EFV这货到底死透了没有？

关键是没有需求。现在哪里还有MD预想中的大规模两栖登陆，头上V22 飞，海里LCAC和EFV疾驰的可能？海军陆战队能保住V22 已经很好了。EFV这种已经没有实际需求，而技术要求又变态导致价格无论如何都不可能下来的东西被砍掉很正常，就像当年的科曼奇一样。

估计没戏，如今ＭＤ跟谁玩两栖战？

这货倒不是高大全、、但是这货跟V22 和LCAC抢饭碗.......还比LCAC贵的不是一点半点.....海上速度搞的确实NB....但是航向控制上不知道有没有搞定、、

美帝不急需。不过，天朝有这货的话用得着。

EFV的最终命运到底如何啊？很就没消息了。。。 是不是真的被完全给砍了？

MD政策的不连续性是很常见的，没有什么技术是可以死透亮的。

买TG的新型两栖战车更合算可惜MD好面子

唐鸢 发表于 2012-6-10 10:08
美帝不急需。不过，天朝有这货的话用得着。
不是说我鳖陆地上已经没有心脏病了吗？山寨这货还有什么难度？貌似很适合我鳖使用啊。

没什么大的变故，估计不会诈尸了

买TG的新型两栖战车更合算可惜MD好面子
我们的比EFV差远球了。。。

我们的比EFV差远球了。。。

哪里差。

luoyanwozhiaini 发表于 2012-6-10 17:04
我们的比EFV差远球了。。。
别的不知道，至少水上速度确实差很多，一个是大飞一个是渔船:(

pphu 发表于 2012-6-10 16:49
不是说我鳖陆地上已经没有心脏病了吗？山寨这货还有什么难度？貌似很适合我鳖使用啊。
这是一个复杂系统，不单是动力问题，还有传动、推进、装甲、武器、信息等，更重要的是各分系统的整合和平衡、可靠性。美帝的3AV也就是后来的EFV比我ZTD-05表面上速度快不了多少，装甲强一些，火力因为任务不同双方配置思路不同，还有软的方面看不出，但美帝的军事工业积淀不是我们现在能够完全达到的，山寨起来没那么容易，不然好多美帝装备我们都早就山寨出来了。

美帝由于强大的海空优势，对这货的需求不是很紧迫，况且现在缺银子。但我们不同，台湾、钓鱼岛、南海未来都可能有激烈冲突，而我们现在的两栖作战能力还不够强，这货倒是我们需要的。其实如果双方互换一下，美帝用我们的ZTD-05价格相对便宜性能足够他们需求，我们用3AV，有银子装备的起，性能足以形成优势相对弥补其他两栖装备不足的劣势。当然，这只是说笑罢了。相信将来天朝不光在两栖战车，还有小平顶等诸多方面都会加大研发和装备力度，因为我们很急需。

jiafeidemao 发表于 2012-6-10 17:11
哪里差。
天下武功，无坚不破，唯快不破。

MD的要求设定是正确的，只不过没钱加上需求不迫切，于是就悲剧了。

luoyanwozhiaini 发表于 2012-6-10 17:04
我们的比EFV差远球了。。。
确实差远了，一个服役多年一个胎死腹中

ASSO 发表于 2012-6-10 10:06
这货倒不是高大全、、但是这货跟V22 和LCAC抢饭碗.......还比LCAC贵的不是一点半点.....海上速度搞的确实NB ...
还真是高大全，速度要求快，不达标改，皮薄 改，火力不够 改，结果就是越来越贵了

而且这货还特复杂，你瞧那变形金刚一样的悬挂

cnmlgbd 发表于 2012-6-10 18:37
还真是高大全，速度要求快，不达标改，皮薄 改，火力不够 改，结果就是越来越贵了

而且这货还特复杂， ...
所以说这不就跪下了么.....美畜现在兜里虚.....V22能死磕出来....毕竟海骑士确实老了点、、这货.....悬啊.....不过土鳖要是搞点野牛刺激刺激也未可知

