EFV遠征戦闘車
|
| 基礎データ |
| 全長 |
10.57m
9.27m（車体長） |
| 全幅 |
3,630mm |
| 全高 |
3,315mm |
| 重量 |
34,500kg（戦闘重量）
28,700kg（車両重量） |
| 乗員数 |
3名+兵員17名または貨物4.5t |
| 装甲・武装 |
| 主武装 |
Mk 44 30mm機関砲×1 |
| 副武装 |
M240 7.62mm機関銃×1 |
| 機動力 |
| 速度 |
72.4km/h（地上整地時）
46.3km/h（水上航行時） |
| エンジン |
MTU MT883水冷ディーゼル
地上時：851馬力
水上航行時：2,703馬力 |
| 行動距離 |
523km（地上整地時）
120km（水上航行時） |
| テンプレートを表示 |
EFV（遠征戦闘車：Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle）は、アメリカ合衆国で開発されていた次世代水陸両用強襲装甲戦闘車両である。
目次
- 1 概要
- 2 武装
- 3 装甲
- 4 車内配置
- 5 操縦システム
- 6 水上航行モード
- 7 地上走行モード
- 8 画像
- 9 出典
- 10 関連項目
- 11 外部リンク
概要
AAV7水陸両用装甲兵員輸送車の後継車両として設計開発され、主力戦車のM1エイブラムスと同等以上の陸上機動性を備えている。
アメリカ海兵隊では2015年から配備を始める予定であったが、2011年にロバート・ゲーツ国防長官の軍事予算削減の方針により開発中止になった。
武装
車体上の中央前寄りに砲塔を持ち、200発/分で発射可能な30mm機関砲（チェーンガン）であるMk 44 ブッシュマスター IIを中心とするMk.46兵器ステーションシステムを搭載している。副武装にM240 7.62mm機関銃も搭載している。
装甲
車体前部には、フラップを兼ねた前部装甲板があり、スペースド・アーマーとしての機能が期待できる。
車体側面は多数に分割され、ボルト留めされた装甲板で隙間無く覆われており、その下部は水上航行時の舷側を構成するためにキャタピラの下限近くまで伸びている。
アルミ合金製の車体であるため、耐弾性能は低いとされる。付加装甲の予定は不明であるが、水上航行時には重量物は取り付けられないと予想される。
車内配置
3名の車輌乗員と17名の兵士を車内に搭乗させて上陸作戦を行える。車長と砲手は砲塔部内、操縦士は最前部左席、兵士指揮官は最前部右席、16名の兵士は機関部側面で後ろ向きと、後部で向かい合わせで座る。
本車の最も問題となるのがエンジンの位置である。主には重量バランスの都合上だと思われるが、車体の中央を大きな機関部が占めており、乗員・兵員はその周りに位置している。どの程度居住性が損なわれるかは不明である。砲塔の後ろに特徴的な排気管が船の煙突のように突き出ている。
後部兵員室の兵士は車体後部の乗降口から出入りすることになる。この肉厚だが大人一人がやっと通り抜けられるほど狭いドアは、油圧または水圧で下を軸に開いて足場を構成するため、上陸地点が水辺や泥質であっても確実なステップとして機能する。
操縦システム
本車は地上車両としての操縦の他に、船舶としての操船機能が求められる。地上では多くの目標物が位置を見分ける助けになるが、船では少しの霧でも航法装置がなければ方向すら見失ってしまう。特に水上航行中のペリスコープなどを使った操縦士席からの外部視界は、フラップがさえぎるために肉眼での操船は不可能になる。これを補うためもあり、コンピュータの多機能ディスプレイ（CDP）によってGPSでの自車位置を含む航法情報、敵・味方の情報など各種の情報にアクセスできるため、一人でも簡単に操縦できる。
また、車体左側に備わった上下に伸縮する赤外線映像装置（DTV）によって車外の映像が得られる。
水上航行モード
EFVのモード変更
1.前部フラップを前方へ展開
2.前部フラップの展開後、キャタピラの格納
3.底部フラップの展開と後部フラップの移動
4.底部フラップと後部フラップの移動完了後、前部の隙間を埋める
5.ウォータージェットの噴出口が開いて変更完了
陸上または船上から水上航行に移る場合には、まず陸上モードのままで水上に進み出る必要があり、斜路が求められる。水上に浮かんだ姿勢で水上航行モードへの変換が行われる。
本車は水上と陸上での両方で十分な運動性能を満たすために、従来には例のないほど多数の可動部を車体底部周辺に備える。
最も目立つのは前部のフラップである。通常は前部装甲版として車体前部に沿って折り畳まれているフラップも、航行時には前底部のヒンジを軸に前方へ伸ばされ、途中に屈曲のある大きな斜面を構成することでプレーニングに適した「船体形状」を成す。 底部はいくつかの段階を経て形状の変換が行われる。最初に関与するのは最も斬新な技術であるキャタピラ部の格納機構である。車体の左右から下面に突き出ているキャタピラ部は転輪とキャタピラが全て上へと上昇し車体底部より上に位置する。 次に、車体後部上方に跳ね上げられていた後部フラップが後部ドア左右のヒンジを軸に下ろされ、キャタピラ部後ろを含む車体後部の底に平らな面を作り出す。
