Development for the AAAV began in August 1974 with Landing Vehicle Assault (LVA) prototypes that continued in the early 1980s at the command at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

As a result of delays, the AAVP7A1 received another service life extension-type upgrade in the mid 1990s while the USMC still awaited final development and delivery of the AAAV, 14 years behind original projected time frames.

In 1995, the program entered into the definition and risk reduction phase, where it won two Department of Defense awards for successful cost and technology management.

The Government Accountability Office later stated that the development phase of three years was insufficient, causing delays and prototype failures, particularly in reliability.

[11] After the 2006 operational assessment was plagued by reliability issues and maintenance burdens, the Corps began a redesign of the EFV, requiring a new contract for an additional US$143.5 million in February 2007.

[11] Instead of initiating production as planned, the corps asked for seven new prototypes, to address the current deficiencies, which had caused an average of one failure for every four and a half hours of operation.

[14] He later questioned the EFV as the proper ship-to-shore platform on 3 May 2010,[15] the day before the initial prototype was rolled out at a ceremony at Marine Corps Base Quantico.

[20][21] New families of guided anti-ship weapons have extended target ranges of well past 75 miles (121 km) making the EFV's capabilities less of a game-changer than originally hoped.

[24] During a Pentagon briefing, on 6 January 2011, revealing budget efficiencies and reinvestment possibilities, Secretary of Defense Gates announced his intention to cancel the EFV program.

[25] In an interview on 5 January 2011 with Bloomberg Businessweek, Duncan D. Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, anticipated the cancellation announcement by Gates.

[26] According to Lieutenant General George J. Flynn of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, the USMC was to use funding from the cancelled EFV for other tactical ground vehicles over the next five years.

[29] Ray Mabus has said that new defensive systems will allow navy ships to close to within 12 miles (19 km) off hostile shores so a 25-knot (46 km/h) amphibious tracked vehicle is no longer needed.

[34] The electrically powered two-man MK46 turret on the personnel variant accommodated the commander on the right and gunner on the left, a fire control system, and the main and coaxial weapons.

The standard version was to have had a Mk44 Bushmaster II 30 mm (1.18 in) cannon, which fired up to 250 rounds per minute with single, burst, and fully automatic capabilities up to 2,200 yards (2,000 m) in all weather conditions.

[35] In June 2007 members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces sent a letter to the Commandant of the Marine Corps urging that the EFV be redesigned to give troops better protection against roadside bombs.

The flat hull, which has endured persistent criticism for not being the more blast-resistant V-shape, was necessary for the EFV to plane across the surface of the water and reach its high speed, while dealing with sea states of Category 4.

[38][39] On 13 October 2010 the navy awarded M Cubed Technologies a contract to develop new armor for the EFV to offer better protection and lighter weight.