Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/13/2006 8:57:11 PM EST
news.com.com/2300-52_3-6061142-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg

Marines test-drive next-gen armored vehicle



It may look a little like the fake dragon in the James Bond movie "Dr. No," but the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is actually the next-generation amphibious troop carrier for the U.S. Marine Corps. The EFV is due to go into service at the end of the decade, a higher-tech replacement for the Marines' aging workhorse, the Amphibious Assault Vehicle, originally fielded in 1972.

On Thursday, the Pentagon awarded General Dynamics a $44 million contract to complete the current phase of development.




Digital displays are an integral part of the EFV for displaying maps and vehicle control systems. The vehicle is also set to include state-of-the-art voice and data communications.


"A 2,700-horsepower engine will propel the EFV through the water at up to 25 knots, and on land at up to 45 miles per hour. Operational testing is scheduled for the summer."


"Rear view of the EFV, with the decidedly low-tech--and indispensable--gear of shovel and sledgehammer."


"The EFV, looking menacing at night on the firing range. The main weapon is a 30mm automatic chain gun."
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:04:12 PM EST
That top one looks kinda like some of them old tanks from WWI
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:07:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
That top one looks kinda like some of them old tanks from WWI



+1


Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:10:41 PM EST
That is one UGLY ass BMP-3
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:15:23 PM EST
More like an LVT-A4

Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:21:45 PM EST
Lumpy would know.

Do you still do the News Photo for Gun Nuts threads Lump?
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:26:25 PM EST
Looks like some kind of field-expedient improvization from WWII.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:29:00 PM EST


Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:33:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:39:54 PM EST
Hmmm!





I see fractricide in the future.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 9:55:29 PM EST
What we need has been around since 1990 with the Russians.
Essentially an MBT (Main Battle Tank) that carries seven geared-up troops plus three crew. Can fire rockets and various odd rounds through the main barrel at a normal rate (that feature would be very nice in Iraq, gotta admit).







'Bout damn time we get something along those lines. I think it needs a bigger gun and more support-fire capabilities. Aside from that, I like it!
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 10:02:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/13/2006 10:03:18 PM EST by Mr45auto]
I do wonder however about all the electronics in the military. How functional can the vehicle be in an extended operation with little support? It seems with all of the newer stuff you've got to have it constantly maintained by teams of specialized crews with tons of hi tech gizmos. I fear the day we're in some seriously deep shit and the supply lines are minimal.

Isnt there still a place for a simple diesel powered rig that requires minimal work to keep it in the fight?

I know nothing about armor or modern fighting vehicles, all this crap could be uber reliable and such but I have my doubts.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 10:07:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
I do wonder however about all the electronics in the military. How functional can the vehicle be in an extended operation with little support? It seems with all of the newer stuff you've got to have it constantly maintained by teams of specialized crews with tons of hi tech gizmos. I fear the day we're in some seriously deep shit and the supply lines are minimal.

Isnt there still a place for a simple diesel powered rig that requires minimal work to keep it in the fight?

I know nothing about armor or modern fighting vehicles, all this crap could be uber reliable and such but I have my doubts.



Military grade electronics are extremely hardened. They do OK.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 11:19:34 PM EST
Looks good. It's suppose to afford much better protection than the current AAV and LAV series of APCs the Marines have. It's about time the Marines started getting state of the art hardware.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 11:25:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By david_g17:

"A 2,700-horsepower engine will propel the EFV through the water at up to 25 knots, and on land at up to 45 miles per hour. Operational testing is scheduled for the summer."



Holy shit! Thats almost twice the HP of the Abrams. 25 knots in the water is awesome, fast enought to ski behind for sure. Looks like its some mighty cramped quarters in the back, but a nice vehicle overall, about time the USMC got some updated hardware.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 11:27:50 PM EST
Hmm... I wonder how many beach landings we have planned.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 11:51:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/13/2006 11:52:09 PM EST by Mr45auto]
What's with the red and blue lights? Marines making traffic stops with those things?
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 11:56:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
What's with the red and blue lights? Marines making traffic stops with those things?
news.com.com//i/ne/p/2006/1_550x405.jpg



Looks like the reflections from different types of coatings on the glass.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:00:53 AM EST
It probably is, it looks like it from the night time photo. Just being a smartass
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:04:38 AM EST
Old news but still interesting, partial testing was completed at Fort Lee Virginia and at Little Creek.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:06:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By Andreuha:
What we need has been around since 1990 with the Russians.
Essentially an MBT (Main Battle Tank) that carries seven geared-up troops plus three crew. Can fire rockets and various odd rounds through the main barrel at a normal rate (that feature would be very nice in Iraq, gotta admit).

www.danskpanser.dk/images/BMP3_2stor.jpg
hsfeatures.com/features04/images/bmp3aj_12.jpg
www.danskpanser.dk/images/BMP3_4stor.jpg
image2.sina.com.cn/jc/pc/2005-02-14/28/U36P27T28D2034F432DT20050214141158.jpg


'Bout damn time we get something along those lines. I think it needs a bigger gun and more support-fire capabilities. Aside from that, I like it!