底部には船で云う竜骨の位置、前後中央線で分割された2枚の大きな底部フラップの板がそれぞれ車体左右の縁を軸に180度回転して、左右の装甲板下端にまで届きキャタピラ部を閉じ込める。これで底部のほとんどが平面となっているが、車体の前部の底ではキャタピラがまだ見えている。このままでは水上を航行する時に大きな抵抗となるため、車体前の底部から曲線を帯びた板が延びてきて前部フラップとキャタピラ部の覆い板とを繋ぐように隙間を塞いでしまう。
普段は閉じているウォータージェット推進システムの噴出口が回転して開き、底部フラップで隠されていた吸水口からいつでも水が取り込める状態となる。
これら一連の「トランスフォーメーション」によって、車体が水上航行モードに変形させて、底面は段差のない平らな面となり、前部のフラップと共にプレーニングに適した形状となる。
車体底部から取り込まれた水は、車体後部の2基のジェットポンプによって勢いつけられ、車体後部の左右2つの噴射口から噴射される。2,703馬力のディーゼルターボエンジンの力でウォータージェット2基が95万リットル/分の水を噴射し、35トンの「船体」は水面を滑るように進むプレーニングによって46km/h（24.8nm/h）の速度が達成される。水上航行ではディーゼルエンジンを過負荷状態で運転するために40km程度の短い距離でしか高速航行はできない。
地上走行モード
水上航行モードの逆の手順によって地上走行モードへと移行する。この変換後は水上での推進力となったウォータージェットの取り入れ口がフラップによって閉じられるために、陸上へ上がるためにはその足がかりとなる海辺の底をキャタピラが上手く捕らえられる位置で変換を終えておく必要がある。タイミングを誤るとフラップを浅瀬にぶつけるか、いつまでもキャタピラによるごく低速で陸地に近づく航行を強いられる。
地上では851馬力の定常運転されたMTU MT883水冷ディーゼルエンジンとキャタピラによって最高時速72km/hで（海上40kmの後に）320kmの走行が可能となる。水上と地上のいずれのモード変更においても、車外での作業はもとより車内においてもボタン操作以外の作業は必要とされない。
画像
出典
- ディスカバリーチャンネル 「フューチャーウェポン21世紀の兵器」
関連項目
- AAV7
- 水陸両用戦車/水陸両用車
- 上陸用舟艇
- 上陸戦
- M242 ブッシュマスター
-
外部リンク
|
ウィキメディア・コモンズには、EFVに関連するメディアがあります。 |
- Official USMC Site - 製造メーカーのサイト
- MTU diesel engines - エンジンメーカーのサイト
- Globalsecurity EFV article - 軍事記事専門サイト "Globalsecurity.org"
|
第二次世界大戦後のアメリカの装甲戦闘車両 |
|
| 主力戦車 |
M46 · M47 · M48 · M60 · M1
|
|
| 重戦車 |
T30 · M103
|
|
| 軽戦車 |
M41
|
|
| 空挺戦車 |
M56 · M551 · M8
|
|
| 自走砲 |
M44 · M50 · M52 · M53 · M55 · M107 · M108 · M109 · M110 · M1128
|
|
| 自走式ロケット砲 |
M270 · M142
|
|
| 自走式対空砲 |
M163 · M42 · M247
|
|
| 歩兵戦闘車 |
M2 · LAV-25
|
|
| 装甲兵員輸送車 |
M44 · M75 · M59 · M113 · V-100/V-150 · ドラグーン · M1117 · M1126 · クーガー · MRAP
|
|
| 水陸両用車 |
LVTP-5 · LVTP-6 · AAV7 · LARC
|
|
| 偵察戦闘車 |
M114 · M3 · M1127
|
|
| 装甲回収車 |
M806 · M88 · M578 · AAVR7A1
|
|
| 架橋戦車 |
M60A1 AVLB · M104
|
|
| NBC偵察車両 |
M1135
|
|
| 試作車輌 |
T54 · T57 · T69 · T71 · T92 · T110 · MBT-70 · XM800 · MCS · EFV
|
|
| 第二次世界大戦の装甲戦闘車両 |
|
Not to be confused with Expeditionary tank.
| Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) |
