|
Marines See Up To 3 Yr Delay For Genl Dynamics Vehicle
2007-01-26
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Marine Corps says a new General Dynamics Corp. (GD) amphibious assault vehicle faces up to three years in delays, at significant extra cost to the U.S. government. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program failed operational assessment tests last year, program manager Col. John Bryant told Dow Jones Newswires. The vehicle was supposed to enter low-rate initial production this month. Now it faces a lengthy redesign effort. Each extra year until production starts will add about $200 million in development costs, Bryant said. But the final cost impact is unclear, since the Marines now plan a far smaller purchase than the 1,013-vehicle, $12.6 billion program of record. New Marine Corps requirements call for just 573 of the new vehicles, which are designed to get Marines quickly and safely from ship to shore, then keep pace with an M1 Abrams tank on land. The Marines changed their strategy to free up money for more land-based armored vehicles, such as a new mine resistant troop transport. Defense Department weapons buyers will meet in March to decide on a new path for the EFV, Bryant said. Several options are on the table, with two to three years in projected delays depending on which option the Pentagon selects. Reliability is the biggest concern. In tests last year, the new vehicle generally met its combat requirements, Bryant said. But it became clear that the vehicle couldn't be deployed without significant design changes. "The vehicle's reliability was much lower than we had predicted," Bryant said in a telephone interview late Friday. "We could immediately recognize we would't have a vehicle that met its reliability requirement in time." The Marines had hoped to reach initial operational capability by 2010, with full purchase completed by 2020. Delays to that schedule now are expected, although faster production could make up some of the lost ground. General Dynamics said the tests were a snapshot in time, not a sign of intractable difficulties. An independent program review found that the company could make needed improvements over the next two years, General Dynamics spokesman Pete Keating said. "Our position is we know we're on the right path. It's strictly up to the Marines and the Navy leadership to say whether they want to get it higher before we get into low rate production or not," Keating said. Lawmakers will be keeping a close watch on the program's progress. House Armed Services Committee panels on seapower and readiness are planning a hearing next month on Marine Corps weapons needs, and the EFV program is sure to come up. But the new amphibious vehicles are unlikely to get cut entirely. Bryant said cancellation is always under discussion, but rarely considered seriously because the Marines have such a need for the new system. Analysts concurred, saying the EFV will be a big improvement on current equipment despite its troubled development. "With all of its difficulties, the EFV is unquestionably better than anything else that the Marine Corps could buy if it intends to remain in the amphibious warfare business," said Lexington Institute defense analyst Loren Thompson. In general, the EFV's combat abilities have earned a green light from program managers. Pentagon testers flagged the program's water acceleration in a report released this month, saying the current design posed "an unsafe condition for combat." But that issue was corrected quickly with a relatively simple fix, Bryant said. Durability was a much more serious problem. The Defense Department's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation said the vehicle was rarely able to complete planned test exercises, despite extra attention from the contracting team. These maintenance problems mean that new parts need to be designed, manufactured and then tested before the program can move forward. Bryant said contractor performance isn't the main issue for the EFV program. Instead, its problems date back to the vehicle's initial design in 2000 and 2001, when limited funding shortchanged the attention paid to reliability issues. "With our prime contractor, General Dynamics Land Systems, we have what I would consider the normal, run-of-the-mill issues involving areas where we desire improvement," Byrant said. "But if you have to blame someone, I blame us."
| 
