Order Code RS22947
September 10, 2008
The Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
(EFV): Background and Issues for Congress
Andrew Feickert
Specialist in Military Ground Forces
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) is an armored amphibious vehicle
program that originated two decades ago to replace the 1970s-era Amphibious Assault
Vehicle (AAV). The EFV has experienced a variety of developmental difficulties,
resulting in significant program delays and cost growth. While the Marine Corps and
Department of Defense remain optimistic about the future of the EFV program, there
continue to be major concerns about the EFV’s reliability and escalating costs. This
report will be updated as conditions warrant.
Background
The Marine Corps is responsible for the conduct of amphibious operations in support
of the full spectrum of U.S. national security objectives. If the Marines need armored
fighting vehicles in the early stages of an amphibious landing, these vehicles must either
be transported by landing craft with limited protection against enemy fire, or the armored
vehicle must come ashore under its own power.1 Like current AAVs, the EFV is designed
to roll off a Navy amphibious assault ship, move under its own power to the beach, and
cross the beach and operate inland. The EFV is to be designed to be able to be launched
25 miles off shore (the AAV can be launched only 2 miles from shore) permitting the fleet
to operate “over the horizon,” where it theoretically would be less vulnerable to enemy
fire. Some suggest that the 25-mile over the horizon operating capability may no longer
provide the protection to the fleet that it once did, noting that the Hezbollah C-802 cruise
missile, which successfully struck an Israeli ship in 2006, has a maximum range of 75
miles. Concerns also have been raised that, when ashore, the flat-bottomed EFV may be
excessively vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
1 Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is taken from Sydney J. Freedberg, “Future
Corps,” National Journal, May 10, 2008.
CRS-2
The EFV Program
What Is the EFV?2 The EFV is an armored, fully tracked infantry combat vehicle
operated by a three-person crew that can carry 17 combat-equipped Marines. It is to be
a self-deploying, high-speed amphibious vehicle that will be able transport Marines from
ships to objectives inland and will have the speed, maneuvering capabilities, fire power,
and protection to operate with main battle tanks on land. It is intended to have a 20-knot
speed in the water and a 345-mile range ashore with a 45-kilometer-per-hour speed on
hard-surfaced roads. The EFV is to be designed to have modular armor and expanded
mine blast protection and mount a 30mm high-velocity cannon in a stabilized turret. The
EFV is also supposed to be able to communicate in joint networks and operate as part of
a joint land force. There are to be two EFV variants. The EVF-P1 will carry a Marine
rifle squad and its equipment and provide direct fire support during combat operations.
The EFV-C1 variant provides command and control capabilities for commanders and
their staffs.
Program Structure. The EFV is described as the Marines’ number one priority
ground weapon system acquisition program and is the only Acquisition Category (ACAT)
1D program managed by the Marine Corps.3 The Marine Corps EFV Program Office is
collocated with the EFV’s prime contractor — General Dynamics — in Woodbridge,
Virginia, and the Marines claim that collocation — the first of its kind for a major weapon
system — has greatly reduced government contractor design costs and streamlined the
program decision-making process.
Program History.4 In 1988, Acquisition and Program Decision Memorandums
were signed by defense officials to initiate the Concept Exploration/Definition Phase
(CE/D)5 of what was then known as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV)
2 Information in this section is from the 2008 United States Marine Corps Concepts & Programs
Handbook, pp. 112-113; General Dynamics Land Systems briefing: EFV Program, February
2008; and Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity EFV Fact Sheet.
3 Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity EFV Fact Sheet. The 12th Edition of the
Defense Acquisition University Glossary, July 2005, defines an ACAT 1D program as a Major
Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP), which is estimated by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) (USD[AT&L]) to require the eventual expenditure for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) of more than $365 million (FY2000
constant dollars) or the procurement of more than $2.19 billion (FY2000 constant dollars).
