thedrifter
06-30-07, 11:09 AM
EFV setbacks concern House panel
By Kimberly Johnson - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Jun 30, 2007 8:20:19 EDT
House lawmakers expressed shock over program delays and cost overruns plaguing the Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program at a recent hearing, but Marine officials said it’s still a necessity for the service.
The EFV, designed to replace the Corps’ aging amphibious assault vehicle, was initially slated to hit the fleet in 2010. However, earlier this year the vehicle’s launch was pushed back five years so designers could improve its reliability. Early test vehicles frequently broke down, and operators weren’t able to steer when accelerating in water.
Early estimates said each EFV would cost about $6 million, but those costs have risen to about $17 million per vehicle, making it “the most expensive ground combat vehicle in the history of the U.S. military,” said Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower and expeditionary forces, during a June 26 hearing.
“This program is going to cost more than three times what Congress was originally informed,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., ranking subcommittee member. “If all goes well from here on out, system development and demonstration is going to take nearly twice as long as originally planned.”
Taylor said he was concerned about the EFV prototype’s poor performance in early testing and cited reports that the vehicle can operate only four to 10 hours before breaking down.
“I want to be very clear what this kind of reliability problem can mean for the Marines who will operate these vehicles: Going into combat in an armored vehicle that floats is dangerous enough, but if that same vehicle gets ashore — far from most maintenance support — and breaks down, the Marines on that vehicle could be extremely vulnerable,” Taylor said.
“I’m concerned that you continue to still have mechanical problems, that after [$2.3 billion] in taxpayer money, we have nine vehicles to test that break down,” Taylor said. “I haven’t heard anything today that gives me a degree of confidence that you’re addressing these problems.”
The program’s lackluster performance was brought on by funding decisions made more than a decade ago, defense officials said.
The program was not fully funded in the 1990s, said Roger Smith, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for expeditionary warfare. “The lack of systems engineering that was not performed was one of the main factors that caused the reliability to be so poor,” he said.
“In order to have successful execution of the certified EFV program, it is contingent upon receiving full funding requested in the president’s FY 2008 budget,” said David Ahern, the Pentagon’s director of portfolio systems acquisition.
Price overruns are a result of a broken acquisition system, one Corps official said.
“The process requires you to come up with the estimate before you even build the vehicles,” Col. William Taylor, program executive officer for Marine Corps Land Systems, told reporters after the hearing.
“They have to use analogies,” he said, such as with legacy vehicles like the AAVs and the M60 tank. “That’s like comparing a V-22 to a regular ol’ helicopter. The EFV is so much more complex than the existing combat vehicles. They underachieved in that estimate, by a significant amount.”
Designers probably would have “been better off comparing the complexities of this vehicle to an aircraft,” instead of other combat vehicles with simpler designs, Taylor said.
Lawmakers pressed Corps officials to justify the need for such a vehicle.
“It’s been a long while since Marines en masse stormed a beach,” Bartlett said.
“Why do we need the EFV? The EFV is essential to the nation’s forcible entry capability,” said Lt. Gen. Emerson Gardner, deputy commandant for programs and resources. “Without the EFV, the U.S. does not have the ability to conduct surfaced assaults from ships over the horizon.”
The EFV is one piece of the service’s vehicle portfolio, he said, explaining that the Corps decided to cut its EFV requirement from more than 1,000 vehicles to 573 as it increased requests for armored wheeled vehicles.
“We have to be organized, trained and equipped to do a multitude of missions,” Gardner said.
Without the EFV, the Corps must rely on antiquated amtracs, which must be launched about 5,000 yards from shore, Gardner said.
“You’re taking risks with those ships coming in that close, so the Marine commander has to persuade the naval commander that he needs to take that risk with those ships to push those vehicles out,” he said.
Lawmakers balked at the EFV’s flat-bottom design and urged the Corps to pursue a heavily armored V-shaped hull, similar to the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles the service is pushing out to Iraq as Humvee replacements.
“I am having some trouble understanding why making it with a V-bottom would make it less like a boat,” Bartlett said. “Most every boat I’ve seen going fast on the water has a V-bottom, rather than a flat bottom.”
The EFV’s flat bottom — a necessity for getting the vehicle up on plane for high-speed water maneuvering — is not ideal for armoring against roadside bombs, Gardner explained.
“However, the side protection of the vehicle does provide the kind of force protection we’re seeing with vehicles today,” he said.