死透了，到处都是花钱的地儿，不砍它砍谁

jiafeidemao 发表于 2012-6-10 17:11
哪里差。
人家EFV  水上2700马力

pphu 发表于 2012-6-10 16:49
不是说我鳖陆地上已经没有心脏病了吗？山寨这货还有什么难度？貌似很适合我鳖使用啊。
性能值得口水，价格一看就萎。

兔子可以预见的未来都不会登陆美帝、毛子这级别对手的海岸，对付弯弯和东南群猴现有两栖装备绰绰有余了。有这钱不如把小平顶和中型运输机搞定。

确实md用不着这东西。。。

EFV的性能目前就是个画饼
不过画饼成真的话，大马力和变形机构确实水上速度相比05会有明显优势，然后防御力也好于05。
但是滑行原理和双工况发动机我们已经搞定了，再叽歪也谈不上有代差。

jiafeidemao 发表于 2012-6-10 17:11
哪里差。
书面指标上市公路时速100公里，水面40节，
这只是书面的，实际我也不知道

百臂巨人 发表于 2012-6-23 22:28
EFV的性能目前就是个画饼
不过画饼成真的话，大马力和变形机构确实水上速度相比05会有明显优势，然后防御力 ...
早年间据说有个BUG不知道后来怎么解决的、、咱的虽然也属于滑水、但是毕竟没有托举出水面、EFV这个玩意靠发动机强劲弄的很高速、但是走直线还成、水面转向不灵敏、不易控制方向、不知道后来怎么改的莫非又加了个舵？

EFV早在2011年2月就诈尸了。就在盖茨2011年1月宣布取消EFV之后一个半到两个月的时间也就是在2011年2月底3月初左右海军陆战队就已经提出了EFV的替代方案两栖战斗车（Amphibious Combat Vehicle/ACV），预计4年内出样车。

ACV的基本技术要求除了水上行驶速度和行驶距离上有所降低以外其他的和EFV大致相同。

http://defensetech.org/2011/03/0 ... ears/#ixzz1FO7hRod1

Amos: I’ll Be Able To Drive EFV Replacement Within Four Years
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos today shed some much anticipated light on when the Corps could see a replacement for the cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, telling lawmakers he expects to drive its replacement by the end of his tenure as commandant.

“There are two answers to that, one is as Commandant of the Marine Corps’s answer which is Before I leave leave office four years from now …  we’ll have a program of record, we’ll have steel, there will be a vehicle and I’ll be able to drive it,” Amos said responding to lawmakers questions during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. “I’m trying to pressurize industry, I’m trying to pressurize the acquisition folks, I want the word to get out. If we followed the standard acquisition timeline, which in some cases got us to where we are today, it’ll be 2024.”

To avoid such a fate, the general said the Department of the Navy will be using a model similar to the one it used to quickly buy and field thousands of MRAPs during the height of the Iraq war.

“Something probably that resembles the sense of urgency that we had for the MRAP but probably a little bit more scheduled, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

Now that’s not saying that Amos will necessarily be driving the production model EFV replacement, dubbed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, but it will will be some sort of early version ACV.

The EFV was cancelled earlier this year after it was predicted that its rising costs would swallow up waaay too much of the Marines’ procurement budgets. The craft was first conceived in the 1980s and has taken billions in development cash over the decade yet remained stuck in development purgatory.

It’s replacement will draw on the lessons learned from EFV development while using available technologies to field a 21st Century armored personnel carrier for the Corps, according to Amos.


http://www.defenseprocurementnew ... eplacement-process/

U.S. Marine Corps Begins EFV Replacement Process
Clarified to correct that the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is the EFV replacement vice the MPC. The MPC is to be used on land to move infantry around.

In its 2012 budget request the Obama Administration continued its plan to overhaul defense acquisition by proposing the cancellation of the new amphibious assault vehicle for the U.S.M.C. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program led by General Dynamics (GD) was over budget and behind schedule.

Part of the problems the program faced was that the requirements were for a well armored vehicle that could move fast in water and on land. The EFV was really a modern Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) that also had to travel across several miles of ocean under fire at high speed. These kind of requirements often cause issues with development and the EFV was a fairly aggressive program to begin with.