4 United States House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Majority Staff, “The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Over Budget, Behind Schedule, and
Unreliable,” April 29, 2008; “Military Vehicle Forecast: Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle,” Z
Forecast International, June 2007, pp. 4-5; United States Government Accountability Office
(GAO) Report to Congressional Committees, “Defense Acquisitions; The Expeditionary Fighting
Vehicle Encountered Difficulties in Design Demonstration and Faces Future Risks,” GAO-06-
349, May 2006, pp. 6-7.
5 The Concept Exploration/Definition (CE/D) Phase of the Defense Systems Acquisition Process
(now called the Concept Refinement [CR] Phase) is governed by Department of Defense (DOD)
Directive 5000.1, “The Defense Acquisition System.” Activities during the CE/D phase, which
normally lasts one to two years, include exploring material alternatives to satisfy mission needs;
(continued...)
CRS-3
program. In 1995, the program entered into the Program Definition and Risk Reduction
(PDRR) phase6, where it was considered by many to be a “model defense acquisition
program,” winning two DOD awards for successful cost and technology management.
In June 1996, a contract was awarded to General Dynamics Land Systems to begin full-
scale engineering development of their design. Based on the aforementioned early
success of the program, the Marine Corps awarded a cost-plus contract to General
Dynamics in July 2001 for the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase
of the program. General Dynamics and the Marines envisioned that the SDD phase would
be completed by October 2003, a schedule that some say “proved too ambitious.”7 In
2003, the Marines renamed the program the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
program.
Problems During the SDD Phase. The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) alleges that:
The program did not allow enough time to demonstrate maturity of the EFV design
during SDD. The original SDD schedule of about three years proved too short to
conduct all necessary planning and to incorporate the results of tests into design
changes. Specifically, the original schedule did not allow adequate time for testing,
evaluating the results, fixing the problems, and retesting to make certain that problems
are fixed before moving forward.8
Because of these and other difficulties, the EFV program was “rebaselined” in November
2002, adding an additional year to the program schedule, and then rebaselined again in
March 2003, also adding another year to the program schedule.9 In December 2004, EFV
prototypes experienced major failures of the hull electronics unit (HEU), the vehicle’s
main computer system.10 These failures caused the water-mode vehicle steering to freeze,
making the vehicle non-responsive. The EFV also experienced significant problems in
September and October 2004 with the bow flap — a folding panel extended forward to
5 (...continued)
identification of high-risk areas; identifying most promising system concepts; developing a
proposed acquisition strategy; and developing initial cost, schedule, and performance objectives.
6 The Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR) Phase normally lasts two to four years.
Activities during this phase include defining key design characteristics and expected capabilities
and demonstrating that technologies can be incorporated into systems designs. Prototype systems
are developed during this phase.
7 United States House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Majority Staff, “The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Over Budget, Behind Schedule, and
Unreliable,” April 29, 2008, p. 2.
8 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report to Congressional Committees,
“Defense Acquisitions; The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Encountered Difficulties in Design
Demonstration and Faces Future Risks,” GAO-06-349, May 2006, p. 13.
9 Ibid., pp. 8-9. DOD has been known to rebaseline programs — change the program’s estimated
cost and schedule so they are a more accurate reflection of how the program is progressing —
in instances where a troubled program shows potential for improvement.
10 United States House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Majority Staff, “The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Over Budget, Behind Schedule, and
Unreliable,” April 29, 2008, p. 4.
CRS-4
generate additional hydrodynamic lift as the EFV moves through the water.11 The EFV
experienced myriad hydraulics system failures, leaks, and pressure problems during
testing that contributed to low reliability ratings. Because of reliability problems, the
originally required 70-hour mean time between operational mission failure (MTBOMF)
rate for the EFV was reduced by the Marines to 43.5 hours. Because of these
demonstrated failures and related concerns about a lack of program management and
oversight, the program was rebaselined for a third time in March 2005, this time adding
an additional two years to the extra two years added during the previous rebaselinings.
