By Marina Malenic
NEWPORT, R.I.--Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week raised doubts about whether the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) will be useful in the types of conflicts the United States is likely to face in the future.
“We have to take a hard look at where it would be necessary or sensible to launch another major amphibious action again,” Gates told officers at the Naval War College on April 17. “In the 21st century, how much amphibious capability do we need?”
The EFV, which is still in development by General Dynamics [GD], is a heavily armored vehicle designed to transport up to 18 Marines and their combat gear quickly over land and sea. The development contract was awarded in 1996.
Gates last week visited all the service war colleges and several other military education installations to explain his effort to reshape the Pentagon’s budget. The secretary has for the past year discussed the need to “rebalance” the U.S. military’s portfolio of weapon programs to focus on both irregular conflict and conventional warfare. He also cited cost overruns and “troubled” acquisition efforts as justification for several suggested terminations announced earlier this month (Defense Daily, April 7).
The Marines, with a much smaller procurement account than the other three services, have largely escaped the knife in Gates’ proposed budget.
The secretary said last week that a major review of all weapon acquisitions currently under way will take into account “realistic” view of the need for transporting large numbers of Marines from ship to shore “so that we can gauge our requirements.”
The last time such an operation was necessary, according to Gates, was when a flotilla of Marines waited off the coast of Kuwait City during the first Gulf War. The maneuver forced then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein “to keep one eye on the Saudi border, and one eye on the coast.”
The original program of record called for approximately 1,000 EFVs to be built at a cost of $8.5 billion. However, a 2007 assessment raised the price to $13.2 billion for approximately 600 vehicles.
Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, head of Marine Corps Systems Command, recently argued that the forcible entry capability provided by EFV was needed and that canceling it would only save a “relatively small” amount of money (Defense Daily, March 2).
Recently, key members of Congress have raised concerns about the hull design, which is flat instead of V-shaped like the the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle. A V-shaped hull is better able to withstand explosions of roadside bombs (Defense Daily, March 16).
Gates, in arguing for the cancellation of the vehicle portion of the Army’s Future Combat Systems modernization effort, has said those flat-bottomed vehicle designs do not adequately reflect the lessons of counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan (Defense Daily, April 7).
The Marines, in response to congressional criticism, have crafted a V-shaped armor applique that can be removed from the vehicle’s underside. Program managers have said that a flat bottom was necessary for an amphibious vehicle to skim the water’s surface at desired speeds.