We have been copying shitty russian equipment for quite some time... The USMC's previous, and US Army's current 'New APC' is a copy of the damn BTR.

Come on guys, be ORIGINAL...

But at least this one does not have GODDAMN RUBBER TIRED WHEELS


Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:09:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
I do wonder however about all the electronics in the military. How functional can the vehicle be in an extended operation with little support? It seems with all of the newer stuff you've got to have it constantly maintained by teams of specialized crews with tons of hi tech gizmos. I fear the day we're in some seriously deep shit and the supply lines are minimal.

Isnt there still a place for a simple diesel powered rig that requires minimal work to keep it in the fight?

I know nothing about armor or modern fighting vehicles, all this crap could be uber reliable and such but I have my doubts.



The problem is that all the electronics are what make our stuff effective...

Half of the M1A1's ability comes from it's specially designed armor plating. The rest comes from it's electronic fire-control system.

The electronics - things like automatic lead & elevation/range compensation, automatic gun stabilization, and so on are ESSENTIAL equipment - without them, you loose the ability to accurately engage targets on the move & score precise hits...
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:12:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 12:32:07 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By RABIDFOX50:
Looks good. It's suppose to afford much better protection than the current AAV and LAV series of APCs the Marines have. It's about time the Marines started getting state of the art hardware.



Too bad the Army bought into the 'lemon assault vehicle'... This looks like a much better concept -of course, it's not 'light' enough for Gen S, so he wouldn't have bought it anyway...

(Said General gave us the dumbass black berets and the Stryker APOS, and now all he's
remembered for is saying we need more troops in Iraq... )

But then again, the Army allready has such a vehicle, in the Bradley (25mm gun vs 30mm? NBD)....

The Marines, FAPP could have just amphibianized the Bradley & gotten the same thing...
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:14:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By Andreuha:
That is one UGLY ass BMP-3



Fucking priceless.

3 responses till the armor fashion patrol chimes in.

"Gee Sarge, does this amphibious vehicle make my ass look fat? Does it match my boots?"

Honestly, does it matter how good it looks? It's a fucking tank. I repeat. A tank.

It's not a fruit bowl, or a tulip-cup bra. It's a fucking tank.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:15:00 AM EST
25 knts on water, thats why they are looking into that!

Hard target to hit in the water going that fast.

Wouldnt take long to get to the beach.

Link Posted: 4/14/2006 2:31:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Andreuha:
What we need has been around since 1990 with the Russians.
Essentially an MBT (Main Battle Tank) that carries seven geared-up troops plus three crew. Can fire rockets and various odd rounds through the main barrel at a normal rate (that feature would be very nice in Iraq, gotta admit).

www.danskpanser.dk/images/BMP3_2stor.jpg
hsfeatures.com/features04/images/bmp3aj_12.jpg
www.danskpanser.dk/images/BMP3_4stor.jpg
image2.sina.com.cn/jc/pc/2005-02-14/28/U36P27T28D2034F432DT20050214141158.jpg


'Bout damn time we get something along those lines. I think it needs a bigger gun and more support-fire capabilities. Aside from that, I like it!



We have been copying shitty russian equipment for quite some time... The USMC's previous, and US Army's current 'New APC' is a copy of the damn BTR.

Come on guys, be ORIGINAL...

But at least this one does not have GODDAMN RUBBER TIRED WHEELS





Hmm...

Rubber wheels dont break track.

If one gets blown off, it still has 3 on that side and can still somewhat operate whereas if a Bradley's track gets blown off, it is dead in the road.

Link Posted: 4/14/2006 2:44:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 2:50:52 AM EST
What's up with the Hawaiin skirt? Reduces dust signature? Keeps floor clean?
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 5:30:10 AM EST
Man I Can't wait to drive tha thing in battlefield 3
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 5:42:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By swingset:
...

