Two defense contractors, AEgis Technologies and the Carley Corporation, celebrated their good fortune yesterday. The Marine Corps awarded them a four-year, $36 million contract to produce a training regimen for one of its top priorities for the future: the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a $12-billion tank that swims Marines from a big ship to an enemy-controlled beach, the Corps' traditional forte. Only the deal didn't exactly come at the best time.
The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle has been in trouble for years - billions over-budget, years late, and possibly susceptible to improvised bombs. Practically at the same time as the AEgis/Carley announcement, the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee finished its mark-up of a $669.9 billion bill funding next year's Defense Department operations. One of its casualties: the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. And that's going to accelerate a heated debate over the Corps' future: do the Marines still need to be specialists in storming beaches, or should they just be a quicker, meaner version of the Army?
The committee effectively gave the 38-ton tank a final warning. It authorized $38 million for one more round of tests, according to a statement issued after the vote yesterday afternoon – and $184 in "termination costs in the event of test failure," allowing the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles' contractors to recoup their costs if the program ultimately gets iced.
"After the investment of nearly $2,900,000,000 in research and development funds over more than two decades, the Committee believes that further investment in the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is not warranted if improved performance of the new prototypes cannot be demonstrated," the committee wrote, per subscription-only InsideDefense. It added an additional vote of no confidence: "The Committee further notes that if the program is successful in demonstrating improved performance, the program would likely continue to face challenges in the areas of cost, schedule, weight, and other factors."
That doesn't mean the EFV is totally dead. The House Appropriations Committee hasn't completed its version of the fiscal 2011 defense appropriations bill, a necessary step for getting the bill to the House floor. Pro-EFV senators could try to attach an amendment providing additional money for the vehicle when the bill goes to the Senate floor. And it's an open question whether either Congress can actually pass the bill at all this year, thanks to a compressed and politicized pre-election schedule, meaning there are opportunities for the EFV's advocates to protect funding for the vehicle. But chances are that the EFV will have to pass its next round of tests – currently scheduled to run from October to February – if it's to avoid the axe.
The vehicle is a huge priority for the current Marine leadership, as it's a proxy for how the Corps views its place in the nation's defense. Traditionally, Corps' specialty has been storming beaches. Marine General James Conway, the departing Commandant of the Corps, has defended the EFV as synonymous with the Marines' amphibious nature – that ability to fight on both sea and land and transit rapidly between each. "The country needs to have that capability," Conway said at Camp Pendleton earlier this week, a statement he's repeatedly made as part of his valedictory speeches and interviews.
So-called "Amphib" is dear to Conway and other Marine leaders because the Corps has spent the past decade as effectively a second Army, fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan far, far away from the water. Some Marine leaders are more comfortable than others with that change. But most are hesitant to institutionalize it, fearing that they'll effectively abandon what makes the Marines unique.
Killing the EFV is a stand-in for that debate. When the service finally unveiled its latest prototype in May, it didn't hesitate to call the EFV "the future of Marine Corps amphibious capability." Lieutenant Colonel Matthew McLaughlin, a spokesman for the Corps, says the service's position is unchanged, despite the committee's vote: "The EFV fills a gap in our ability to project our nation's power from sea to shore, assuring access from the sea. If the nation continues to demand the flexibility to come from the sea, then we need the capability represented by the EFV."
But the EFV has been an albatross for Amphib – and the Corps. First conceived in the 1980s to replace the current Amphibious Assault Vehicle, decades of testing failures and re-designs have plagued the development of the EFV. Even as the Marine Corps placated skeptical legislators by slashing their planned purchases of the vehicle from 1025 EFVs to 573, the price tag still managed to grow from $8.5 billion to $13.2 billion, a 168 percent increase. A report from the Congressional Research Service last year suggested that the vehicle's problems run far beyond its expense, as there "continue to be major concerns about the EFV’s reliability, vulnerability to improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and escalating costs." Says Laura Peterson, a defense analyst with Taxpayers for Common Sense, "This thing isn't just fighting the last war, it's fighting last century's wars."
All these failings didn't convince successive Pentagon, Navy, Marine and congressional leaders to cancel the EFV. Last year, during an orgy of program-cutting, Defense Secretary Robert Gates punted the cancellation question to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, which ultimately gave EFV a qualified thumbs-up. But Pentagon and Marine bigwigs are wary of tethering the Corps' future too tightly to an over-budget vehicle that was conceived to overcome decades-old threats, not future ones. Robert Work, the Navy undersecretary, defended Amphib in an August speech in Washington – but gave the vehicle only tepid praise, noting that it's "very expensive." If it turns out the latest EFV prototype can't hold up to testing, Conway pledged this week, "we'll be the first to put the bullet in it."
But Conway is out the door this year. On Tuesday, Marine General James Amos, whom Gates tapped as Conway's successor, will go before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing. What he says about the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle may signal a lot for its future – and that of the Marine Corps as a whole.
See Also:
