As Peregrin Wood noted in January, House Republicans refused to include cuts to the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle from their version of the federal budget, even though he EFV fails to meet its production standards after a generation of expensive development. It turns out that during the month of February, a bipartisan majority comprised mostly but not completely of Republicans actively voted down an attempt to cut the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle from the budget. Speaking on the floor of the House, Representative Ron Kind described his amendment to scrap two weapons systems the military says it does not need or want:
…my amendment is pretty straightforward and simple. It would eliminate two weapons programs that the Defense Department, Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bipartisan fiscal commissions all say are not necessary, they are not needed, they don’t go to improve military readiness, and they are redundant. It’s the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle as well as the Surface Launch Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile System, the SLAMRAAM for short…. if we’re going to be serious about true deficit reduction, the defense aspect of the Federal budget also has to be on the table. And what better place to start than by listening to our own military leaders who continually tell this Congress: Stop appropriating money for weapons systems we don’t want, that we don’t want to use, that aren’t necessary, they don’t enhance military readiness, and they are not going to support our troops in the field. And these two programs fit that bill….
With just the elimination of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Secretary Gates estimates it could save the American taxpayer over $12 billion.
And then for the SLAMRAAM program, General Chiarelli estimated that would save an additional $1 billion. When the budget is going to be tight
and there’s inevitably going to be an increasing squeeze on our military and military readiness, what better place to start than these weapon programs
that the military is not even asking for and instructing Congress to stop the insanity?
306 members of the House — 227 of them Republicans, 79 of them Democrats — voted down Ron Kind’s budget amendment. They voted to keep multi-billion dollar military programs on the budget that the military neither wants nor needs. How can people who defend unnecessary military waste call themselves fiscally responsible… to anything other than military contractors’ bottom line?
Seems to me that the Democrats just want to delay the increase in budget. We would just rather deal with this in the future. Funds have already been spent. Why spend the money we have already spent plus some on this new vehicle. My tax dollars have already been spent on the design and development. Now it’s going to be another 20 years of wasted dollars.
Can’t expect much else from a “captured” government.
Hey, I’m glad to see my rep mentioned on here in a good way. There’s been plenty of things that have come up where I’ve seen him on the wrong side of things. I’m going to go send him a thank you note.
Who is that Representative, Billy? I’m curious to hear about him.
There are a handful of Republicans — really, just a handful, but still, more than in the past — who are voting in some very interesting ways.
Ron Kind
More on Ron Kind from this morning’s first article…
Its about time somebody really looked at the program and saw that it really wasn’t a waste. If you add up all the news articles about the “new” amphibious vehicle, it would not hit the warriors until 2030. That is unsat.
The recent tests for this vehicle went above and beyond expectations. This vehicle does work. If you think about the money that will be spent finding an alternative and devlopment time and so on and so on, this vehicle is affordable. By the way.. we continue to put dollar signs on the lives of those men and women in service our country so let me ask, how much money would you spend to protect your child?
The EFV has been subject to big cost overruns. The latest tests showed that the EFV only made it halfway to its target time before busting, breaking down more than once for every 24 hours of operation. The last report of which I’m aware came from the Government Accountability Office July 2010 and was entitled “Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) Program Faces Cost, Schedule, and Performance Risks.” It concluded that “Post OA-1 Testing Has Demonstrated Improved Performance, but Issues Remain. Limited operational tests in 2007 and 2008 using first SDD phase prototypes demonstrated some improved performance, but also identified continued performance issues and need for further redesigns…. The program may be proceeding under an assumed reliability growth curve that overestimates the rate with which increases in design reliability will be realized.” The report indicated further that the EFV succeeded in tests only under conditions that did not meet standard conditions.
Let’s have some disclosure, “James.” According to your IP address, you’re writing from Macomb County Michigan, where there is a military contract to work on the EFV. Any chance you’re associated with a company that has a contract with the Defense Department for the EFV?
You my friend need to be educated and bring yourself to current events…The one thing I hate the most is un-informed people making comments they know nothing about…Provide your disclosure sir..
Donald March, you’re yet another General Dynamics employee writing from a computer terminal associated with General Dynamics to defend a huge General Dynamics contract. Like everyone else here but Mohammed, you have not provided any substantive, sourced information. I’ve provided multiple pieces of sourced information.
I understand you may be upset at the prospect of the possibility of your employer, General Dynamics, losing a contract — although given the votes in Congress, it looks like the EFV program will be preserved despite the undeniable history of cost overruns by General Dynamics and despite the conclusion of multiple military leaders and the Secretary of Defense that it’s a significant money waste. You may be individually upset about this, but if you want to convince me that shoveling money to your company is a good idea despite the EFV’s history of problems, cost overruns and lack of support from the military, you’ll have to do more than come here and tell me it’s not my place as a citizen to write about it. That’s no way to convince anyone. Try some facts, sourced, Donald.
Early unofficial test results show that the prototypes at Pendleton have lasted more than 20 hours between system failures, Pacheco said. The ultimate goal was for each EFV to last at least 43.5 hours per breakdown before initial fielding in 2013.
—-This is what you are referring to? It says by 2013, not January 2011. The requirement was 16.5 hours,so how are you saying that it doesn’t meet the standards? It’s over 36 hours without failure, so only 7.5 hours to go to get to the 43.5 hours, and it has until 2013 to improve. Why are we trying to waste more money on a new vehicle? Let this continue. SECDEF Gates says he wants an operational vehicle in 4 years. How expensive is that going to be? You have to pay big dollars for speedy return on parts.
You’re also writing from EFV contractor central, Macomb County Michigan, AVin, just like “James.” Are you associated with the military contractors there?
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says he wants to get rid of the EFV.
Jim you keep discrediting those who make sense. I don’t know where you are but, maybe the fact that this people are near the project area or even the fact that they are associated with the program may have a better understanding of the project. All I see on their comment is facts. Plus if you looked at the RFI for the new amphibious vehicle That was put out by the marine it look just like the EFV. So the nature of physics tell me it will look like the EFV and it will take as long as the EFV and cost as much. So why waste another 3.5 billion and make our marine another 20-years. Plus after spending so much tax payer money we going to throw away the technology so China or somebody could pick it up.
Yes, but why does that matter? I am also a taxpayer!!!
… who wants to keep taking home money supplied by a military contract for an item that the military says it does not want.
That doesn’t want to have to pay 3 billion more for design and development! Do you really have to be so arrogant? It really is senseless to have an opinion on something when you have no idea what you are talking about. Keep on reading the lies and forming an opinion…it’s your right. And it’s my right to state the facts and defending the program! Enough time wasted on you!
It’s a lie that the U.S. military, including the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have said they want the EFV program nixed?
Really? That’s a lie? Wow. All those news reports have got it horribly wrong! What a scoop! They must have wandered into the wrong news conference.
Oh, dear. Look at me. I got all arrogant again.
Jim we could agree to disagree on the cost. But don’t lies about that the vehicle not meeting the requirements. Look at the latest results, it has exceed the requirements. Also Pentagon did not say it doesn’t work, they say it cost to much. Please also keep in mind this is the same program with its current cost that was liked and approved by the Pentagon and the previous marine general about a year ago for continuous.
Samuel, you’re a mechanical engineer in Maryland, living near one of the sites where General Dynamics worked on the EFV. Are you associated with EFV military contract work, as two other people leaving comments here have been? If so, then you surely could provide me a link to these “latest results” to which you’ve referred but about which you haven’t been specific.
You should probably just change the name of your site to “I Am All Knowing and Can Point To The Internet to Prove That I’m All Knowing”. You are not reading the replies, you are just trying to shoot holes based on your original premise from your post. Don’t give people the opportunity to respond if you don’t want to have an honest debate.
Another post from Macomb County, Michigan, home of General Dynamics’ EFV production. What are the chances of that???
James, AVin and Jason are writing from the same IP, too. What are the chances of that???
But wait, it gets better. The IP address is hosted by “General Dynamics Corporation, Land Systems Division.” Wow, what are the chances of that???
Why, it’s like I won the lottery! Do I get a prize? Do I?
Wait for it, “Jason.” You should really budge over from the keyboard and let “Samantha” give it a whirl. Or maybe “Chuck” from accounting can chime in.
Do you get paid by the hour for this? Off those juicy government contracts, I mean?
See below for more.
I am so great because I have a traffic stats site that I can go to and find out what IP address people are coming from!!!!!
Who am I????
I am Jim Cook, who doesn’t like to debate.
And this was, of course, another in the ongoing series of comments made by people writing from computers registered to General Dynamics Land Systems, a massive military contractor which reaped three quarters of a billion dollars in profit during the last three months of 2010 alone.
Please notice:
1. The only people writing here who are defending the program are writing from General Dynamics computers.
2. It is indisputably true that the EFV has been plagued by big cost overruns in decades-long development.
3. It is indisputably true that the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense have recommended scrapping the EFV program.
3. It is also true that the EFV made it more than 16.4 hours before breaking down, but that was not the benchmark for a ready-to-go product — only a benchmark to try to progress to “Knowledge Point 2.” In order for the EFV to be ready to go, it had to make it 43.5 hours between breakdowns, and reached only half that time span despite decades of cost-intensive work.
4. The 2010 GAO report to which I have already linked, the last report of which I am aware, declared the existence of schedule, cost and performance risks in the EFV program.
5. None of these people writing from General Dynamics computers have provided any link to any source of information.
6. They’d rather turn the discussion about the military contractor General Dynamics and its over-budget, long-overdue EFV into a personal discussion about whether I am arrogant or an asshole. They win; I’m both arrogant and an asshole. Doesn’t make me wrong.
Jim, I know you are going to continue to discredit the fact by keeping associating the source to GD. But the fact remain that:
-EFV prototypes have completed the required 500-hour reliability growth test at the Marine Corps’ Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif., demonstrating reliability that exceeds the testing threshold by 90 percent. http://www.defencetalk.com/efv-prototypes-successfully-complete-tests-31583/
-EFV Prototypes Successfully Complete Tests, Exceed Threshold By 90 Percent
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10984996/1/efv-prototypes-successfully-complete-tests-exceed-threshold-by-90-percent.html
___also please keep in mind…unlike the vintage AAV, the EFV has air conditioning, four-point harnesses instead of bench seating, and is sealed so that diesel fumes do not infiltrate the passenger compartment. “In plain terms, if you ride in the back of an AAV for an hour and you’re bobbing out in the water…and not going to feel great when you hit the beach,” … “whereas in the current EFV, a lot was done — obviously not only is the ride … smoother, but the fact that you don’t get all that seepage of fumes and stuff inside makes a world of difference.”
http://insidedefense.com/201103072356741/Inside-Defense-Daily-News/DefenseAlert/efv-program-focuses-testing-on-acv-needs/menu-id-61.html
…my point is don’t disrespect the technology and effort just because a new leaders change their direction to where to spent tax payers money. Yes, like you said above I’m an engineer and I know that a law of physics tell me that the new requirements put out by the Pentagon to build another ACV will run to the same time and money needed for the EFV. So you will be here to say what you’re saying now. But atlist with EFV we have already invested lot tax payers (that include mine) money and lets just not waste it.
Thank you for being the first person associated with General Dynamics to post any sourced information here, Mr. Negash.
Seat belts and air conditioning. That’s nice, and what the subscriber-only third link describes.
Follow the first two links. Although the URLs appear to point to two different independent news stories, they are not distinct from one another, and they are not independent news stories. They are copies of the same press release issued by General Dynamics. It is a selective report by General Dynamics on the same results that Defense News reported independently, in which it is revealed that the benchmark met by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle after decades in development is not the benchmark for a ready-to-go product. It is an intermediate benchmark that still does not meet the ultimate standard. General Dynamics has, interestingly enough, only released a few stats from this latest round of testing and not to my knowledge yet released the entire report for public review. The press release refers to raw mean scores, which indicates that an adjusted mean score was for some reason necessary. What was it, and why was it necessary?
