Jump to content

Talk:Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

weight

[edit]

~76,000lbs source (FutureWeapons) --ProdigySportsman 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical

[edit]

With all the negativity in this article, the reader is led to believe the whole project should be canceled and all remaining chassis be melted down to make hybrid vehicles. "If Thomas Edison invented electric light today, Dan Rather would report it on CBS News as "candle making industry threatened." ~Gingrich --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you strawman. 128.227.179.140 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This vehicle is beyond the capabilities of current industrial skill. The german MTU engine is overly ambitious and uses direct-to-sea ram water cooling when producing a whopping 2750bhp while hydroplaning. This is almost TWICE of what can be expected from a normal military diesel engine (same block does just 1500bhp in a Leopard-2 heavy tank), so this is about as aggressively tuned as a track racing car engine and about as reliable... The designers of EFV probably watched too much sci-fi and wanted some really 24th century stuff, but the engineering to match their dreams simply was not there. 91.83.4.102 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised quantity and cost

[edit]

The USMC recently announced that due to cost over-runs, the total quantity of EFVs to be purchased has been reduced from 1013 vehicles to 573. Unit price will be US$21.7 million.--Mrg3105 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible! For comparison 21.7 million USD can buy you a nicely refurbished F-16 Block 30 or 40 fighter jet, which does more damage to enemy than a whole squadron of EFV marine tanks. A post-soviet T-84 or T-90 medium battle tank can be had for just 800,000 to 1.3 million dollars brand new. I think USA is wrong to spend its money on these starship-ish EFV floating APCs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.4.102 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have, I trust, some reputable sources about the issues with this vehicle?
Are there any issues with this vehicle beyond the simple fact it will not enter service until FY 2014-2015? That is, some 7 to 8 more years of service for the snail-slow AAV7V, which is about as big a target as a sand dune crawler from Star Wars Ep4: A New Hope. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a F-16 cant land a battalion of Marines.--CnrFallon (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length

[edit]

What happened to the length? There are two measurements down for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.36.144 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

[edit]

The Office of Secretary of Defense maintains the name EFV. I can find no mention of a rename to AAAV.

Never mind. I misread this as being changed from EFV to AAAV. In fact in was from AAAV to EFV. Article is correct. Apologies.

Need

[edit]

Does anyone know if the Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), which this vehicle is intended to replace, has ever actually been used in combat? This sounds like yet another very expensive weapons system which would have been great to have during World War II, but seems of dubious value today.Lahaun (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious Assault Vehicle#Combat history Hcobb (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order to be cut to 200 on Thursday

[edit]

http://www.thesundaily.com/article.cfm?id=55914 One industry source said the Pentagon had already spent US$3.3 billion developing the EFV amphibious vehicle and could see 200 of the vehicles built for US$3.6 billion more – less than the US$8.2 billion required to build the 573 vehicles currently included in the budget.

I suppose we might as well wait one day for the announcement. Hcobb (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order isn't being cut, the EFV is being canceled altogether. [1] Spartan198 (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which will run into the most eager to spend Congress in living memory: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-06/general-dynamics-marine-transport-vehicle-terminated.html "He predicted the House committee will reject Gates’ decision because it appears to be a repudiation of the Marine Corps’ central mission." Hcobb (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next AV

[edit]

http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/landwarfareintl/marine-corps-to-release-vehicle-requests-for-information/8287/ 'We currently have 27 active battalions and another nine [in] reserves. So you can see that there is already risk in terms of their mobility. Within that lift for 20 battalions, one third [eight] are by air and the remaining 12 battalions are by ground. Eight of those will be by the replacement for the EFV – the next AV [Amphibious Vehicle] and then we have the MPC [Marine Personnel Carrier], which will be an eight-wheeled vehicle that will carry about nine troops and three crew. That would round out our ground combat mobility.'

Solid enough to add yet? Hcobb (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the Amphibious Combat Vehicle is pre-doomed. (Doomed! I say!)

http://whatsbrewin.nextgov.com/2011/02/marine_corps_wants_affordable_amphibious_vehicle.php The new Amphibious Combat Vehicle, I fear, is a boat (and tank) that will not float.

So what's next? Hcobb (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to overwrite my redirect when the RFI is issued that is fine with me. Marcus Qwertyus 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RFI was linked from above: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=c3e9e125991dd56a889b9d4d67df0cc0&tab=core&_cview=0 Hcobb (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/145119-commandant-vows-to-be-player-coach-on-f-35-amphibious-vehicle-programs The “new amphibious vehicle” likely will travel from Navy ships to beaches at “12 to 15 knots” while carrying a Marine rifle squad and topped by a 30 mm gun, Amos said.

The real fix would be to have a high speed boat carry a wading tank, but I guess it'll take the Marines until 2024 to figure that out. Hcobb (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6189440&c=AME&s=SEA Our hope is that we can get have eight battalions of the new amphibious vehicle and four battalions of the Marine personnel carrier.

Looking more solid by the day, except of course that the ACV will not be able to navigate the swamp of the House of Representatives. Hcobb (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/efv/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle&oldid=1200677252"