thedrifter
06-07-07, 07:55 PM
EFV program cost rises 27 percent
By Kris Osborn - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jun 7, 2007 20:38:17 EDT
Pentagon officials raised their estimate of the total cost of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program to $15.9 billion — up 27 percent from $12.5 billion in then-year, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars — during a congressionally mandated review of the over-budget, behind-schedule, technically beleaguered effort.
The increase is due to delays and design problems with the next-generation amphibious vehicle, which has already been in development for 11 years, Marine Corps spokesman David Branham said June 7.
Branham said the rise also was a result of the Marines’ February decision to nearly halve its intended purchase from 1,013 to 573 EFVs.
“You pay more for a smaller lot. Any time you increase your procurement numbers, the costs go down,” he said.
The Navy will fund the increase, he said.
Last August, Pentagon officials estimated that each EFV would cost $12.3 million, that low-rate initial production would begin this year and that the vehicles would start hitting the fleet in December 2010.
But in December, a DoD Operational Testing and Evaluation report said the EFV fails in numerous areas considered critical for combat. It breaks down, on average, about every eight hours and steers unpredictably when accelerating in water, the report said.
In February, the White House’s budget proposal showed that the Marines had changed their plans. They would buy just over half as many as planned, start production three years later and spend an extra $300 million each year. On Feb. 6, the Navy notified Congress that the EFV program would trigger the Nunn-McCurdy statute, which requires Pentagon recertification of programs whose costs rise more than 15 percent.
In March, a stakeholders’ report revealed more delays: initial operating capability would be pushed to 2015, full operational capability in 2025. The report also noted that the estimated cost of each EFV had risen to $22.3 million, up from $12.3 million in August. And yet, the report said, there is “limited evidence” that the EFV will ever meet the Corps’ reliability requirements, that it was “unclear if a redesign effort of the current vehicle is a feasible solution,” and “unclear” that the program could meet even the new schedule.
On June 7, the Defense Department and Marine Corps officials told reporters that they had recertified the EFV program as required by the Nunn-McCurdy law, vouching that:
* The program is essential to national security.
* No alternatives would do the job at a lower cost.
* New unit costs are reasonable.
* Management structure will ensure that the problem doesn’t occur again.
The fixes emphasize more oversight and “systems engineering that will modify the vehicle while still keeping it capable of meeting all requirements,” said Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield, a spokesman for Navy acquisition chief Delores Etter. “There were reliability issues with the vehicle. The vehicle passed every KPP [key performance parameter] test put in front of it, except for reliability.”
Under the new plan, the average cost to make each EFV will be $21.6 million, bringing the total production cost to $12.4 billion, Branham said.
The schedule, as redone in March, remains the same, with plans to continue the system development and demonstration phase through a milestone C procurement in 2011, Marine Corps officials said.
In the interim, Marine Corps officials are considering upgrading the aging fleet of Assault Amphibian Vehicles, Schofield said.
The 34-ton EFV, designed as a faster, more durable, next-generation AAV, is being developed by General Dynamics. The P1 personnel variant will be able to swim up to 25 miles with 17 combat-equipped Marines, then maneuver like a tank on land. It will be armed with an MK46 30mm weapon station and a 7.62mm machine gun, the officials said.
In the decade-plus since the program began in 1996, $1.8 billion been spent on prototypes and research and development, Branham said. Ten prototypes have been delivered and seven more are on the way, said Branham.
“EFV is a high-priority program which will provide both over-the-horizon capability and significantly greater war-fighter capability on land. The EFV requirement was to get something that would go through high-waves and maintain speed,” said Schofield. For instance, the EFV’s speed of 20 knots will allow ships to be much further off shore, he said.
The Corps’ existing amtracs will take the service only so far into the future, Commandant Gen. James Conway told reporters in March. AAVs travel about 8 mph on the water and fill the troop compartment with fuel fumes.
“It can’t negotiate those higher sea states that you would find the further you get out to sea,” Conway said. “I think we’re in a period of risk right now until we get this EFV. The Navy’s billion-dollar ships will not come closer than probably 25 miles to the beach,” he added, citing sea-skimming missiles that were fired at Israeli ships this past summer off the coast of Lebanon. “Those weren’t nation states, those were just terrorists ... using that kind of capability.”
The Corps needs the capability that the EFV would bring, he said.
“We’ve got to close that 25 miles,” Conway said. “It’s an absolutely essential requirement that we have that kind of capability. And from my perspective, sooner is much better because we shorten that period of risk that we’re in right now with the Navy ships not wanting to get close to those anti-access systems.”