|
General Dynamics Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV)
|
| Type |
Amphibious assault vehicle[1] |
| Place of origin |
USA |
| Service history |
| In service |
Canceled |
| Used by |
United States Marine Corps |
| Production history |
| Manufacturer |
General Dynamics |
| Unit cost |
US$22.3 million |
| Variants |
EFVP
EFVC |
| Specifications |
| Weight |
Gross vehicle weight fully loaded 79,300 pounds (35.97 metric ton) |
| Length |
10.67 m (35 ft) |
| Width |
3.66 m (12 ft) |
| Height |
3.28 m (10.7 ft) (turret roof) |
| Crew |
3 crew |
| Passengers |
17 fully equipped Marines (EFVP)
7 command crew (EFVPC) |
|
| Armor |
armor panels made of ceramic, S-2 fiberglass, and a Kevlar-like woven fabric in three separate layers, armor offers protection against machine gun and artillery fragments weighs 20 pounds per square foot, 14.5 mm AP at 300 Meters, 155/152 mm fragments at 15 Meters |
|
Main
armament
|
fully stabilized and digitally controlled Mk44 Bushmaster II Mod 0 30 mm cannon (EFVP)
M240 Machine Gun, 7.62 mm Coax (EFVPC) |
| Engine |
MTU Friedrichshafen MT 883 Ka-524 diesel engine
2,702 hp (2,016 kW) (water), 850 hp (635 kW) (land) |
| Power/weight |
34.48 bhp/ton |
| Transmission |
Allison X4560 six speed transmission; water propulsion through two 23-inch-diameter water jets |
| Suspension |
14 retractable independent Hydraulic Suspension Units (HSU’s) with two nitrogen gas charges |
| Fuel capacity |
325 gallons |
|
Operational
range
|
land: 523 km (325 miles)
water: 120 km (74 miles) |
| Speed |
road: 72.41 km/h (45 mph)
water: 46 km/h (28.6 mph) (water) |
The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) (formerly known as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle) was an amphibious assault vehicle that was being developed for the U.S. Marine Corps. It would have been launched at sea, from an amphibious assault ship beyond the horizon, able to transport a full Marine rifle squad to shore. It would maneuver cross country with an agility and mobility equal to or greater than the M1 Abrams.
