By Carlo Munoz
Despite criticisms from Capitol Hill, Navy and Marine Corps program officials exhausted all possible options in its review of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) before opting to cancel the troubled program, service secretary Ray Mabus said yesterday.
Mabus noted the nearly 13-year gap between the time of the program’s initiation in 1998 to its ultimate demise in 2010 was more than enough time to service program and acquisition officials to review all options for the General Dynamics [GD]-built EFV.
“I think the alternatives have been looked at,” the service secretary told reporters shortly after his speech at a clean energy symposium sponsored by IHS in Washington.
Further, the Marine Corps has already “moved out very fast” on its EFV replacement effort, dubbed the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program, with service Commandant Gen. James Amos telling lawmakers earlier this year that he wants to have a drivable ACV prototype done within the next four years.
“The are moving rapidly to look at…what the replacement is going to be and how we can get there quickly, and how we can get there cheaper than EFV,” Mabus said.
Mabus’ comments yesterday were in response to criticisms leveled against the sea service by congressional lawmakers this week, specifically over how the Navy and the Pentagon came to its decision to terminate the Marine Corps program.
On Tuesday, members of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee took the service and DoD to task over the decision in its version of the Fiscal Year 2012 defense spending plan.
“The committee remains concerned that the (Defense) Department failed to conduct the proper analysis prior to making the decision to terminate the EFV program,” lawmakers wrote in their version of the legislation. Subpanel members were also concerned over the lack of any “detailed analysis” by the Navy or DoD clearly explaining why program cancellation won out over other options that could have allowed the program to continue, according to the legislation.
On the Marine Corps ACV replacement plan, the subcommittee expressed doubts over whether that effort could be funded at the same time as a planned effort to upgrade the service’s current fleet of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV).
Navy procurement executive Sean Stackley said in February that a new ACV, coupled with a retooled AAV, would represent a “family of systems” approach to meet the Marine Corps amphibious assault requirements (Defense Daily, Feb 23).
In response, Mabus noted that the EFV cancellation was not “in any way, taking a step back” from the Marie Corps’ amphibious assault mission, Mabus reiterated. That desire “underscored the need” for the sea service to move quickly in getting the ACV program rolling, he added.
While Mabus did not comment on the lack of any detailed analysis on the EFV decision, he did say that Navy officials still plan to leverage mature technologies from the EFV and transition them into the ACV.
“We are going to pull whatever technology we can out of EFV [using] the money we have already put into that . That is part of how we are winding down [the program],” he said. On top of moving mature EFV technologies into the ACV, service officials would also make sure the new vehicle would adhere to green energy standards as well.
“We…always look at total ownership costs, which includes energy usage — how much would it use [and] how much can that be reduced,” Mabus said. Moreover, Navy officials will also take into consideration the energy footprint of proposed ACV producers as part of the eventual industry selection process, he added.
Meanwhile, General Dynamics said that on Tuesday it had issued 60-day lay-off notices to approximately 112 employees at its Woodbridge, Va., facility, about one-third of the total work force for EFV. It added the company’s priority is to efficiently finish the remaining EFV contract tasks and prepare for new Marine Corps programs.
“We believe their skills are critical to any new amphibious carrier and future Marine Corps ground combat vehicle programs,” the company said. “We will work in earnest to maintain key capabilities that will continue to position General Dynamics as the premier provider of land and amphibious combat systems, subsystems and components worldwide.”