Congress has not necessarily been receptive to the idea of ending the program as it would represent yet another big ticket item ended with resulting job losses and millions of dollars seemingly not invested well. They are the final decision makers and it will be interesting to see how the final budget falls out next year with the pressures of trying to reduce spending but also to keep programs going.

Of course the Marines still need a replacement for their Seventies vintage AAV-7 they are currently using which is optimized for delivery of troops to shore but not for use as an armored transport on a battlefield threatened by the IED and mine such as the Marines faced in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Because of this need in mid-February the government released a series of Request for Information (RFI) to begin the process again of rebuilding their vehicle fleet.

The RFI cover the gamut of upgrading the existing AAV with more power, armor and weapons to replacing the wheeled LAV used for reconnaissance and troop transport to the new version of the EFV. This is currently called the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and mirrors many of the requirements that the EFV was trying to meet although the Marine Corps now says that the ability to move quickly across the water may be too expensive to pursue.

Hopefully some of the money spent on developing the EFV may also have bought things that can be used by the ACV program to expedite its development and delivery while lowering its costs. The situation is similar to the Army and the end of their Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicle program. There remains a need and the Army had to start the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program to get replacement for the M2 Bradley IFV.

Unless the U.S. is willing to forgo a large portion of the U.S.M.C.’s mission a modern amphibious assault vehicle is going to need to be developed and built. Let’s hope the ACV has a better result then the EFV did.



EFV早在2011年2月就诈尸了。就在盖茨2011年1月宣布取消EFV之后一个半到两个月的时间也就是在2011年2月底3月初左右海军陆战队就已经提出了EFV的替代方案两栖战斗车（Amphibious Combat Vehicle/ACV），预计4年内出样车。

ACV的基本技术要求除了水上行驶速度和行驶距离上有所降低以外其他的和EFV大致相同。

http://defensetech.org/2011/03/0 ... ears/#ixzz1FO7hRod1

Amos: I’ll Be Able To Drive EFV Replacement Within Four Years
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos today shed some much anticipated light on when the Corps could see a replacement for the cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, telling lawmakers he expects to drive its replacement by the end of his tenure as commandant.

“There are two answers to that, one is as Commandant of the Marine Corps’s answer which is Before I leave leave office four years from now …  we’ll have a program of record, we’ll have steel, there will be a vehicle and I’ll be able to drive it,” Amos said responding to lawmakers questions during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. “I’m trying to pressurize industry, I’m trying to pressurize the acquisition folks, I want the word to get out. If we followed the standard acquisition timeline, which in some cases got us to where we are today, it’ll be 2024.”

To avoid such a fate, the general said the Department of the Navy will be using a model similar to the one it used to quickly buy and field thousands of MRAPs during the height of the Iraq war.

“Something probably that resembles the sense of urgency that we had for the MRAP but probably a little bit more scheduled, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

Now that’s not saying that Amos will necessarily be driving the production model EFV replacement, dubbed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, but it will will be some sort of early version ACV.

The EFV was cancelled earlier this year after it was predicted that its rising costs would swallow up waaay too much of the Marines’ procurement budgets. The craft was first conceived in the 1980s and has taken billions in development cash over the decade yet remained stuck in development purgatory.

It’s replacement will draw on the lessons learned from EFV development while using available technologies to field a 21st Century armored personnel carrier for the Corps, according to Amos.


http://www.defenseprocurementnew ... eplacement-process/

U.S. Marine Corps Begins EFV Replacement Process
Clarified to correct that the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is the EFV replacement vice the MPC. The MPC is to be used on land to move infantry around.

In its 2012 budget request the Obama Administration continued its plan to overhaul defense acquisition by proposing the cancellation of the new amphibious assault vehicle for the U.S.M.C. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program led by General Dynamics (GD) was over budget and behind schedule.

Part of the problems the program faced was that the requirements were for a well armored vehicle that could move fast in water and on land. The EFV was really a modern Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) that also had to travel across several miles of ocean under fire at high speed. These kind of requirements often cause issues with development and the EFV was a fairly aggressive program to begin with.