The EFV was designed to replace the aging AAV-7A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV),[2] which entered service in 1972,[3] and was the Marine Corps' number one priority ground weapon system acquisition. It was to have had three times the speed in water and about twice the armor of the AAV, as well as superior firepower. The vehicle was to be deployed in 2015;[4] however, on 6 January 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recommended the EFV program be canceled.[5][6] The program, which was projected to cost $15 billion, had already cost $3 billion.[7][8]
The Marines asked for the EFV to be canceled in favor of the Assault Amphibian Vehicle Service Life Extension Program, the Marine Personnel Carrier and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.[9]
Contents
- 1 History
- 2 Design
- 2.1 Armament
- 2.2 Countermeasures
- 2.3 Mobility
- 3 Variants
- 3.1 Personnel variant
- 3.2 Command variant
- 4 See also
- 5 References
- 6 External links
History
In the 1980s, the US Marine Corps developed an "over the horizon" strategy for ocean based assaults. The intention was to protect naval ships from enemy mines and shore defenses. It included the MV-22 Osprey, the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC), and the EFV.
Development for the AAAV began in August 1974 with Landing Vehicle Assault (LVA) prototypes that continued in the early 1980s at the command at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The AAAV's predecessor, the LVTP7, had its life expectancy extended in 1983–84 by use of a service life extension program, which modified and upgraded many of the key systems, creating the LVTP7A1 and re-designated it the AAVP7A1. At the time these vehicles were released, the USMC had anticipated and communicated delivery of the AAAV by 1993. As a result of delays, the AAVP7A1 has received another service life extension-type upgrade in the mid 1990s while the USMC still awaits final development and delivery of the AAAV, 14 years behind original projected time frames.[10]
In 1988, defense officials authorized the concept exploration and definition phase. In 1995, the program entered into the definition and risk reduction phase, where it won two DOD awards for successful cost and technology management.[10] In June 1996, a contract was awarded to General Dynamics Land Systems to begin full-scale engineering development of their design. Based on the aforementioned early success of the program, the Marine Corps awarded a cost-plus contract to General Dynamics in July 2001 for the systems development and demonstration phase of the program, expected to be completed by October 2003. The AAAV was renamed to EFV in September 2003. The Government Accountability Office would later state that the development phase of three years was insufficient, causing delays and prototype failures, particularly in reliability.[10] 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.[10] That June, a reset of the development phase delayed completion an additional four years.[10] 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.[11]
On 7 April 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the EFV program will "continue as-is", pending an amphibious review in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.[12] The vehicle has recently been called "exquisite", which Gates has usually reserved for programs he intends to cancel.[13] He later questioned the EFV as the proper ship-to-shore platform on 3 May 2010,[14] the day before the initial prototype was rolled out at a ceremony at Marine Corps Base Quantico.[15]
The USMC has reduced the number to be purchased from 1,013 to 573 AAAVs by 2015 due to escalation in unit cost estimated at $22.3 million in 2007.[10][15] The EFV might be a baseline vehicle for the Army's BCT Ground Combat Vehicle Program, however it is more likely that the army will start a new program.[16]
Low rate initial production (LRIP) was projected to begin in January 2012.[17] Projected total program development cost of the type until first quarter of 2010 has been estimated at 15.9 billion dollars.[18]
Controversy
Robert O. Work while Under Secretary of the Navy sketched out a future for amphibious warfare in which either the Marines will land unopposed or it will take a major effort using all the long range weapons of the United States armed forces to clear out ship-killing missiles so that amphibious ships can safely approach the hostile beach and neither scenario sees much use for the EFV.[19][20] New families of guided anti-ship weapons have extended target ranges of well past 75 miles and the precision to target non-state actors, making the EFV's capabilities less of a game-changer than originally hoped for.[21]
In a joint report the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the National Taxpayers Union called the EFV program wasteful spending and asked for its cancellation.[22] The co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform have also supported the cancellation of the EFV.[23] During a Pentagon briefing, on 6 January 2011, revealing budget efficiencies and reinvestment possibilities, Secretary of Defense Gates announced his intention to cancel the EFV program.[6] In a statement released after Gates' press conference, USMC Commandant General Amos said that he supports the cancellation of the EFV:
Today the Secretary of Defense announced the termination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. I support his decision. After a thorough review of the program within the context of a broader Marine Corps force structure review, I personally recommended to both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy that the EFV be cancelled and that the Marine Corps pursue a more affordable amphibious tracked fighting vehicle.
