Expeditionary Fire Support System

Suhiir · #1 March 25th, 2008, 02:42 PM

New update on the EFSS

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

DRG · #2 March 25th, 2008, 05:41 PM

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

Suhiir · #3 March 25th, 2008, 11:09 PM

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.

thatguy96 · #4 March 26th, 2008, 12:16 AM

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.

thatguy96 · #5 March 28th, 2008, 01:29 PM

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).

Suhiir · #6 March 28th, 2008, 06:24 PM

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.

thatguy96 · #7 March 28th, 2008, 07:10 PM

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.