Editorial: Contingency for EFV

[CommunityEditor]

The Marine Corps’ future capabilities are at stake in the Quadrennial Defense Review now being worked. One central question is whether the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle — more than $1 billion over budget and six years late — will survive.

The final product continues to be a work in progress. Critics want to kill the program outright; supporters say it is needed to keep alive the Corps’ amphibious assault mission.

The EFV concept is irresistible: A 38-ton armored infantry vehicle that skims over the water at 25 knots and rips across the land at 60 mph promises transformational capabilities.

But after 20 years of development and multiple program delays, its $14 billion cost and its lack of a V-shaped hull that can withstand roadside bombs, leave the program very much in doubt.

How the EFV will fare in QDR is anyone’s guess. What is clear is that the Marine Corps needs a contingency plan.

That alternative might be a smaller amphibious vehicle that trades some of EFV’s speed, bulk and payload capacity for something less capable but, perhaps, more survivable in a modern, post-Iraq, IED-laden world.

Making a vehicle fast on both land and sea is a challenge, especially when it must also be able to withstand rocket attacks, mines and IEDs. This is no small challenge.

But there is recent history on the Marines’ side.

The U.S. has demonstrated in recent years an ability to rapidly field and improve new armored vehicles, learning with each successive generation how to make them better. Surely there are lessons to be learned from those efforts that could help fuel new developments on the amphibious vehicle front as well.

The Corps may yet come out of the QDR with the EFV program intact. But even then, giving some initial thought to a smaller alternative vehicle won’t have been a mistake. It is never wise to place all one’s eggs in a single basket.