Despite the critical amphibious and war-fighting capability the EFV represents, the program is not affordable given likely Marine Corps procurement budgets. The procurement and operations/maintenance costs of this vehicle are onerous. After examining multiple options to preserve the EFV, I concluded that none of the options meets what we consider reasonable affordability criteria. As a result, I decided to pursue a more affordable vehicle.[5]
—James F. Amos, 35th Commandant of the Marine Corps
Loren B. Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, said that Amos had been ordered to give this statement, which did not reflect his actual feelings on the issue.[24]
In an interview on 5 January 2011 with Bloomberg Businessweek, Duncan D. Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, anticipated the cancellation announcement by Gates. However, Hunter has predicted that his committee will reject the cancellation.[25]
According to Lieutenant General George J. Flynn of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, the USMC will use funding from the cancelled EFV for other tactical ground vehicles over the next five years.[26] The EFV program was cut from a 2012 proposed budget by the White House.[27]
General Dynamics is offering a cut down version of the EFV without the hydroplaning or weapons.[28] Ray Mabus has said that new defensive systems will allow navy ships to close to within 12 miles off hostile shores so a 25 knot amphibious tracked vehicle is no longer needed.[29]
Deputy Commandant George Flynn has said that the analysis of alternatives to replace the EFV will be accelerated to complete in six to nine months.[30] In the 2012 appropriations bill, Congress ordered that the EFV be one of the alternatives considered in the study.[31]
Design
The EFV, designed by General Dynamics Land Systems, was an amphibious armored tracked vehicle with an aluminum hull. The engine is a custom MTU Friedrichshafen diesel (MT883) with two modes of operation; a high power mode for planing over the sea, and a low power mode for land travel. It has a crew of three and can transport 17 marines and their equipment. The EFV would have been the first heavy tactical vehicle with a space frame structure.[32]
The hull had a hydraulically actuated bow flap to aid planing with a maximum waterborne speed of 46 kilometres per hour (29 mph; 25 kn). Shrouded Honeywell waterjet propulsors are integrated into each side of the hull, which create over 2,800 horsepower of thrust. It was also outfitted with hydraulically actuated chines to cover the tracks while in seafaring mode.
The vehicle uses an Ethernet network connected by the Tactical Switch Router, based on the COTS DuraMAR Mobile IP router for its internal and external communications.[33]
Armament
The electrically powered two-man MK46 turret on the personnel variant accommodated the commander on the right and gunner on the left, a fire control system, and the main and coaxial weapons.
The standard version was to have had a Mk44 Bushmaster II 30 mm cannon, which fired up to 250 rounds per minute with single, burst, and fully automatic capabilities up to 2,000 metres (2,200 yd) in all weather conditions. A general purpose M240 7.62 mm machine gun with 600 rounds of ready-to-use ammunition was to be mounted coaxially with the main gun.
Countermeasures
EFVP1 engineering prototype undergoing shock testing
The EFV was fitted with composite armor, mine-blast protection, and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense system. The aluminum hull caused some concern due to protection issues.[34] However, aluminum hulls have been used for decades in military ground vehicles and watercraft.
