By Geoff Fein
LIMA, Ohio–General Dynamics‘ [GD] Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle [EFV] is moving beyond just a forcible entry capability from the sea to providing Marines speed, maneuverability and protection that falls between an Abrams tank and a MRAP, according to the service’s top official.
Forcible entry from the sea is a mission capability and not a primary mission for EFV, because the Marine Corps doesn’t do amphibious landings every day, Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, told reporters yesterday while touring General Dynamics’ facility in Ohio.
“It’s been a long time since we had to do that, but that the nation has the capacity to do that is critically important,” he said.
Day-to-day, EFV could provide a number of capabilities, perhaps even a counter insurgency (COIN) role, Conway noted.
“We think that the armor, the speed, the protection that it gives to our Marines, will be viable to us even in that [COIN] kind of environment,” he said. “We are not going to spend this kind of money on a vehicle and think that it’s a single dimension kind of capacity.”
Conway added that the Marine Corps is always trying to look at the capacity the EFV is going to provide.
“We are the smallest of the services. We don’t have the numbers of vehicles that the Army has, so the vehicles that we have, have to be multi capable,” he said.
And, in some cases, technologies on those vehicles have to be dual use, Conway noted.
In the case of the EFV, it shares the same gun systems with the LPD-17 class amphibious ships.
“We are always looking for that,” Conway said about dual use systems. “Again, it gets back to being the smallest of the services and having to leverage other services programs. Today, anytime we go separate from the Army on a vehicle that seems to have some very similar use we have to justify ourselves.”
In the case of the EFV, Conway said it was easy to justify the need to go a separate path because the Army doesn’t have vehicles that can swim rivers or come from the sea.
“But any other type of vehicle that separates from an Army program, or a functional Navy program that has the same requirement, we have to be able to show our homework,” Conway added. “We always look for dual use because it’s a natural money saver.”
Conway said he isn’t concerned about the public perception of EFV. The vehicle has been criticized for its high cost, roughly $16 million per copy, acquisition challenges (including a Nunn-McCurdy breach), and schedule delays.
“Congress is looking at whether they will put a mark against the program. We are trying to fight through that and say, ‘Hey, this vehicle is better than what we think you believe,'” he said.
“We’ve taken some congressman and staffers down to Quantico, given them some rides, shown them the capacity of the gun and those type of things,” Conway added. “There’s also an issue in the QDR (Quadrennial Defense Review) as to the whole concept of amphibious capability and how much this country needs.”
Those issues will all play out, he added.
Conway told reporters some of the weight that’s resting on the program’s shoulders should come off probably by spring 2010.
“By that time the QDR will have reported out and we will have had our necessary debate. Congressional marks will have happened or not happened and we will see our way clear either through reprogramming our own monies if Congress doesn’t give us money fully, or what happens on the hill,” he said. “I think, by spring, we should have a much clearer way ahead in terms of the future of the vehicle.”