To EFV or not to EFV, That is not the Question

The expeditionary fighting vehicle is someone else's fight. Should we build it, or should we not? I don't know, it is very hard to cheer for any flat bottom vehicle in an IED world. Not my call though, but what I do find interesting is the way General Conway defends it. This is bigger than the EFV.

“We’re optimistic that once people understand the facts and understand that the United States Navy is not going closer than 25 miles to a shore, they’ll appreciate the value of a vehicle that is really an armored personnel carrier that also planes at about 30 knots over open ocean,” Conway said. “We think that the program is absolutely necessary to what we do.”

Is one of the facts that the Navy is not going closer than 25 miles to a shore? If that is true (and it probably is, because I don't see the Navy saying otherwise), then we know why sealift is not seen as anything near a viable option for amphibious ships. It almost raises the question how the Marines intend to put anything on shore without LCACs.

It also leads to another question. What is the range of the Mark 45 5"/54? Naval gunfire support what?

I don't know what it means for the EFV when the Commandant of the Marine Corps says the Navy has no intention to go closer than 25 miles to shore, but I don't think it is a compliment to the Navy.

However, it certainly explains a lot regarding the approach the Navy takes in developing ships, although I'm not sure why the Navy would build a ship with "littoral" in the name if the Navy doesn't actually intend to operate in... the littorals.