Honestly, does it matter how good it looks? It's a fucking tank. I repeat. A tank.

It's not a fruit bowl, or a tulip-cup bra. It's a fucking tank.



No it's an APC - not a tank.

But I'll agree who cares what it looks like - as long as it does the job required of it.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 7:20:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
What's with the red and blue lights? Marines making traffic stops with those things?
news.com.com//i/ne/p/2006/1_550x405.jpg




That would be cool, however I think it's the viewport glass creating reflections due to the coatings on the glass.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 7:59:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
What's with the red and blue lights? Marines making traffic stops with those things?
news.com.com//i/ne/p/2006/1_550x405.jpg



for future LEO sales of course.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:03:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By GhostRing:
edpas.net/bog-images/riverwalk/sandcrawler.jpg




ARRRGH! I was hoping to be the first to post that pic!
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:14:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Andreuha:
What we need has been around since 1990 with the Russians.
Essentially an MBT (Main Battle Tank) that carries seven geared-up troops plus three crew. Can fire rockets and various odd rounds through the main barrel at a normal rate (that feature would be very nice in Iraq, gotta admit).

www.danskpanser.dk/images/BMP3_2stor.jpg
hsfeatures.com/features04/images/bmp3aj_12.jpg
www.danskpanser.dk/images/BMP3_4stor.jpg
image2.sina.com.cn/jc/pc/2005-02-14/28/U36P27T28D2034F432DT20050214141158.jpg


'Bout damn time we get something along those lines. I think it needs a bigger gun and more support-fire capabilities. Aside from that, I like it!



Do you seriously think that a BMP-3 is anywhere close to being an MBT?. Its an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) in the same general class as the Bradley, Warrior and CV90...
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:19:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:
That top one looks kinda like some of them old tanks from WWI



Sorta too flat on the sides allowing for easy penetration of RPGs
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:21:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 8:22:19 AM EST by ScaryBlackGuns]


Am I the only one who has seen Pentagon Wars? Damn, I have a bad feeling about this...

SBG
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:23:13 AM EST


You would think they would have something newer than Commodore 64 keyboards.

Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:25:15 AM EST

The Marines, FAPP could have just amphibianized the Bradley & gotten the same thing...



Are you fucking kidding me?


The M2/M3 was orginally said to be able to be amphibious, but the damn thing sank when fording a river, not even a ocean. The entire project was a failure, the armor was dangerous to the crew when hit releasing a toxic gas, it could swim, it could not take out a tank, it was slower than an M1A1, and the crew had to get outside of the APC to reload 2 rounds of TOW missiles which was a later add on so the damn thing could actually kill something. At least the M113 could swim a river.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:30:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2006 8:30:59 AM EST by Manic_Moran]
Got to love some of the misconceptions going around on this thread, most have been corrected. The Piranha is not based off the BTR-Wheeleds, it's like saying that the M113 is based off the BTR-50. Just because they have wheels... The main problem with the BTRs is the side (Or roof in the -60) exits instead of a drop-ramp at the back, which the Piranha series has. Otherwise, they're pretty good vehicles.

The skirts are indeed to keep sand/dust down. The canvas skits fitted to the bottoms of the British Challengers have apparently saved thousands of pounds worth of filters. (And made people sneeze less)


That top one looks kinda like some of them old tanks from WWI


I was thinking more along the lines of the WWII TOG-II.




Holy shit! Thats almost twice the HP of the Abrams


For some reason, the Abrams engine is detuned/limited to 1,500hp. The turbine itself can actually crank out almost twice that.


Said General gave us the dumbass black berets and the Stryker APOS


You worked with a Stryker yet? Or are you just reading the Washington Post again?


Sorta too flat on the sides allowing for easy penetration of RPGs



Not much choice in the matter. If they slanted the sides, they'd either have to sacrifice interior space for carrying things/people, or make it wider on the outside which means taking up more room on the ship.

NTM
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:34:59 AM EST
Once again ARFCOM, as a whole, never fails to disappoint.

Let's review.
First it doesn't look good enough.
Second someone decided its a copy of the BMP-3.
Then someone suggested we just make the M2/M3 amphibious. Like it's no big deal to make an armored vehicle float and travel at 25knots.
Finally, we get some wag, obviously with no understanding of the AAAV, suggest this reminds him of Pentagon Wars.


Way to show your asses. I highly suggest you do some research on these subjects before you go off on your keyboard.

