Talk:Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 weight 2 Typical 2.1 Revised quantity and cost 3 Length

[edit] weight

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

[edit] Typical

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)

Thank you strawman. 128.227.179.140 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Revised quantity and cost

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Length

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)