Ellie
By Kimberly Johnson - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Jun 30, 2007 8:20:19 EDT
House lawmakers expressed shock over program delays and cost overruns plaguing the Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program at a recent hearing, but Marine officials said it’s still a necessity for the service.
The EFV, designed to replace the Corps’ aging amphibious assault vehicle, was initially slated to hit the fleet in 2010. However, earlier this year the vehicle’s launch was pushed back five years so designers could improve its reliability. Early test vehicles frequently broke down, and operators weren’t able to steer when accelerating in water.
Early estimates said each EFV would cost about $6 million, but those costs have risen to about $17 million per vehicle, making it “the most expensive ground combat vehicle in the history of the U.S. military,” said Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower and expeditionary forces, during a June 26 hearing.
“This program is going to cost more than three times what Congress was originally informed,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., ranking subcommittee member. “If all goes well from here on out, system development and demonstration is going to take nearly twice as long as originally planned.”
Taylor said he was concerned about the EFV prototype’s poor performance in early testing and cited reports that the vehicle can operate only four to 10 hours before breaking down.
“I want to be very clear what this kind of reliability problem can mean for the Marines who will operate these vehicles: Going into combat in an armored vehicle that floats is dangerous enough, but if that same vehicle gets ashore — far from most maintenance support — and breaks down, the Marines on that vehicle could be extremely vulnerable,” Taylor said.
“I’m concerned that you continue to still have mechanical problems, that after [$2.3 billion] in taxpayer money, we have nine vehicles to test that break down,” Taylor said. “I haven’t heard anything today that gives me a degree of confidence that you’re addressing these problems.”
The program’s lackluster performance was brought on by funding decisions made more than a decade ago, defense officials said.
The program was not fully funded in the 1990s, said Roger Smith, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for expeditionary warfare. “The lack of systems engineering that was not performed was one of the main factors that caused the reliability to be so poor,” he said.
“In order to have successful execution of the certified EFV program, it is contingent upon receiving full funding requested in the president’s FY 2008 budget,” said David Ahern, the Pentagon’s director of portfolio systems acquisition.
Price overruns are a result of a broken acquisition system, one Corps official said.
“The process requires you to come up with the estimate before you even build the vehicles,” Col. William Taylor, program executive officer for Marine Corps Land Systems, told reporters after the hearing.
“They have to use analogies,” he said, such as with legacy vehicles like the AAVs and the M60 tank. “That’s like comparing a V-22 to a regular ol’ helicopter. The EFV is so much more complex than the existing combat vehicles. They underachieved in that estimate, by a significant amount.”
Designers probably would have “been better off comparing the complexities of this vehicle to an aircraft,” instead of other combat vehicles with simpler designs, Taylor said.
Lawmakers pressed Corps officials to justify the need for such a vehicle.
“It’s been a long while since Marines en masse stormed a beach,” Bartlett said.
“Why do we need the EFV? The EFV is essential to the nation’s forcible entry capability,” said Lt. Gen. Emerson Gardner, deputy commandant for programs and resources. “Without the EFV, the U.S. does not have the ability to conduct surfaced assaults from ships over the horizon.”
The EFV is one piece of the service’s vehicle portfolio, he said, explaining that the Corps decided to cut its EFV requirement from more than 1,000 vehicles to 573 as it increased requests for armored wheeled vehicles.
“We have to be organized, trained and equipped to do a multitude of missions,” Gardner said.
Without the EFV, the Corps must rely on antiquated amtracs, which must be launched about 5,000 yards from shore, Gardner said.
“You’re taking risks with those ships coming in that close, so the Marine commander has to persuade the naval commander that he needs to take that risk with those ships to push those vehicles out,” he said.
Lawmakers balked at the EFV’s flat-bottom design and urged the Corps to pursue a heavily armored V-shaped hull, similar to the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles the service is pushing out to Iraq as Humvee replacements.
“I am having some trouble understanding why making it with a V-bottom would make it less like a boat,” Bartlett said. “Most every boat I’ve seen going fast on the water has a V-bottom, rather than a flat bottom.”
The EFV’s flat bottom — a necessity for getting the vehicle up on plane for high-speed water maneuvering — is not ideal for armoring against roadside bombs, Gardner explained.
“However, the side protection of the vehicle does provide the kind of force protection we’re seeing with vehicles today,” he said.
Ellie