2006 Operational Assessment.12 In 2006, the EFV was subject to an
Operational Assessment — a series of tests to demonstrate that it could meet performance
requirements — that if successfully completed, would permit the program to move into
the production phase. During this assessment, the EFV experienced numerous critical
failures and, because of repeated breakdowns, the EFV failed to meet reliability
requirements and failed the assessment. For example, during the test, the vehicles were
able to operate for only 4.5 hours between breakdowns and required about 3.4 hours of
corrective maintenance for every 1 hour of operation — a maintenance burden that
evaluators said would “wear out a unit under realistic combat operations.” Poor reliability
also resulted in 117 Operational Mission Failures and 645 Unscheduled Maintenance
Actions during testing. The EFV’s low reliability resulted in the EFV completing 2 out
of 11 attempted amphibious tests, 1 out of 10 gunnery tests, and none of the 3 scheduled
land mobility tests. The EFV prototypes tested were approximately 1,900 lb. too heavy
to achieve the desired high water speed and, in some circumstances, could not
accommodate equipment needed by Marines for special climatic conditions. Evaluators
also noted significant problems in terms of limited visibility, excessive noise, and
difficulty in reloading the EFV’s main gun.
EFV Redesign. In the aftermath of 2006 Operational Assessment, the Marines
“went back to the drawing board.”13 In February 2007, the EFV program office issued a
“sources sought” notice, requesting information from industry leaders on “tracked combat
vehicles that can provide an alternative design concept of the EFV” — a perceived vote
of no confidence in General Dynamics by the Marines. Also that month, the Navy
formally advised Congress that the EFV program would incur a cost breach, requiring
program recertification under the Nunn-McCurdy Act (10 U.S.C. 2433).14 Finally, in late
11 Information in this section is from United States Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Report to Congressional Committees, “Defense Acquisitions; The Expeditionary Fighting
Vehicle Encountered Difficulties in Design Demonstration and Faces Future Risks,” GAO-06-
349, May 2006, pp. 16-18.
12 Information in this section is from United States House of Representatives, Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, Majority Staff, “The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Over
Budget, Behind Schedule, and Unreliable,” April 29, 2008, pp. 7-10.
13 Information in this section is from Military Vehicle Forecast: Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle,”
Z Forecast International, June 2007, p. 5.
14 The Nunn-McCurdy Act (10 U.S.C. 2433) requires that Congress be notified when a major
defense acquisition program incurs a cost increase of at least 15%. If the increase is 25% or
greater, the Secretary of Defense must certify that the program is essential to national security
and that new cost estimates are reasonable, that the program is properly managed, and that there
(continued...)
CRS-5
February 2007, the Navy announced that it would have to relax EFV performance and
reliability requirements in order for the program to continue. In March 2007, the Marines
modified the original SDD contract and awarded General Dynamics an additional $143.5
million to redesign the EFV.15 In what has been termed “the largest program setback,”
the Marines decided in June 2007 to repeat the entire SDD phase, meaning that instead
of the original completion date of 2003, the SDD phase — if successful — will now be
completed in 2011, eight years behind the original schedule.16 As part of this repeated
SDD phase, the Pentagon approved the purchase of seven more EFV prototypes and
mandated that two of these vehicles would undergo 400 hours of developmental testing
in late 2010.17 It was later reported that the Pentagon dropped the requirement for these
new EFV prototypes to undergo developmental testing.18
Program Cost and Funding.19 The Marines originally planned to procure 1,025
EFVs at a total cost of $8.5 billion. A December 2007 estimate by DOD predicts that the
cost will increase by over 50% to $13.2 billion — a 168% per-vehicle cost increase. The
Marines currently plan to procure only 573 EFVs, giving the Marines the capacity to
amphibiously transport eight infantry battalions (approximately 970 marines and sailors
per battalion).20 The President’s FY2009 EFV Budget Request was $ 316.1 million for
Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E).21 The House Armed Services
Committee (HASC) “concerned that the current EFV design does not provide adequate
personnel protection against IED and mine threats” authorized $275.9 million — a $40.2
million reduction.22 The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) in its version (S.
3001), recommended fully funding the President’s $316.1 million request.
14 (...continued)
are no feasible alternatives to the system in question.
