any beach that ever needs to be landed on will be pummeled by the Navy and Air Force so fucking hard it'll look like a meteor hit it. The USMC does not fight with WW2 tactics. Case in point, the America class LHD having no well deck.

File: 800px-Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle[1].jpg (74KB, 800x576px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x576px

>>31372460

>Case in point, the America class LHD having no well deck.

I agree. That's a step in the right direction. But you still need a way to get marines onto the beach. But why is the ACV a better solution than the EFV?

>>31372496
The ACV is a faster and lighter, and cheaper solution to what is ultimately a taxi from the ship to the shore. It's not the tip of the spear, that's what air power, tanks and missiles are for, it doesn't all the extra bells and whistles.

>>31370957
>After the 2006 Operational Assessment was plagued by reliability issues and maintenance burdens, the Corps began a redesign of the EFV, requiring a new contract for an additional US$143.5 million in February 2007.
>That June, a reset of the development phase delayed completion an additional four years.
>Instead of initiating production as planned, the corps asked for seven new prototypes, to address the current deficiencies, which have caused an average of one failure for every four and a half hours of operation
The thing was a money sink that never worked properly.
Also it was originally intended to be launched 25 miles offshore, beyond the range of coastal anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) launchers of the time it came into concept.
Newer ASCMs have a range of 75 miles, which renders the EFV obsolete by the time it would have reached the production phase

File: Landing_Ship_Transport_100_LST[1].jpg (124KB, 1300x767px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1300x767px

>>31372546

Another thing the Navy sorely needs is to bring back LST's (AKA tank landing ships) to complement other amphibious vessels already in service. If you want to get lots of stuff ashore quickly without needing to make several trips, this is the way to do it. The Navy used to have many LST's for this purpose but for some reason they all got retired without being replaced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCTPSoaUtwk

We got AAV7A2 instead (way later). Plus the whole procurement development cycle for it was fucked. Marine Corps (speaking as a Marine) should attempt to maintain the greatest possible commonality of vehicles with all the other branches. As far as what's going on now, I think the AAV needs replacement although the A2 upgrade program greatly increased its operational service life. EFV was just riddled with too many problems.

I use to read about that vechicle in Leatherneck magazine when I was in high school in the late 1990s. I served 9 years in the Corps in LAR. Got out in 2006. Still in testing/eval. Shit canned in 2011 after wasting billions.

It shouldn't take 15+ years to develop a vechicle.

>>31370886
is that a littoral combat ship?

Why in the blue hell has America never developed an Ekranoplan?

File: LCU-2008.jpg (82KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x600px

>>31372575
The Army has a number of those already in service. Nothing as fancy as that, though.

File: Screenshot (155).png (937KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

937KB, 1366x768px

>>31373411
American could never compete.

File: Screenshot (158).png (949KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 1366x768px

>>31373429

>>31370957
>It worked fine.

No, it didn't. That was the problem.

Its high output MTU engine broke down all the time and it had an absurd unit cost, which was a death sentence for an amphibious vehicle when we were fighting a war in the desert and mountains.

>>31373232
Welcome to the modern military industrial complex. Peace, corruption and increasing construction complexity do that.

File: e5fe46bda218.jpg (64KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 700x467px

>>31371006
is china the new Soviet?
their AFV have a Soviet via

>>31372337
It falls off.

>>31372413
>How do you know that for sure?

Think back to D-day. Use the opening of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" if you have to. The first platoons storming the beaches literally had a 90% casualty rate. Once they got past the beaches, they were good and turned the tables. If the marines had simply gone ashore somewhere other than the beach, say by using chopper insertion to drop in behind it, they would have avoided the machine guns that were trained at sea and many lives would have been saved.

File: 1470350656043.jpg (68KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x387px

>>31373751
kek

>>31373789
>If the marines had simply gone ashore somewhere other than the beach, say by using chopper insertion to drop in behind it, they would have avoided the machine guns that were trained at sea and many lives would have been saved.
>What is MANPADS?
>What is AAA?

The simple fact of the matter is that, and to no fault of their own, the US, or really any major military, hasn't had to perform such operations in a very long time. The fact is that, given our experiences during the initial phases of the Overlord campaign, the US and pretty much every major military knows the basic dos and don'ts of an amphibious assault. On top of this, given the increased precision of bombs and missiles, improved individual body armor, massive logistical capability, the ability to use all-weather air assets as well as persistent air assets such as drones and gunships, as well as America's emphasis on air superiority before risking ground assets, it could be assumed that another D-Day like casualty rate in a large scale invasion is unlikely.

Is the era of the Pacific-style large-scale amphibious invasion truly over? Perhaps. Then again, anyone with access to a map of the Pacific Ocean could tell you that the world has not seen the last of amphibious warfare.

>>31373789
there were no US Marine forces involved in the D-Day landings

>>31373875
Marines are soldiers that live on boats, aren't they?

File: 5bf.gif (54KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 625x626px

>>31373893

>>31370886
It might be quicker to ask what didn't go wrong during the invasion of Atlantis.

>>31372394
This issomething that needs to be solved asap
Officers going direct into working for contractors after retiring
Should be defacto proof of corruption and put them in prison.

>>31373867
>not having a preparatory DEAD campaign
>not escorting your transport helicopters by preceding them with the AH-1s that are organic to the MEU.