“After 10 years and $1.7 billion, this is what the Marines Corps got for its investment in a new amphibious vehicle: A craft that breaks down about an average of once every 4 1/2 hours, leaks and sometimes veers off course. And for that, the contractor, General Dynamics of Falls Church, received $80 million in bonuses,” the Washington Post’s Renae Merle reports in a brutal front page story.
The amphibious vehicle, which can be launched from a ship and then driven on land, is so unreliable that the Pentagon is ditching plans to begin building the first of more than 1,000 and wants to start over with seven new prototypes, which will take nearly two years to deliver, at a cost of $22 million each.
The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is one of the Pentagon’s largest weapons programs and exemplifies the agency’s struggle to afford a cadre of new mega-systems that are larger and more complex, but also more trouble, than their predecessors.
Despite reforms meant to rein in costs, it is not unusual for weapons programs to go 20 to 50 percent over budget, the Government Accountability Office recently found. Among the offenders is the Army’s sprawling modernization program, which aims to update everything from tanks to drones and is now expected to cost $160 billion [or much more — ed.], up from $90 billion, and a Lockheed Martin missile-warning satellite program, which is projected to cost more than $10 billion, up from $4 billion…
The overruns are eating away at the Pentagon’s buying power but not its appetite. The amount the Pentagon plans to spend on major weapons systems has doubled in the past five years, to $1.4 trillion from $700 billion, according to the GAO…
When it was launched in 1996, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was promoted as an example of acquisition reform… But the program has struggled with repeated delays, cost increases, budget cuts and dashed expectations, according to military officials and government reports. Problems range from leaks in hydraulics systems to software glitches, according to the reports. Last year, the vehicles completed just two of 14 planned tests.
“They started out really well, and I was really pleased,” said Philip Coyle, the Defense Department’s former director of operational test and evaluation. “But gradually the complexity of the program has overcome the contractor, so they are years behind schedule.“
General Dynamics defends its progress, noting that the vehicle has met many goals, including being able to reach speeds of 30 knots on the water. The vehicle is fast enough to keep up with the Abrams tank on land, it can carry 17 Marines, and its systems can communicate with other ships and tanks, all key performance criteria, the company says…
An independent review released in December by the Navy’s acquisition office questioned the company’s commitment to solving the development problems that plagued the vehicle. The report said General Dynamics appeared more interested in starting production than trouble-shooting and didn’t manage the groups making many of the decisions. The production phase is typically more profitable for a contractor and often marks a point at which a program becomes more difficult to cancel.
General Dynamics “seems to be focused on production rather than on solving significant design and engineering problems,” the Navy report said. “This must be changed if the Program is to move ahead successfully.”
What a way to award this administration’s buddies in the military and industrial complex by wasting billions on a piece of metal that doesn’t perform as required. It sure looks like we the underpaid and over taxed middle class would have to bail out this GWB again by working ourselves to death in order to keep his buddies happy like pigs in the dirt.
My first reaction was, “$1.7 billion? They must be under-budget!”
Noah, I have to ask, because you must have a better sense of this than I do. All I see about FCS is story after story about failed developments, underperforming products, and massive, massive overbudget runs. It really seems from my perspective that FCS is a completely abhorrent program, basically a money pit with little or no actual benefit to the services. Am I missing the success stories, or, at the least, are there substantial projects under FCS that are humming along alright so far? What’s your view on this?
Good Afternoon Folks,
The really upsetting thing about this story is not that the EFV went into the crapper, anyone following the development of the ESV has seen this comming for move then two years but it’s where most of the problems occured.
One would expect problems with developing technology but most weren’t they were with just, for lack any better phrase, shoddy manufacturing and workmanship. The problems that brought the ESV down were hydrolics, pumps, welding flaws, power trains breaking down etc. all 100 year old technologies. Yes there was some software especially with the automatic 30mm Bushmaster Gun and it auto pilot, but they were all of a minor nature.