Perhaps then you'd realize how this fits into the USMC's Ship to Objective Manuever Doctrine. Maybe then you'd realize what a quantum leap in capability this is over the existing capability, and no that existing capability isn't the M2 or the LAV or even the Stryker, it's the AAV-7. Finally, you'd understand how looks can be deceiving, and that this is no BMP-3.

Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:42:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By GhostRing:
edpas.net/bog-images/riverwalk/sandcrawler.jpg




Link Posted: 4/14/2006 8:55:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By dport:
Once again ARFCOM, as a whole, never fails to disappoint.

Let's review.
First it doesn't look good enough.
Second someone decided its a copy of the BMP-3.
Then someone suggested we just make the M2/M3 amphibious. Like it's no big deal to make an armored vehicle float and travel at 25knots.
Finally, we get some wag, obviously with no understanding of the AAAV, suggest this reminds him of Pentagon Wars.


Way to show your asses. I highly suggest you do some research on these subjects before you go off on your keyboard.

Perhaps then you'd realize how this fits into the USMC's Ship to Objective Manuever Doctrine. Maybe then you'd realize what a quantum leap in capability this is over the existing capability, and no that existing capability isn't the M2 or the LAV or even the Stryker, it's the AAV-7. Finally, you'd understand how looks can be deceiving, and that this is no BMP-3.





Well said.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 10:41:48 AM EST
How many Marines can it carry in the back?
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:40:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
How many Marines can it carry in the back?


18
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:48:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
How many Marines can it carry in the back?


18



Dayum!! That's a lot of dudes in that sardine can. Then again, the M113s I use claim to hold 11 people and a driver. Maybe if the occupants were neatly folded and rucks tied outside, but the M113 can't fit 12 people inside very well.

Is that 18 with gear, and physically possible?
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 12:58:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
I do wonder however about all the electronics in the military. How functional can the vehicle be in an extended operation with little support? It seems with all of the newer stuff you've got to have it constantly maintained by teams of specialized crews with tons of hi tech gizmos. I fear the day we're in some seriously deep shit and the supply lines are minimal.

Isnt there still a place for a simple diesel powered rig that requires minimal work to keep it in the fight?

I know nothing about armor or modern fighting vehicles, all this crap could be uber reliable and such but I have my doubts.



That's the big difference between Russian/Soviet and US weapons. Russian machines are built to be neglected and have poor maintenance. Weapons from the US are super accurate/high precision (well sometimes ), but require a lot of maintenance to work properly.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 1:02:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By AgentFork:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
How many Marines can it carry in the back?


18



Dayum!! That's a lot of dudes in that sardine can. Then again, the M113s I use claim to hold 11 people and a driver. Maybe if the occupants were neatly folded and rucks tied outside, but the M113 can't fit 12 people inside very well.

Is that 18 with gear, and physically possible?


They say 18 combat loaded Marines.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:05:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

The Marines, FAPP could have just amphibianized the Bradley & gotten the same thing...



Are you fucking kidding me?


The M2/M3 was orginally said to be able to be amphibious, but the damn thing sank when fording a river, not even a ocean. The entire project was a failure, the armor was dangerous to the crew when hit releasing a toxic gas, it could swim, it could not take out a tank, it was slower than an M1A1, and the crew had to get outside of the APC to reload 2 rounds of TOW missiles which was a later add on so the damn thing could actually kill something. At least the M113 could swim a river.



lol

someone has definitely seen the Pentagon Wars.

Do you know how many soldiers have died as a result of "toxic fumes in a Bradley" when its been hit by a RPG or IED?
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 6:26:02 AM EST
The real reason why they have the electronics inside should be obvious.

http://home.comcast.net/~kylaer/realreason.jpg
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:23:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kylaer_:
The real reason why they have the electronics inside should be obvious.



Classic.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 7:28:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Are you fucking kidding me?
The M2/M3 was orginally said to be able to be amphibious, but the damn thing sank when fording a river, not even a ocean. The entire project was a failure, the armor was dangerous to the crew when hit releasing a toxic gas, it could swim, it could not take out a tank, it was slower than an M1A1, and the crew had to get outside of the APC to reload 2 rounds of TOW missiles which was a later add on so the damn thing could actually kill something. At least the M113 could swim a river.



considering your only source being a movie, ok.

the crew doesnt have to climb outside to reload the missiles, there is a hatch that gets opened and still gives a good amount of protection while they are reloading. in OIF M2 and M3 bradleys were making kills on Iraqi T72 MBTs with the 25mm main gun. it is definitely one of the most effective vehicles out there.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top