In June 2007 members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces sent a letter to the Commandant of the Marine Corps urging that the EFV be redesigned to give troops better protection against roadside bombs.[35] The Marines suggested that underbelly armor appliqué could be applied after the EFVs come ashore and before they encounter IEDs.[10] The limited protection the EFV offers is an improvement on that offered by the AAV so the replacement is an advantage, given the current doctrine of using landing craft for land patrols.[36]
However, tests in January and February 2010 at Aberdeen Test Center demonstrated that the EFV offers blast protection equal to a category-2 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, including two simulated improvised explosive devices under its belly and tracks.[37] Tests also show that it has superior protection from direct and indirect fire. The flat hull, which has endured persistent criticism for not being the more blast-resistant V-shape, was necessary for the EFV to plane across the surface of the water and reach its high speed, while dealing with sea states of Category 4.[37][38]
On 13 October 2010 the navy awarded M Cubed Technologies a contract to develop new armor for the EFV to offer better protection and lighter weight.[39]
Mobility
Given the increasing ranges of shore launched anti-ship missiles, the EFV's 25 nautical miles (29 mi; 46 km) range for amphibious landing may no longer provide the anticipated protection predicted for an over the horizon launch.[10] The U.S. Navy began reconsidering the over the horizon approach, and is considering 10–18 miles appropriate for amphibious launches. This shift in doctrine has made the EFV's high water speeds unnecessary.[7] The EFV's need for high water speed has resulted in an engine that is 1,200 hp more powerful than the M1 Abrams, even though the EFV weighs far less.[40]
Variants
Personnel variant
The EFVP1 with a three-man crew would have conducted the signature mission of the United States Marine Corps, expeditionary maneuver warfare from seabases by initiating amphibious operations from 20–25 miles over-the-horizon and transporting 17 combat-equipped Marines to inland objectives. The fully armored, tracked combat vehicle would have provided firepower to disembarked or mechanized infantry with its own fully stabilized MK46 weapon station with the 30 mm cannon and 7.62mm machine-gun.
Command variant
The EFVC1 was to have provided the same survival and mobility capabilities found in the EFVP1. The EFVC1 would have been employed as a tactical command post for maneuver unit commanders at the battalion and regimental level. The EFVC1 would have provided the supported commander and selected staff with the ability to communicate, via on-board communications, with senior, adjacent, and subordinate maneuver units. The EFVC1 was to be armed with only a 7.62mm machine gun.
See also
|
United States Marine Corps portal |
- Marine Personnel Carrier
- GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle
- Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
- Stryker
- ZBD2000
References
- ^ Glenn W. Goodman, Jr. (2010). "EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE". Retrieved 7 January 2011.
- ^ "Assault Amphibious Vehicle Systems (AAVS)". Marine Corps Systems Command. 19 March 2009. Retrieved 6 January 2011.
- ^ "Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) – Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle, USA". army-technology.com. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
- ^ "U.S. Marine EFV Delivery Delayed to 2015 and Costs Double". Defense News.
- ^ a b Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) (6 January 2011), "Statement by the Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James Amos on Efficiencies", United States Department of Defense, retrieved 6 January 2011
- ^ a b Garamone, Jim (6 January 2011), "Gates Reveals Budget Efficiencies, Reinvestment Possibilities", American Forces Press Service, retrieved 6 January 2011
- ^ a b Christopher P. Cavas (8 January 2010). "Fleet will feel effects of major Corps cuts". Gannett Government Media Corporation. Retrieved 10 January 2011.
- ^ Megan Scully (18). "House Armed Services chairman restructures committee". National Journal Group Inc. Retrieved 19 January 2011.
- ^ Kuiper, Jahn R. "EFV ousted for less costly triumvirate." USMC, 22 March 2011.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Feickert, Andrew (3 August 2009). "The Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV): Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
- ^ Merle, Renae (7 February 2007). "Problems Stall Pentagon's New Fighting Vehicle – Washington Post". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-02.
- ^ Bennett, John T. (7 Apr 2009). "Gates: Cutting FCS was tough". Army Times. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
- ^ Muradian, Vago; Osborn, Kris (28 September 2009). "USMC Battling for the Future". Defense News. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
- ^ Bennett, John T. (4 May 2010). "Gates: U.S. must rethink expensive ships, EFV". Marine Corps Times. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
- ^ a b McCullough, Amy (5 May 2010). "Corps shows off long-delayed EFV". Marine Corps Times. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
- ^ Chavanne, Bettina H.; McLeary, Paul (8 Oct 2009). "No Options Out For Ground Combat Vehicle". Aviation Week. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
- ^ USMC Anticipates EFV LRIP in 2012
- ^ Exhibit P-40, Budget Item Justification Sheet February 2007 http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/08PRES/PROC/PMC_Book.pdf
- ^ Thompson, Loren B. "A Vision Of Future Amphibious Warfare That Will Not Work ." defence.professionals GmbH, 1 December 2010
- ^ Robert O. Work and F. G. Hoffman "Hitting the Beach in the 21st Century." Proceedings (magazine), November 2010.