The problem that is and won’t be addressed is that only two venders were considered for the EAV. BAE Systems a UK owned company feeding off the U. S. Defense Dept and General Dynamics who is simply a PO Box in Wilmington Del. whos purpose is to receive Checks from the DoD. The consolidated of the American Industrial complex of the last quarter of the 29th, Century has created this sisuation.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Ok, let’s not be ignorant. The shear complexity of this project is suspect. Yes, politics influence DoD activity — duh, it is a political entity. But, when something of this magnitude fails it usually falls on failed project leadership — and the inability to manage risk.
And, FCS is a failing because it is too much at once for the Army to handle. The cart was put before the horse. The infrastructure doesn’t exist to support the weight of such a technological deployment. No doubt, it is going to fail. Nevermind the fact that there are no standards…
There’s nothing wrong with the EFV, the issue is the leadership, most of the IPT leadership did not have design and manufacturing experience.
As I read the goals the contractor claims to have met, I had a vision of the editorial cartoon that will describe them: three panels with the first showing a large sail to get the EFV up to 30 knots on water, the second showing 17 marines the EFV to keep up with the M-1 on land, and the final one showing a crew member using a blanket to communicate by smoke signal using the black exhaust from the engine.
It seems it’s all about cash. Who has an interest in this vehical. Senator or Rep. someone is involved and stands to make a bunch of $. The should relieve the commanding officer of the development crew and take back all the $ that was spent on this progect, or make them come up with something that works at their own expense.
What I want to know is why make the thing more complex? On the P-7’s the gunner simply sighted the target, pulled the trigger and the gun fired, no software was needed. Although slow in the water they never gave the problems stated in the news piece. On land with th governers off they could reach speeds which could keep up with any tank at the time (if slower than an A-1 not by much). The P-7 were relativly easy to repair and maintain, were rugged and got the job done.
I realize that in time there comes a need to replace the old P-7’s with something more modern but let not make to needlessly complicated just to have the latest toys. Simple, rugged, relaiable is what the new Amtrac should be not a wonder toy.
Were this a civilian project General Dynamics would have simply been dumped and forgotten.
I drove the AAVP7A1 during my time in the early to mid 90’s. The things were junk and built to break down every 10 hours. They were designed to be disposable. The P7 could never hope to keep up with an A1 or LAV. The suspension did not allow it. The UGWS also was not gyro stabalized, therefore it was difficult to shoot and move at the same time. The Corps needs a better option, more of an IFV and not a true transport. Have to be dynamic in todays game. Hydro leaks were an everyday thing so nothing has changed there. Do think 10 years is far to long. This project, with todays technology, could be acheived in 2–3 years. The design by all standards is already antiquated. It’s time to get a new contractor!!!!
I tis all about the bling!! Follow the money trail!! What make soething simple, cheap and effective , not the american way! I will give you an example, the US?NASA spent millions trying to design a pen to write in space, we need one right? What do the Russians do? Use a pencil! We have to have high tech, so it breaks down and defence contractors continue to make money on the spare parts. Want to see things get fixed quick? put their kids in these vehicles in Iraq or Afganistan.
I have worked within the Northrop Grumman systems as a contractor. I know exactly where the problems lie and what it would take to turn these types of contracts around. But do you think that for one minute that they would pay me what I am worth to handle these tasks through to the solutions and solved stages? Hell no!
I have worked within the Northrop Grumman systems as a contractor. I know exactly where the problems lie and what it would take to turn these types of contracts around. But do you think that for one minute that they would pay me what I am worth to handle these tasks through to the solutions and solved stages? Hell no!
Someone left the chicken coop’s door open and the fox
came in and had a feast.
I totally agree with the comments already posted. the AAAV was all the rage when I was in because it was gonna be the Marines new toy. I got out in ’03. Four years later and it still isn’t done. Don’t turn this into another osprey, cancel this flop and pay someone else who actually cares about our troops and wants them to have the best, most reliable equipment when they go into harm’s way.
Everybody wants a new toy that bigger and better the the one before. What I see is that the troops fighting in Iraqi are having trouble getting the supplies they need. This goes to the future troops that will replace them. Stop giving contracts and spending money on “new toys” that don’t work and are extremly over budget. Rein in the contractors and their spending ways.
They ought to just use the WW ll stuff. It works it is reliable, it is paid for. We could use the billions to hire more troops. And as for not being able to get the software to fire the guns,how about letting the troops fire them?