AGAIN I REMIND YOU ALL,. THIRTEEN YEARS AND 3 BILLION DOLLARS LATER THE EFV IS STILL NOT OPERATIONAL DEPSITE THE OUTRIGHT LIES POSTED TO SPIN THE OBVIOUS TRUTH. GD IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR ITS POLITICAL MUSCLE TO DRAG THIS FAILED PROGRAM FOR THIRTEEN YEARS AND THREE BILLION DOLLARS. I SURE THEY GOT SOME NICE PROPERTY ON THE U. P.
As we all have participated in forms regarding social, political, military, cultural affairs we always come across the "know it all" with his pretentious script. We feed his ego with our counter points for which the precocious adolescent now an adult either dismisses or fails to acknowledge, pontificates with opinion as truths. For there is no accountability, no consequence for being obnoxious and anonymous. So if you want to continue bearing with his ego, continue to debate hoping to win the argument you have a better chance of winning the lottery.
ALLONS (translated: I'M FULL OF MYSELF)
vicgilroy
After thirteen years and two billion dollars later GD has finally handed over a flat bottom vehicle that has no publicized facts about its operating efficiency on land or water. Everytime I read an article about the EFV it mainly explains the concept of modern day amphibious warfare and the need for a replacement for the AAV P7, no facts about the operability of the EFV. Does anybody else agree?
But General Dynamics still gets funding, this program is going on its fourteenth year. Again stop the discussions of concepts, weapons, aluminum versus armor. Most of the contributors don't acknowledge the time and wastful spending plus the Marine Corp Commandant continues to endorse this program, As I said before my hat is off to General Dynamics for the polictical muscle they employ for the dismal failure this program is it still is granted additional funding. I've seen the EFV in action or lack of, it doesn't work. The only way it can move any distance is by tow truck.
'
Here's my question: Thirteen years in development, two billion dollars spent, no operable vehicle; how has GD been able to continue this program? We can argue concepts, weapons, etc; I would like an opinion or factual answer to my question.
This program has been in development for thirteen years and two billion dollars have been spent. They don't have a working prototype. Whenever it goes down the road for test a tow truck soon follows to drag it back because it broke down. My hats off to the folks at General Dynamics for having the political muscle to continue this program for so long and have so much tax payer money to fund it. Look at the Styker vehicle its suffers catastrophic suspension(combat field environment) and powertrain failures (urban combat environment) yet GD stills gets funding for the Stryker Program. Here are two examples that all it takes is plenty of political muscle not combat effectiveness.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Branch