Home » Rumors » SLAMRAAM, EFV Getting Axed?

SLAMRAAM, EFV Getting Axed?

By John Reed Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 5:58 pm
Posted in Rumors

The Pentagon is will reportedly slash the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and Army’s Surface-Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile system that would have someday replaced the Stinger missile-based Avenger air defense system, according to Lexington Institute analyst Loren Thompson.

While the Army National Guard is strongly against the move since it would leave the Guard’s seven avenger battalions with no replacement, the Army leadership recommended that the Pentagon chop the program in September.

The Raytheon-developed SLAMRAAM is essentially a ground-based version of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Army and Raytheon had been conducting launch tests of the missile using the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System or HIMARS. The system was originally designed to be mounted on a Humvee. Limited user tests of the SLAMRAAM system were supposed to begin in the next two months.

The system would have also replace the AMRAAM-based Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System, which are used by some Guard units to defend the airspace around Washington, D.C.

Raytheon was working to develop a longer range version of the missile for the SLAMRAAM program due to the fact that the AIM-120’s reach is limited when fired from the ground instead of the air.

In addition to the SLAMRAAM, the Marine Corps’ beleaguered Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) is “dead,” while the amphibious service’s F-35B Short Take-off and vertical Landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter “looks safe aside from a delay in the initial operational capability” which had been set for 2012 remain funded, said Thompson in a Jan. 4 e-mail.

The Pentagon is expected to reveal the cuts on Thursday. Officials from Raytheon were not available for comment. We’ll see what happens later this week.

