Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

Following a ride designed to introduce him to the capabilities of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Secretary of the Navy Dr. Donald C. Winter takes a moment to conduct an interview with the San Diego Public Affairs Center and a news reporter from the “Scout” at Camp Pendleton, Calif., May 8, 2006. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Petty Officer Craig P. Strawser | Fact Sheet |

The EFV looks suspiciously similar to the Urban Combat Skateboard Mk2 noted earlier…

Comments

  1. Shipmates, Heh… lookit that… someone forgot to cut off the grass skirt from last night’s ‘welcome aboard’ party….. Now’ll they have to tack on a ‘grass skirt’ adapter/upgrade kit to the purchase price of each vehicle in order to cover up the boo boo…. Probably need to make it a ‘+B’ mod identifier as well… Heh….. Respects, AW1 Tim

  2. Is it just me or do the Marines seem to have much less trouble procuring stuff which is what their troops really want/need than the Army, Air Force but especially Navy? I get the impression high ranking Marines commanders really care about their troops whereas the other Pentagon-dwellers are just trying to get promotions or good jobs when they leave the services.

  3. In the Marine Corps, there are only two things: Infantry and support. Nobody in the Corps is ever allowed to forget it. We all go to a short version of Infantry school after Boot Camp regardless of MOS. I did a lot of work with Air Wing – grunts driving planes. You want to see a Marine pilot fired up? tell him about an Infantry unit in trouble – they will fly through hell at low altitude to help them. Tanks, LAV’s, AAV’s, Helicopters, office of the Commandant – all support. The Marine Infantryman is the focus of the entire organization. The other services don’t have a similar point of focus. The Army has lots of factions that battle for attention and money – heavy vs. medium mech units, armor, airborne, etc– The Air Force wants to fly high, fast, and far but has that inconvenient mission of supporting Army ground troops. Not sure what the hell the Navy wants these days. That service used to make sense to me, not any more.

  4. You know, that brings up an interesting point. We keep hearing how the Army brass and Natick are blocking on the Dragon Skin VS Interceptor issue, whats the Marine brass got to say about it?

  5. Don’t know. Probably one of those issues that they will just wait for the Arny to spend the money to figure out.

  6. I suppose that depends how it stacks up compared to Bradleys and M113s. It seems like it might be somewhere inbetween the two, with better amphibious capability. I imagine it has thinner armour than a Bradley does, but carries more people (and looks bigger too).

  7. It carries 3 crew and 18 grunts at 72km/h over land and 37 to 46km/h on water (depending on the sea state). At threshold, it’s supposed to stop 14.5mm rounds from 300m, while the objective is for it to survive 30mm AP rounds from 1000m (I’m assuming in certain areas only). I’m guessing the gunners would be happy with the Bushmaster II 30/40 instead of the .50 M2HB and 40mm GL.

  8. RE: Dragon Skin, For what it’s worth the Army Times reported that the Air Force returned 6000 sets because it failed a bunch of their ballistic tests. Their so-called Level IV couldn’t even stop 9mm.

  9. First of all, the Army commenting on Airforce testing? Come on, use a little common sense. Second, the 6000 sets were returned because it was requested by the manufacturer. Check your facts. It did NOT fail. It stopped 9mm just fine. Go to Defense Review and Soldiers for Truth for the full skinny. Don’t listen to the Army Natick Toadys. They have been spinning the intell as soon as they get it to make themselves look good.

  10. Okay, heres the link so you can confirm, but I am going to post the letter found on SFTT.ORG. Second item down on this page. http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpIntel&htmlId=5856 Issued Released: The Air Force Office of Special Investigations’ (AFOSI) February 2006 tests of the Dragon Skin(r) level III body armor at Aberdeen Test Center did not fail any written contract specifications with the Air Force. AFOSI, because it conducts counter-threat operations in hostile environments on a daily basis, has a requirement for a high level of ballistic performance, with a greater area of coverage in a lighter weight system, which also allows for better mobility to execute specific mission needs. Pinnacle is meeting that requirement. The decision to return the vests to Pinnacle following testing was a mutual decision to allow Pinnacle to address a manufacturing issue, but that issue did not affect the vests’ performance during testing. AFOSI remains highly committed to having this body armor contract completed as planned, and the vests tested to meet this requirement and returned to their agents and support personnel deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism. AFOSI was given an opportunity to review the content of this press release and agreed with its content. Should you have any questions for AFOSI, their POC is Capt Regen Wilson, (240) 857-0989. Sincerely, Paul Chopra CW4(P)(Ret)NSDQ! Pinnacle Armor, Inc. IT DID NOT FAIL