Marines Look To Protect Major Programs

In November, President Barack Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released a stunning report detailing areas where commission members say they found $200 billion of proposed cuts in the federal government—and although the report was released on the Marine Corps’ 235th birthday (Nov. 10), the USMC took a beating. The commission, whose full report was to be released Dec. 1, called for cancellation of the troubled V-22 Osprey program, capping it at 288 aircraft, while substituting MH-60 helicopters to meet some of the Osprey’s planned missions. The commission also called for cancellation of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) and the F-35B version of the Joint Strike Fighter, all of which would add up to almost $43 billion in savings, but at severe emotional cost to the Corps, which has long held the Osprey and EFV as centerpieces of its modernization strategy. While no one expects all of the suggestions to be adopted, the report is a good indication of the level of congressional frustration with long-term, expensive Pentagon projects. The Bell/Boeing MV-22 Osprey is in many ways the Marines’ flagship program. Only the Marines and Air Force special operations selected the tiltrotor to meet their needs for lift. The V-22 has been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and took part in the assault on Marja in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province in 2009, ferrying Marines to the battlefield. A second squadron is deployed in Afghanistan, and another is making the type’s third at-sea cruise with a Marine Expeditionary Unit. The Corps has 130 aircraft and is progressing toward a goal of a 330-aircraft fleet. At this point, increasing reliability and reducing operational costs are primary goals. The V-22 has a high disk loading and higher-velocity downwash than most rotorcraft, kicking up heavy clouds of sand and debris during landing and takeoff. The result has been premature wear on the engine air particle separator and on the engines. One of the most experienced Osprey pilots, Col. Chris Seymour, commented at a November meeting in Washington that the V-22 downwash is like that of the CH-53E but “concentrated at the 12 and 6 o’clock positions—the ground people don’t go there because it’s dangerous.” He says, however, that the V-22 is the “only [Marine] platform that goes into open desert” in Iraq or Afghanistan because of its advanced avionics. Other than the Marja assault, the Marines have not been specific about V-22 missions in Afghanistan. In the latter stages of Iraq operations, it was often used for “governance” missions—flying dignitaries around. A problem, Seymour says, is that the Corps has “a strategic communications challenge in educating battle staffs,” with the result that the V-22 has often been used in the same way as a helicopter. For example, planners routinely assign two V‑22s to a regular long-distance night mission with a half-dozen passengers. “We had blue-force tracking, satcoms, over-the-horizon communications, and there was no reason we needed another Osprey.” Seymour blames “blogs and other propaganda” for the aircraft’s image. Seemingly destined for the Pentagon ax, the EFV program has survived several rounds of budget cuts under Defense Secretary Robert Gates. After several false starts the program appeared to get back into gear during the fall with the coming of Gen. James Amos, the new Marine commandant. Program officials revved up to complete a crucial series of tests throughout the winter and spring. The Marines say that will keep the EFV on track for development and deployment. Program officials acknowledge, however, that the EFV faces a long, hard battle to stay viable. One miscue during the current round of tests could halt development. Many in and out of the Pentagon thought the EFV was on its way to the junk heap by mid-2010. Gates had the program in his sights and no one was sure what kind of support Amos would lend. Like other programs that have been decades in development, the EFV became a target for defense industry reformers who questioned the relevance of equipment they say is more suited to warfare from another era. For example, it is designed to carry a large enough gun to engage hostile armored vehicles but not—in its basic form—to withstand large mines or improvised explosive devices. The kind of amphibious assault landings for which the EFV was initially designed no longer make sense, critics added. But Amos presents a new idea of what constitutes an amphibious landing. In his first planning guidance, released in October, he cites global disasters in Haiti and Pakistan that required the deployment of 5,000 Marines from seven amphibious ships. Amos also made clear in his guidance that he was for anything that bolstered the Marines’ expeditionary capabilities. “The Marine Corps is America’s expeditionary force in readiness,” he wrote in the guidance, which mentions “expeditionary” 15 times. “To a Marine, the term ‘expeditionary’ is more than a slogan; it is our state of mind. It drives the way we organize our forces, how we train and what kind of equipment we buy.” The defining expeditionary tool now is the EFV. The Marines remain focused on proving the EFV merits not only the support of their commandant, but the Pentagon and, of course, Congress. Given the economic climate, Congress is going to scrutinize a program that proposes a vehicle slated to cost $22 million per copy (two-thirds the cost of a CH-47F helicopter and far more than any other combat vehicle), has an overall procurement cost of $9.5 billion and total acquisition cost of $13 billion. The EFV for now is funded through the current testing phase, designed to meet the program’s Knowledge Point 2, which the service hopes to finish by mid-January. The vehicle needs to meet all testing objectives if the Marines want to go further, says program spokesman Manny Pacheco. EFV prototypes are going through mission-profile testing. Marines are making sure that, among other things, the vehicles’ electrical and communication systems don’t interfere with Navy ship platforms, or vice versa. One major goal during this round of testing is to reduce time between failures. William Taylor, EFV program executive officer, who helped navigate the V-22 through development and deployment, maintains such reliability issues are common in this stage of development. The most recent annual report from the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOTE) noted the program’s efforts to improve reliability. The vehicle averages 16.4 hr. between failures. The Marines want to increase this