Congress has not necessarily been receptive to the idea of ending the program as it would represent yet another big ticket item ended with resulting job losses and millions of dollars seemingly not invested well. They are the final decision makers and it will be interesting to see how the final budget falls out next year with the pressures of trying to reduce spending but also to keep programs going.

Of course the Marines still need a replacement for their Seventies vintage AAV-7 they are currently using which is optimized for delivery of troops to shore but not for use as an armored transport on a battlefield threatened by the IED and mine such as the Marines faced in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Because of this need in mid-February the government released a series of Request for Information (RFI) to begin the process again of rebuilding their vehicle fleet.

The RFI cover the gamut of upgrading the existing AAV with more power, armor and weapons to replacing the wheeled LAV used for reconnaissance and troop transport to the new version of the EFV. This is currently called the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) and mirrors many of the requirements that the EFV was trying to meet although the Marine Corps now says that the ability to move quickly across the water may be too expensive to pursue.

Hopefully some of the money spent on developing the EFV may also have bought things that can be used by the ACV program to expedite its development and delivery while lowering its costs. The situation is similar to the Army and the end of their Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicle program. There remains a need and the Army had to start the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program to get replacement for the M2 Bradley IFV.

Unless the U.S. is willing to forgo a large portion of the U.S.M.C.’s mission a modern amphibious assault vehicle is going to need to be developed and built. Let’s hope the ACV has a better result then the EFV did.

MD可以来找天朝买撒，回去换个康明斯或者卡特的发动机就好了，动力比天朝更强劲...

我们的比EFV差远球了。。。

1、一个没研制出来的货有可比性吗？为什么吹LCA大家都笑，吹EFV就不笑。
2、合适的才是好的。F22比F35先进，可F22停产鸟。
3、现阶段，TG的是性能最好、性价比最好的两栖战车有错吗？

书面指标上市公路时速100公里，水面40节，
这只是书面的，实际我也不知道

你看的是地摊文学？水面速度不是40节，而是46公里。

别的不知道，至少水上速度确实差很多，一个是大飞一个是渔船

一个46公里/小时，一个40公里/小时，这叫差很多？

jiafeidemao 发表于 2012-6-24 11:48
一个46公里/小时，一个40公里/小时，这叫差很多？

兔子的有40这么凶残？？？？这也太不科学了吧。。。。。

jiafeidemao 发表于 2012-6-10 17:11
哪里差。
花动机的差距太明显了。。。

兔子的有40这么凶残？？？？这也太不科学了吧。。。。。

63a式水陆坦克都有20公里/小时，做为设计要求是超过63a式水陆坦克2倍速度的05式，40公里/小时很正常（05装的可是1500马力的发动机，滑行体设计，体积也比EFV小）。

Fan1 发表于 2012-6-24 11:12
EFV早在2011年2月就诈尸了。就在盖茨2011年1月宣布取消EFV之后一个半到两个月的时间也就是在2011年2月底3月 ...
好像很厉害的样子~~~~

心是莲花 发表于 2012-6-23 18:07
人家EFV  水上2700马力
呵呵，我们2、30公里的航速直接能把功率降到几百，老美很变态，很变态。

21271173 发表于 2012-6-24 14:58
呵呵，我们2、30公里的航速直接能把功率降到几百，老美很变态，很变态。
几百？
05两栖是600/1600马力
没有双工况发动机怎么滑水……

百臂巨人 发表于 2012-6-24 15:10
几百？
05两栖是600/1600马力
没有双工况发动机怎么滑水……
我怎么记得看访谈说是800啊，记不太清楚了。但肯定没超过1000。另外航速降一半，功率需求要降三分之二吧。公式是按次方算的。记不得了。

21271173 发表于 2012-6-24 15:15
我怎么记得看访谈说是800啊，记不太清楚了。但肯定没超过1000。另外航速降一半，功率需求要降三分之二吧。 ...
排水机制的话，速度2倍，功率8倍

EFV是能跑上岸的船 那玩意大的一逼 圣安东尼奥也带不了多少辆
05可是能下水的步战
怎么比？

EFV真死翘翘了悲催的嘛