Kimberly Johnson contributed to this report.
Ellie
By Kris Osborn - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jun 7, 2007 20:38:17 EDT
Pentagon officials raised their estimate of the total cost of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program to $15.9 billion — up 27 percent from $12.5 billion in then-year, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars — during a congressionally mandated review of the over-budget, behind-schedule, technically beleaguered effort.
The increase is due to delays and design problems with the next-generation amphibious vehicle, which has already been in development for 11 years, Marine Corps spokesman David Branham said June 7.
Branham said the rise also was a result of the Marines’ February decision to nearly halve its intended purchase from 1,013 to 573 EFVs.
“You pay more for a smaller lot. Any time you increase your procurement numbers, the costs go down,” he said.
The Navy will fund the increase, he said.
Last August, Pentagon officials estimated that each EFV would cost $12.3 million, that low-rate initial production would begin this year and that the vehicles would start hitting the fleet in December 2010.
But in December, a DoD Operational Testing and Evaluation report said the EFV fails in numerous areas considered critical for combat. It breaks down, on average, about every eight hours and steers unpredictably when accelerating in water, the report said.
In February, the White House’s budget proposal showed that the Marines had changed their plans. They would buy just over half as many as planned, start production three years later and spend an extra $300 million each year. On Feb. 6, the Navy notified Congress that the EFV program would trigger the Nunn-McCurdy statute, which requires Pentagon recertification of programs whose costs rise more than 15 percent.
In March, a stakeholders’ report revealed more delays: initial operating capability would be pushed to 2015, full operational capability in 2025. The report also noted that the estimated cost of each EFV had risen to $22.3 million, up from $12.3 million in August. And yet, the report said, there is “limited evidence” that the EFV will ever meet the Corps’ reliability requirements, that it was “unclear if a redesign effort of the current vehicle is a feasible solution,” and “unclear” that the program could meet even the new schedule.
On June 7, the Defense Department and Marine Corps officials told reporters that they had recertified the EFV program as required by the Nunn-McCurdy law, vouching that:
* The program is essential to national security.
* No alternatives would do the job at a lower cost.
* New unit costs are reasonable.
* Management structure will ensure that the problem doesn’t occur again.
The fixes emphasize more oversight and “systems engineering that will modify the vehicle while still keeping it capable of meeting all requirements,” said Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield, a spokesman for Navy acquisition chief Delores Etter. “There were reliability issues with the vehicle. The vehicle passed every KPP [key performance parameter] test put in front of it, except for reliability.”
Under the new plan, the average cost to make each EFV will be $21.6 million, bringing the total production cost to $12.4 billion, Branham said.
The schedule, as redone in March, remains the same, with plans to continue the system development and demonstration phase through a milestone C procurement in 2011, Marine Corps officials said.
In the interim, Marine Corps officials are considering upgrading the aging fleet of Assault Amphibian Vehicles, Schofield said.
The 34-ton EFV, designed as a faster, more durable, next-generation AAV, is being developed by General Dynamics. The P1 personnel variant will be able to swim up to 25 miles with 17 combat-equipped Marines, then maneuver like a tank on land. It will be armed with an MK46 30mm weapon station and a 7.62mm machine gun, the officials said.
In the decade-plus since the program began in 1996, $1.8 billion been spent on prototypes and research and development, Branham said. Ten prototypes have been delivered and seven more are on the way, said Branham.
“EFV is a high-priority program which will provide both over-the-horizon capability and significantly greater war-fighter capability on land. The EFV requirement was to get something that would go through high-waves and maintain speed,” said Schofield. For instance, the EFV’s speed of 20 knots will allow ships to be much further off shore, he said.
The Corps’ existing amtracs will take the service only so far into the future, Commandant Gen. James Conway told reporters in March. AAVs travel about 8 mph on the water and fill the troop compartment with fuel fumes.
“It can’t negotiate those higher sea states that you would find the further you get out to sea,” Conway said. “I think we’re in a period of risk right now until we get this EFV. The Navy’s billion-dollar ships will not come closer than probably 25 miles to the beach,” he added, citing sea-skimming missiles that were fired at Israeli ships this past summer off the coast of Lebanon. “Those weren’t nation states, those were just terrorists ... using that kind of capability.”
The Corps needs the capability that the EFV would bring, he said.
“We’ve got to close that 25 miles,” Conway said. “It’s an absolutely essential requirement that we have that kind of capability. And from my perspective, sooner is much better because we shorten that period of risk that we’re in right now with the Navy ships not wanting to get close to those anti-access systems.”
Kimberly Johnson contributed to this report.
Ellie