By Emelie Rutherford
A House panel for the first time is endorsing the Marine Corps’ plans for fortifying the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) with detachable underbelly armor, though lawmakers want the service to continue examining survivability enhancements.
When the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) marks up its version of the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill today it is expected to concur with the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee’s proposal regarding the amphibious tracked vehicle in the midst of a protracted development.
The Seapower subcommittee’s mark, approved last Friday, fully authorizes the Pentagon’s $293.5 million request for the EFV and includes report language declaring support for the applique armor solution.
The Marine Corps first crafted a detachable armor plan two years ago in response to calls from Seapower panel Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and former Ranking Member Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) to give the EFV more underside protection from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The duo, though, wanted the vehicle to be redesigned to have a blast-detecting V-shaped hull like the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle has. Service officials including Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway have maintained the vehicle would not be able to skim water at high speeds, as planned, with such an angled bottom.
While Taylor repeatedly voiced concerns about the applique proposal, he has said in recent months that a second, revised plan for the removable armor is an improvement over the initial proposal (Defense Daily, March 16; April 28).
Marine Lt. Gen. George Flynn, the deputy commandant for combat development and integration, approved a detailed requirement for that latest applique plan on May 20, program spokesman Emanuel Pacheco said.
Report language accompanying the Seapower subcommittee’s proposed legislation notes the HASC’s concerns last year about the EFV’s level of protection against IEDs and mines.
“Given the ubiquity of IED attacks in current conflicts, the committee did not believe that a flat-bottom EFV design would provide an adequate level of protection,” the report language states. “In response to these concerns, and after conducting a review of protection enhancement options, the Marine Corps committed to developing an armor applique kit for EFVs that could significantly enhance the vehicle’s protection against IEDs. The committee supports this effort to improve the vehicle’s protection against this threat.”
Taylor, though, wants to continue pressuring the Marine Corps to improve the vehicle’s IED protection.
Thus, the Seapower subcommittee’s report language says the committee believes the EFV, before it enters low-rate-initial production, should have a level of protection against IEDs equivalent or superior to that of the heaviest MRAP in service today.
“Given the high probability that Marines operating EFVs in future conflicts will face the threat of IEDs, the committee believes that achieving this standard of protection for the vehicle should be a major factor in Department of Defense oversight of the EFV program,” the report language states.
The language would direct Navy Secretary Raymond Mabus to submit a report to Congress early next year with an “analysis of EFV survivability improvement options beyond the armor applique kit, and the potential requirements, cost, and schedule implications of EFV improvements that could better protect against mine and IED threats.” The language notes that possible design changes–such as a flat-bed engine, a proposal touted by Bartlett–could be implemented as a “product improvement program” after the EFV’s initial production. It states the Navy report to Congress would describe “survivability design aspects of the EFV and its level of protection in comparison to MRAP vehicles, against a range of threats, including but not limited to IEDs, mines, rocket propelled grenades, and anti-tank guided missiles.”
The EFV is intended to quickly carry Marines inland from ships far offshore. It has suffered significant budget, technical, and schedule setbacks. The high-tech effort, though, successfully emerged from a Critical Design Review late last year, and General Dynamics [GD] is in the midst of building redesigned test vehicles and modifying existing, faulty prototypes. It is slated to reach low-rate-initial production in late 2011 (Defense Daily, April 28).
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called for the Pentagon to review the EFV in the current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and has questioned if the United States will again launch major amphibious actions requiring such a forcible-entry vehicle.
Yet the Seapower subcommittee’s report language endorses the need for the EFV, echoing statements of Marine Corps brass.
“The committee recognizes the need for the Marine Corps to develop and field a new amphibious tracked vehicle in support of the national military strategy requirement for amphibious forcible entry capability,” the report language states. “In addition, the committee recognizes the potential risk to Navy ships in some contingencies inherent in the limited off-shore range of the Marine Corps’ current amphibious assault vehicle, which was first introduced in the early 1970s.”
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), the HASC Seapower panel’s current ranking member, said at last Friday’s session that the mark “takes a balanced approach” with regard to the EFV. He noted the panel wants to allow the Marine Corps to proceed with full funding for the EFV and cited a strong need to replace its predecessor, the aging Amphibious Assault Vehicle.
“At the same time,” Akin said, “we insist that the Marines look at engineering and force protection changes they could make to future spirals, to keep pace with the threats we know are out there.”
Elsewhere in Congress, concerns about the EFV’s lack of an MRAP-like V-bottom have been voiced by House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.).