- ^ Singer, Peter W. "The Marine Corps Is All Right". The Brookings Institution. Retrieved 10 March 2011.
- ^ "Left and Right Unite against Government Waste". AllGov, 5 November 2010
- ^ "$200 Billion IN ILLUSTRATIVE SAVINGS" (PDF). 10 October 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ Reed, John. "The Reactions to Gates’ Spending Plans." DOD Buzz, 7 January 2010.
- ^ Capaccio, Tony (6 January 2011), "General Dynamics Marine Transport Vehicle Terminated in Budget", Bloomberg Businessweek, retrieved 7 January 2011
- ^ Tiron, Roxan (12 January 2011), "Marines Steer $2.4 Billion Toward Tactical Vehicles", Bloomberg Businessweek, retrieved 12 January 2011
- ^ "The Budget for Fiscal Year 2012" "Office of Management and Budget", 14 February 2011.
- ^ Beidel, Eric. "General Dynamics Makes Final Argument for Keeping EFV Alive." National Defense Industrial Association, 25 January 2011.
- ^ Steele, Jeanette. "Q & A with Navy Secretary Ray Mabus." The San Diego Union-Tribune, 24 February 2011.
- ^ Fabey, Michael. "USMC Expedites EFV Analysis Of Alternatives." Aviation Week, 10 June 2011.
- ^ Brannen, Kate. "Congress looks to wrap up budget bills." Federal Times, 16 December 2011.
- ^ Kelly, Kevin (4 July 2009). "Engineering A Serious Chassis". AutoFieldGuide.com. Retrieved 6 May 2010.
- ^ "Case study: EFV keeps pace with Ethernet to actualize net-centric warfare". Military Embedded Systems. Retrieved 13 February 2015.
- ^ "Murtha Ups F-22, Downs EFV". Retrieved 13 February 2015.
- ^ "House Members Urge Redesign of Land-Sea Vehicle".
- ^ "marinecorpsgazette-digital.com". Retrieved 13 February 2015.
- ^ a b Lamothe, Dan (2 March 2010). "EFV has MRAP-level protection, Conway says". Marine Corps Times. Retrieved 3 March 2010.
- ^ "JSF Not Too Hot For Carriers". Retrieved 13 February 2015.
- ^ M Cubed Technologies, Inc. Wins Contract To Develop Armor For U.S. Marine Corps Fighting Vehicles M Cubed Technologies, Inc. press release, 13 October 2010
- ^ Craig Hooper, Proceedings, 2008
External links
|
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. |
- Official USMC website for the EFV program
- MTU diesel engines for military vehicles
- EFV profile on GlobalSecurity.org
- on Armour.ws
|
General Dynamics Corporation
|
|
| Corporate Directors |
- Nicholas Chabraja
- James Crown
- Lester Crown
- William Fricks
- Charles Goodman
- Jay Johnson
- George Joulwan
- Paul Kaminski
- Jack Keane
- Lester Lyles
- Carl Mundy
- Robert Walmsley
|
|
| Subsidiaries |
- Bath Iron Works
- C4 Systems
- Electric Boat
- Land Systems
- Gulfstream
- NASSCO
- MOWAG
|
|
| Products |
- Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
- Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
- Expeditionary tank
- F-111
- F-16
- Los Angeles-class submarine
- M1 Abrams
- Ohio-class submarine
- Seawolf-class submarine
- Virginia-class submarine
- Stryker
- Bowman
|
|