Just wanted to give you a thumbs up Jim Cook. I’m writing an essay for my English Composition II class about military technology in the use of training it’s troops and I will be including a bit of this if you don’t mind. My husband is air force and he 100% agrees with you. I’m not a military fan myself (they truely don’t care about the spouse or family) and some things this country does I will never understand like wasting money when military leaders says its wasting money. (Shakes head slowly) Maybe sometime in the upcoming years we will see an error to our ways and quit screwing ourselves up the rear.
I wonder if you ever heard the saying “freedom isn’t free”. The military is what protects this country. They might not treat families as well as you would like, but your husband joined the military, not sure what you all expected. It is his job to protect this country.
AVin, how has spending billions of dollars the expeditionary fighting vehicle protected this country? Name one life it’s saved.
Sending billions and billions of dollars to corrupt military contractors for weapons that are obsolete by the time they finally reach production doesn’t protect America. It just puts us deeper in debt.
Freedom is what protects this country, and the only reason you’re promoting this military boondoggle is that it’s profitable for your employer.
Another piece of information to add to the mix: it is not just the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense who are recommending the termination of the EFV program. It is also the Commandant of the Marine Corps who recommends the cancellation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle:
Jim, I’m not here to argue you with you about government waste or cost increase because I’m an engineer and you are I am assuming reporter/blogger, so we probably don’t qualify. But I respect you for doing what you are doing, informing and providing information to the public. But I just want you to know some of the fact about EFV before you disrespect the engineering effort that was put on. I want you to know things/technology cost money because of the requirements that are defined by the customers.
in this case been our marines. As Americans we provide the best to our military’s who are in our line of defense so you and I could express our self freely and sometime even criticize this people who are defending our freedom.
Look we could make cheep EFV but it will look like what the Chinese copy cat just put out (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/articles/20110117.aspx http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.136/pub_detail.asp)
It’s seem like all you know is that the current Commandant of the Marine Corps recommends the cancellation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: :
Did you know that there is a big influence from the Secretary of defense Robert Gates to cancel this program. Gates also has been pressured by white house to cut down on budgets.
And do you know Gates for what ever reason don’t think our marines don’t need this capability. Do you also mention that Gen James F. Amos took Commandant of the Marine Corps position only since October 22, 2010 and unlike the previous commandant He is the First United States Naval Aviator to serve as Commandant.
Did you know that the previous two Commandant (and before them to) Gen Michael W. Hagee (01-2003 to 11-2006) and James T. Conway (11-2006 to 10-2010) were a great supporter of the EFV
James T. Conway (Commandant of the Marine Corps November) 14, 2006 to October 22, 2010
-On October 01, 2009 Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, visited the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center to check on the progress of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, an amphibious war machine he said is vital to the future of the Corps.
http://www.limaohio.com/articles/corps-42129-marine-class.html
-On Aug. 24, 2010, demonstration for the press at Oceanside, Calif., in which a revised, improved SDD-2 prototype of the armored, aluminum-hulled EFV performed without any flaw, may have helped the program. Said Conway: ?There are programs that are absolutely and vitally important. One of those is our EFV.? …. But is Gen James F. Amos, 63, the right choice to replace Conway, also 63, as the top leatherneck in troubled times? He (Amos) is the first naval aviator to lead the Marines.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/new-marine-corps-leaders-face-familiar-challenges/
Please Note that most previous Commandant of the Marine has come from the Marine who knows what the Marine wants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_of_the_Marine_Corps)
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/new-marine-corps-leaders-face-familiar-challenges/
What happen to the need and interest for the EFV within the past few months? I’m not sure but I do understand budget cut and change of directions and the cancelation of EFV is all that. But respect the technology and the effort that was put out with our American Engineers.
And another piece of information to add to the mix: the left-leaning U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and the right-leaning National Taxpayers Union have produced a joint report in which they identify the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle as an example of military waste, “14 years behind schedule and highly unreliable,” that should be dropped from the budget.