Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

I have not heard much lately about the new Marine Corps EFSS mortar. Does anyone know if this new mortar system has been placed in operation? I know the M777 light weight howitzer is in operation. I would think that a 120mm mortar would come in handy in Iraq. Thanks

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Best info I've found indicates the Dragon Fire II 120mm mortar is due to be placed in service in 2008.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

New update on the EFSS

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

I've put this in the next OOB's at a 1/2009 start. Time will tell if that ends up correct or not

Don

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Yeah, put it in mine for a 1/2009 start too.

Now the question is what about the Internally Transportable Vehicle (ITV).

Currently they're using old jeeps (yes the classic WW II ones) for transport because the HMMWV won't fit inside an Osprey.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

GAO reviewed the EFSS as part of a larger audit March '07. I updated the EFSS page at work to reflect their findings (I'm currently an intern at globalsecurity.org among other things...and it'll take them 6 months to put that page up hehe). I'll check it while I'm at work Friday and see what they reported the Program Office as suggesting the Initial Operating Capability (IOC) date was.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Alright, there is no IOC date in the GAO report. They were expecting a basic initial capability as of last July, and the design was reported as 95% finalized as of March of 2007 when the report was published.

The main issues then centered around getting the electronics to work (EFSS was supposed to fire within 30 seconds of recieving the command, with the average time in the report cited as closer to a minute) and the ITV. The ITV had its own issues, and ironically as of March 2007 the EFSS prime mover was the only variant not flight certified on the primary mission aircraft (CH-53E, MV-22, and C-130).

The FY07 budget also put $8 million into the ITV budget specifically for up-armoring. Two kits were going to be developed. An A kit designed to keep the vehicle within weight restrictions for airborne transportation, and a B kit designed to be readily installed after leaving an aircraft. The A kit adds 60 lbs of armor, while the B kit adds an additional 85 lbs (for a total of 145 lbs with both kits installed).

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Yeah I saw (I believe a CBS) documentary segment where the know-it-all reporters were *****ing about the lack of armor on the ITV was endangering our troops and an obvious case of Pentagon idiocy.
Of course they never bothered to mention the point of the vehicle was to fit in the size and weight restrictions of the MV-22.
Gotta love the press.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Same was the case with the up armoring of HMMWVs. Public outrage led to increased armor with little appreciation for the almost equally dangerous rollover problems it caused when driving the vehicle at high speed.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Regarding the CBS report they did not realize that the vehicle, just like the HMMWV, is not intended to be combat vehicle. Its a prime mover vehicle as configured to tow the mortar. When you think about it, its just a mortar and a small towing vehicle! Hopefully the program will work cause the Marines need some type of fire support between the 81mm's and the M777.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

I don't have a problem with armoring some of the Hummers.
If they're going to be used as "Combat Patrol" vehicles I'd sure like them to be able to stop an AK round or fragments from the vehicle in front of you driving over an IED.
An the other hand there's no reason at all to armor utility and towing vehicles. They're trucks damn it not tanks.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

There may have been some noise about increased accident rates for up armored HMMWVs but frankly what do you prefer:
a slighty higher chance of a lethal accident, which can be mitigated by appropriate driver training, or being torn to shreds by the first IED you run into?
The increased armor has turned HMMWVs from a vehicle vulnerable to anything from small arms to explosives to one vulnerable only to well placed RPG shots (which can't be fired by nice safe remote control), big/lucky IEDs or EFPs, which are more resource intensive to make.
Note that up armor kits were improvised by soldiers in the field early on and of course bullets/fragments were the reasons APCs were developed in first place.
In a place like Iraq everything must be (and has been for the most part) armored to stop at least bullets/frag, including armored cabs for resupply trucks. This brings a lot of headaches (less payload, substantially more maintenance etc.) but is better than the alternative.
A specialized airborne vehicle has different requirements and lack of armor is an acceptable trade off but anything else designed now should be at least fitted for armor.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Just an update. The 2008 version of the last GAO report I cited has just come out. The Full-Rate Production Decision is planned for May (delayed from last year).

Some of the text:

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Thanks for the update !

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Update :

For the "gun" of the system it's a 120 mm RT-F1 mortar (see MO 120 RT-F1 in the french OOB)
Range data are incorect in the OOB :

Normal range = 8170 m (160 hexe in game)and not 200+ hexe.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

I got 8200m (164 hexes) from my research into them.
On the other hand a RAP (rocket assisted projectile) round with a much greater range was also mentioned as being available for it. I don't recall ever hearing of a RAP mortar round before tho.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Re :

2 solutions :

1) change the range from 208 to 160 or 164 (not a great difference http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)

2) add a new unit EFFS ER or MO 120 RT-F1 ER with the 13000 m (260 hexes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif) range. On the other hand you need to reduce the accuracy or ROF because the RAP ammo was not really accurate for arty standards used in french artillery. In 1992 the maximum error allowed was 1 m for 1km.

The ER mean Extended Range off course.

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

In addition to the EFSS, do the Marines plan on equipping the LAV 81mm mortar with the 120mm mortar? I always heard that they were disappointed with the 81mm mortar since it was so light. Thanks

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

PDF file about the 120 mm rocket assisted mortar ammunition

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/44fuze/rockets.pdf

on the left : 120 mm RT F1
on the right : EFSS ?

Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
 

Yes, the other morter is the EFSS mortar.

That has been the plan from the beginning (Dragon Fire II was specifically tested from within the LAV-M chassis). The interesting thing was that at least during development the system was designed so that the complete trailer could be moved inside the LAV-M chassis, allowing for no need for a LAV specific system. That way the system could also be operated independently of the vehicle if for some reason required.