The operational case against EFV depended on a particular picture of future amphibious warfare. Marines would either land without serious opposition or rely on long-range weapons from other services to destroy shore-based anti-ship threats before amphibious ships approached. In either scenario, a vehicle designed to carry troops from ships far offshore to a contested beach looked unnecessary. The objection is that this reasoning assumes adversaries will not develop counters to the force's technological advantages. The acquisition decision therefore rests on doctrine, joint fires, and the risks naval forces must accept near a defended coast.
Notable Point · 24:35-25:29
EFV cancellation assumes safer beaches or decisive long-range fires
The rationale for dispensing with a long-range amphibious vehicle rests on unopposed landings or other services clearing coastal missile threats first.