Join the Conversation

	Araya January 4th, 2011 at 7:57 pm This is not the only bad news of the day. See the following link. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5374864&am… Quoted from the text. Top GOP Congressman: DoD Not Spared From Cuts WASHINGTON — The U. S. military will face budget cuts as lawmakers hunt for savings to clean in the country’s deficit and national debt, senior Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Jan. 4th .….… These are really bad news. It would be better if Gates had never started his stupid efficiency initiative. Gates cuts the meat with his initiative and the Tea Party and Progressive Democrats will following cut the bones.
	@7thwave January 4th, 2011 at 8:48 pm Well,I say let hem cut and cut deep. We do not need any type of military like we have now. To be honest, we only need one brigade of ground based infantry for home land defense, 4 ships for coastal duties, and one squadron of mixed aircraft for air defense. It makes me sick when we have a so called budget problem and we always hear that the defense budget is he problem especially with all the money we are giving away to other countries and throwing away for needless home spending projects.
	Guest January 4th, 2011 at 10:17 pm Your worldview is entirely naive. Most people I see with your attitude are always worried about deficits, inflation and the value of the money. What you don’t have the education to understand is the money will become worthless if we lose our position as military hegemon of the world.
	@Earlydawn January 4th, 2011 at 11:01 pm I don’t think you could actually tell us what any of those unit sizes represent without hitting up Wikipedia first. Try again.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 5th, 2011 at 1:27 am someone please explain SLAMRAAM termination to me. if WE are supposed to be so afraid of new Russian and Chinese stealth jets as justification for proceeding with JSF , Shouldn’t this logic naturally extend to protecting ground troops ? or is the whole argument just a farce to trick Americans into a bad TACAIR modernization strategy ??
	jer January 5th, 2011 at 4:27 am Sounds like a good force mix. For an island the size of Delaware.
	Matt1951 January 5th, 2011 at 8:10 am Poor choices are being made here. Keep SLAMRAAM, kill the JSF B variant instead. Kill Osprey. The Army, once again, is not being treated fairly.
	Drake1 January 5th, 2011 at 9:07 am Reuters is saying Gates is fighting to keep the cuts lower than the White House would like, but this was inevitable. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7035VO20110…
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 5th, 2011 at 9:59 am The Army is not this helpless victim that you suggest, however. They share in the responsibility for their failed acquisiton programs: Comanche, Crusader, FCS — poor conceptualization and execution by the Army contributed greatly to these failures. Frankly, OSD and the Federal Government cuts the Army a lot of breaks.
	guest 2 January 5th, 2011 at 10:21 am It’s a sorry shame when elected officials and their pawns put the welfare of 12 million illegal immigrants ahead of the lives of American citizens that volunteer to protect this great county and it’s interests.
	nomorecostoverruns January 5th, 2011 at 10:37 am I agree. The Tea Party movement is going to make a difference here though. If it weren’t for Republican check on Obama these last 2 years, the Democrats would push even further and further for amnesty for illegals, opening the flood gates further for more illegal immigration.
	OBIWAN57 January 5th, 2011 at 10:43 am What planet are you living on? It’s attitudes like this that were the downfall of nations unperpared for defense. While some wasteful programs nedd to be eliminated, gutting a military aeready reeling from a high ops tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with equipment attrition in theater, makes procurement of new equipment vital for the national defense. Get real!
	Matt1951 January 5th, 2011 at 10:47 am Comanche and Crusader were not failures. They should have been purchased. Yet, JSF and Osprey go forward.
	the bear January 5th, 2011 at 10:51 am Are you serious, with the forces mentioned above, we might as well not even have a military. the whole world is not holding hands and singing in perfect harmony.
	Rich Swank January 5th, 2011 at 11:12 am There is a long way to go on EFV. The production plant is in Lima, OH, the new Speaker is from Ohio, and I am not sure the President wants to lay off thousands of union employees less than 2 years from election day.
	Troy January 5th, 2011 at 12:06 pm I’m sure the Iranians, Russkies, NK and China are delighted and just tickled pink! Just keeps getting better and better! So much for deterrence and being cutting edge.
	R.Shed January 5th, 2011 at 12:31 pm interesting news http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011–01-05/pentagon…
	SW614 January 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pm You could not defend Rhode Island with that force. It would take a determined opponenet less than a day to blow through it. What a bunch of utter nonsense.
	Rich Swank January 5th, 2011 at 1:23 pm The Marines won’t be getting anything. The current AAV’s are useless in any contested amphibious assault or even in an Anti– Access Area Denial (A2AD) situation since the Navy’s amphib ships would have to get far too close to the shoreline to be effective. EFV is scheduled to begin OA in August and is doing well in RGT at AVTB right now. Maybe DOD should let EFV stand or fall based on how it performs in OA.
	smoke January 5th, 2011 at 1:47 pm chicomms work on 5th gen stealth and PLAN will soon put to sea an aircraft carrier — US builds windmislls and train stations… The man child Barry obama’s plan to cut America down to size continues.…
	joe January 5th, 2011 at 1:48 pm “Ok, from what I’ve read the SLAMRAAM system doesn’t have the range of the airborne version but you still pay for the whole missile. Its probably not the good deal for the money now that I reflect.” Of course the missile does not have the same range when fired Surface-to-Air as it does when fired Air-to-Air. But what it does have is a much less expensive platform. The range and platform together make it a very good short-medium range system. Air Defense will always take some of the heaviest cuts as long as the Air Force and Navy can maintain air supremacy.
