Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he only killed weapons programs in his reboot of the Pentagon's arsenal if the project's "budget was out of control, or they were overdue, or the technology was too great a risk." So why not cut two of the military-industrial complex's most troubled weapons programs, I asked him, in a Pentagon conference call. The Marines' project to build a swimming, armored Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is a mess. And the seas have been more than a little rough for the Navy's effort to build a reconfigurable shoreline fighter, the Littoral Combat Ship.
Gates answer: We punted on the vehicle, and we can't live without the ship.
First, the vehicle. "Meant to carry Marines from ship to shore, and provide protection and fire support on land," the Marines' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is
"billions of dollars over-budget and more than a decade late," as David Axe observes. "Three years ago, a batch of early prototypes proved so unreliable that the
Marines totally redesigned the vehicle, restructured the program and cut the planned production run from 1,000 to just 600." According to the Government Accountability Office, the overall price tag for the Marines' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is up 126.6 percent, to $3.6 billion.
Rather than "go after" the EFV in this budget, Gates says he "kicked" the issue to the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon's once-every-four-years strategic plan. That's because he wanted a broader look "at the size of the amphibious capability that the country needs. And obviously, that vehicle that you mentioned is a part of that... How much are you prepared to spend to get from the ship to the shore?"
Marine General at Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright says the Review will handle all kinds of tradeoffs. For instance: "If you have bombers in the Pacific, do you also have to have aircraft carriers?" he asks. "Do we always have to have every thing in every service?
How much of this do we really need, especially given the situation we face which is a much broader spectrum of conflict over a much great geographic dispersal than we've had in the past?"
Both Cartwright and Gates agreed, however, that the U.S. absoultely needs a vessel that can take on pirates, smugglers, and quiet subs in the coastal seas. Which brings us to the Littoral Combat Ship.
The vessel, as Axe noted for Danger Room in November, is beyond innovative:
"The ship can accelerate from zero to 40 knots in just a couple minutes -- and navigate waters as shallow as 20 feet.
Using manned and unmanned helicopters plus different plug-and-play
'mission modules,' LCS can perform anti-submarine, counter-mine or surface-warfare missions."
The Defense Secretary believes that price tag can come down. But, as opposed to our friend and naval analyst Galrahn, Gates believe the LCS "has a capability that we just have to have... It would have enormous value against fast boats like we see, for example, in the Persian Gulf." Even at an inflated price, it would still be more economical than other options the Navy uses today. "You don't need a $5 billion ship to go after pirates. You don't need a
$5 billion ship necessarily to do a humanitarian mission. So its flexibility and its ability to get into tighter places than other ships that makes it more attractive."
[Photo: Department of Defense]