to the low 20s for the near term. The program requirement is 43.5 hr. Some changes the Marines are evaluating concern high-speed water performance, mobility and a redesign of the turret ammunition feed system to fix a jamming problem. Marines put most of the focus into the turret redesign, Pacheco says. “We have confidence in the (vehicle’s) high-water speed.” One recent design change, according to program manager Col. Keith Moore, is meant to prevent debris from clogging the water jet and cooling systems. The DOTE report cited problems with silt on the radiator. Marines must prove the redesigned vehicles perform as expected if they want Congress to continue funding the program. Should EFV not survive, the Marine Corps is expected to fall back on its 35-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle “amtrac” to bridge the capability gap until an alternative is found. The AAV program is slated to run through 2025. That timeline, however, will soon be extended 10 years, says Gary Leymeister, weapons system support manager for AAV at Marine Corps Logistics Command, Albany, Ga. “The estimated life of this vehicle is expected somewhere around the 2025 time frame; however, that is being pushed out to probably 2035,” Leymeister says, “because other weapons systems that are supposed to come along to replace it may be delayed.” While the Marine Corps remains coy about the EFV’s future until conclusion of the ongoing Force Structure Review, observers point to major amtrac rebuilds as proof it’s not a total relic. “The AAV7 A1 can be sustained for the foreseeable future,” Dennis Boucher, acting program manager of Assault Amphibious Vehicle Systems at Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va., writes via e-mail. The AAV program was launched in the 1970s. “However, it is important to note that a large portion of the vehicles’ original major sub-components have been replaced by more current versions,” he notes. The AAV fleet is kept current through rehab done on an inspect and repair only as necessary (Iroan) basis, which requires the vehicles to be transported to Marine Corps maintenance depots in Albany, Ga., or Barstow, Calif. “In short, the Iroan process entails evaluating and restoring major components (e.g., engine, transmission, track, bilge pumps), so each vehicle returning from it is in the proper configuration and condition,” Boucher says. “They look like a brand new vehicle,” Leymeister says. “What that means is, you do whatever you have to do to bring that vehicle to an operational condition to give back to the Marines and, for the most part, that means taking it down to the hull.” Each of the Corps’ 1,057 AAVs goes through the 100-day maintenance rehab every six years, Leymeister adds. The last major system overhaul of the fleet began in 1998, with the launch of the RAM/RS (Reliability, Availability, Maintainability/Rebuild to Standard) program, which increased ground clearance and speed, as well as reliability, back to the vehicle’s original operating capability. That engine and suspension replacement program spanned eight years. The Corps is looking at another major upgrade program within the next few years, with possible further upgrades beyond that to get the vehicle out to 2035, Leymeister says. Whether or not AAV could go beyond 2035 “probably depends on what happens with EFV.” Just how any EFV cuts are made could have a lasting impact on its replacement program, and consequently, the amphibious assault capability the Marines see as the nexus of their identity, according to one defense analyst. “My sense from talking with people is that there is a growing expectation the EFV program will be reduced or canceled,” says analyst Dakota Wood of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “The greatest fear is probably that if the program is canceled, they also lose the funding associated with that. What they would like to see is that if the program is canceled, the funding is preserved so you can still invest in a more modern combat vehicle, ship-to-shore capability than is resident in the AAV.” One post-EFV scenario would be that with the Corps’ fleet of more than 1,000 AAVs, half could be modernized to meet the current call for 573 EFVs, with the other half put in storage until needed. “They’re going to have a sympathetic ear in Congress, even with the turnover,” Wood says. “They’ve got to have something, otherwise why do we have amphibs? I don’t think they would retain the entire program amount. But if you retained 50% you get some cost savings, which is what the defense secretary is looking for, but you have a pretty good amount for research and development into alternatives.” Not all of the Marines’ new pieces of kit are so large, controversial or expensive. Members of Co. I, 3rd Btn., 5th Marines deployed to Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in September with new gear that could prove as significant as any multibillion-dollar floating tank or high-speed air platform. In a combat zone first, the Marines brought with them portable solar panels, energy-conserving lights, solar tent shields and solar power chargers that allow them to do away with bulky, fuel-guzzling diesel and kerosene generators, and let them live and fight in austere environments partially removed from the logistics of fuel and battery resupply. The “green” equipment cost $50,000-70,000, but considering that transportation costs to Afghanistan can drive the price of fuel to $400/gal., if the test is successful, the investment will quickly pay for itself. The Corps is testing other green technologies in its Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB) program, and announced in October that Raytheon successfully completed all phases of testing on the gear. ExFOB revolves around the ReGenerator, a self-contained power system that runs on an integrated 1.2-kw. solar array and wind power, with integrated battery storage, power-conditioning and power-conversion electronics. The system can also plug in to external a.c. sources and provide power to dismounted units. Raytheon’s Arlan Sheets says “we focused on the [program’s] expeditionary size and having something that’s really scalable and ruggedized.” One of the goals was to create a platform “that’s very parts-agnostic,” so it can be easily repaired in the field. Sheets says the system fits in a Light Tactical Trailer, and two people can set it up and produce power in less than 5 min. No word on when or if the Marines plan to ship the system to grunts in the field, but the gear is an example of important technologies that don’t require decades of tests and billions of dollars to make a difference.