15 United States House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Majority Staff, “The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Over Budget, Behind Schedule, and
Unreliable,” April 29, 2008, p. 10.
16 Ibid.
17 Christopher J. Castelli, “Pentagon Approves Seven More EFVs, But Mandates a Reliability
Demo,” Inside the Navy, June 2, 2008.
18 Christopher J. Castelli, “Pentagon Drops Reliability Demo Requirement from EFV Plans,”
InsideDefense.com, June 30, 2008.
19 United States House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Majority Staff, “The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: Over Budget, Behind Schedule, and
Unreliable,” April 29, 2008, p. 11.
20 Briefing slides, “Army and Marine Corps Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy and Response to
the Office of Management and Budget,” Version 21.09, July 9, 2008, obtained from
InsideDefense.com, August 20, 2008, and Norman Polmar, “18th Edition of the Naval Institute
Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet,”U.S. Naval Institute, p. 44.
21 DOD FY2009 Budget Request Summary Justification, February 2008, p. 187.
22 House Armed Services Committee, H.R. 5658, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act
Summary, May 15, 2008, p. 14.
CRS-6
Potential Issues for Congress
Amphibious Fleet and EFV Vulnerabilities. Some analysts contend that the
operational environment has changed so significantly since the EFV’s inception that both
the fleet and the EFV face greater risks than anticipated.23 The Navy and Marines
envision that future conflicts will require a “persistent presence in littoral areas”
characterized by land-based anti-ship cruise missiles, mines, and small, fast suicide boats.
Twenty years ago when the EFV was conceived, some defense officials suggested that the
fleet could operate 25 to 30 miles from shore, debarking EFVs for amphibious operations,
but with the advent of these new enemy weapons and tactics, this is no longer possible.
Instead, in order to sufficiently protect the large amphibious ships that transport Marines
and EFVs, it has been suggested that the fleet might need to operate at least 100 miles
from shore — beyond the EFV’s range. If there are new developments in enemy weapons
and tactics between now and 2025 — when the EFV is scheduled to reach full operational
capability — the vulnerability to the fleet could increase further. Another potential issue
is the EFV’s vulnerability to IEDs. Some in Congress are concerned that the flat-
bottomed EFV, with a 16-inch ground clearance, would be highly vulnerable to IEDs that
detonate under vehicles.24 The Marines contend that a “V” shaped hull on the EFV to
better protect it from IED blasts would force a total redesign of the EFV. Instead, the
Marines propose that once ashore, armor could be applied to the underside of the EFV,
a solution that has met with congressional skepticism.
What if the EFV Fails Its Second Systems Development and
Demonstration (SDD) Phase Attempt? In order for the EFV to enter its planned
Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phase in 2011, it must successfully complete its
second attempt at SDD. While reports suggest that an earlier requirement for a prototype
reliability demonstration has been dropped, there will likely be a series of operational tests
similar to those conducted in 2006. Given the EFVs poor reliability and performance in
the past, it is possible that new tests might be more rigorous — in part to restore
confidence in the EFV program. General Dynamics has predicted that it will achieve 60.7
hours mean time between operational mission failure (MTBOMF) with its new EFV
prototypes.25 Despite claims that the second SDD phase is going well, it is possible that
the $16 million per vehicle EFV may again perform poorly in operational testing. If this
is the case, it would likely be difficult to justify a third SDD phase, and it would probably
not be operationally feasible to reduce the 573 EFV requirement any further to cut
program costs. Given this potential scenario, it might be prudent to examine possible
contingencies should the EFV perform poorly on upcoming operational tests.
23 Department of the Navy, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, October 2007,
and Sydney J. Freedberg, “Future Corps,” National Journal, May 10, 2008.
24 Emelie Rutherford, “Lawmakers Cite Concerns With Marine Corps EFV Armor Solution,”
InsideDefense.com, January 14, 2008, and Emelie Rutherford, “Marine Corps Proceeds with
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Congressional Concern Remains,” Defense Daily, April 11,
2008.
25 Briefing provide to CRS by General Dynamics Land Systems “EFV Program,” February 2008.