	Macman 1138 January 5th, 2011 at 1:50 pm Get rid of a bunch of these entitlements!!! Cut the welfare roles, repeal Obama Care! I do think it was a shame to cancel the RAH-66 after spending over $6 billion on it.
	BOOMER January 5th, 2011 at 2:35 pm Well at least the ARMY was able to get thier new BDU’s, boots and field/combat gear through without getting cut, at least this time they are getting a pattern worth wearing, Just hope it holds up a whole lot better than the current ACU’s. This might not seem appropriate for this subject but stop and consider how much it is going to cost to refit all the troops all over again. Definately a much needed change for our troops but the brass who sit behind the desks caused this by not listening to the ground pounders who wanted the multicam or USMC style bdu’s in the first place. tons of money waisted that could had gone elsewhere, especialy when you consider the time and money spent by the brass to test the two side by side to justify fixing thier mistake.
	A. Nonymous January 5th, 2011 at 3:42 pm I agree with the AAVP-7 not being a survivable weapon for contested amphibious assault, but neither is the EFV. With the effective range growth of both Chinese and Russian anti-shipping missiles, the amphibious assault ship would also be Tango Uniform well before it got close enough to deploy its EFVs. Maybe the EFV getting canceled is a blessing in disguise. Spend the money you would have used procuring an obsolete weapon to design one that has a fighting chance of successfully completing the contested beach assault mission from more than 500km offshore.
	Bill January 5th, 2011 at 6:17 pm The irony is that all those people will be out of work and collecting 99 months of un-employment, not pay income taxes, cut household spending dratically. So will the government REALLY save any money by weakening our defense?
	Bill January 5th, 2011 at 6:30 pm What people like you fail to understand is that it is human nature to have the big stick on the block. Luckily it is us. If we get weak there will be another nation that will come to power and dominate the world. To believe otherwise is naive. In that struggle will be a wake of massive death.
	Bill January 5th, 2011 at 6:32 pm That was my gamble and why I have stuck around working on the EFV. However, I may looking for work very soon. We will see.
	joe January 5th, 2011 at 6:34 pm Private Schumkatelly! I want you to get those dang burn JATO rockets strapped onto those AAV7s by Zero dark thirty by yesterday most ricky-Tick or your gonna be cleaning Heads with your toothbrush until Chesty by Gawd Himself comes by and inspects em and says you can have Liberty! Now Get down and Give me 100 Four count Marine Corps Push-up, Plus One for the Corps, Plus one for the Commandant, Plus one for Eighth& I, Plus one for Chupoltipec plus one for… Whi needs those expensively troublesome EFV’s anyways…Oooh Freaken Rah!
	ex flight test January 5th, 2011 at 6:37 pm Once again its trying to get something off the shelf and make it work somewhere it wasn’t designed for. It didn’t work for Sgt York. Its not working now. Our procurement system is really clusterf’d. We need to clean that up. All services, and quickly. Otherwise we’ll have more crap that doesn’t work, having to go get something new, and meanwhile we lose capability. Damn problem is the general officers suck up on nifty slogans, color graphics and catchy ads from the lying thieving, er, contractors.
	Jon January 5th, 2011 at 6:40 pm What planet are you from where they can do an effective beach ************** from 500km away. With the EFV you can go up to 27 nautical miles and if you didn’t know it’s past the curvature of the earth hence the name “over the horizon assault”.
	Guest January 5th, 2011 at 6:49 pm You can’t defend El Paso with that force level. And while I’ll agree the Pentagon has a bloated budget — like $600 M + just to maintain Air Force golf courses — the money just needs to be better allocated. And that’s NOT to pick on the USAF ’cause the other branches have just as many examples in managing and maintaining their O clubs and gulf courses, etc. Those entities should be run by private corporations — and our money should be reserved for the fighting men & women. It’s a DAMN shame to see so many of my friends & family buying their own body armor and K-Pot upgrade kits when OIF began. That’s ALMOST as absurd as Rumsfeld re-organizing the entire military in the midst of TWO wars! How frakkin’ stupid is that? And now The Corps can’t have EFVs? Didn’t we used to call them Jeeps? And after the clusterfrak w/ the HUMVEE, next we’d be up-armoring them anyway — all because we’re too stupid to understand that small mobile vehicles AREN’T BOMBPROOF! Who knew? Frakkin’ EVERYBODY!! That’s who. So maybe it’s just as well The Corps has to rebuild their HUMVEES. Semper Fi guys. Carry on!
	William C. January 5th, 2011 at 6:50 pm The USAF and USN aren’t getting what the new fighters they need so at the same time we are going to cut what little we have going on in the Army and Marine Corp SAM department? When it comes to the EFV, the Marines still need a capable armored fighting vehicle to move troops, even if it can’t swim. Hopefully such a vehicle would still include the Mk.44 autocannon and other new systems. Yet if we dump the EFV, amtrack development is pretty much at a dead-end. We would have to come up with new solutions preferably with a new generation of LCACs.
	Jon January 5th, 2011 at 7:10 pm I think the EFV is on point the way it’s going. Granted the set backs have been made because there’s too many hands in the pot and if the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing nobody will be held accountable. Now that General Dynamics has their necks on the block they seem to be doing a better job in putting together something that will work tomorrow instead of something that will be acceptable for the rest of the day
	tee January 5th, 2011 at 7:28 pm How about something like a license built in the US copy with a few upgrades of the South Korean K21 at around 3 million apiece. http://www.armyrecognition.com/south_korean_korea…
	tee January 5th, 2011 at 7:29 pm http://www.armyrecognition.com/south_korean_korea…
	Moose January 5th, 2011 at 7:56 pm You’re an Idiot!
	Moose January 5th, 2011 at 7:57 pm The osprey is an albatross. Kill the V-22 and keep the EFV!
	moose January 5th, 2011 at 8:00 pm Lav’s are sorry to say out of date. The Corps needs new equipment asap!
	Kilroy January 5th, 2011 at 8:09 pm The Marine Corps has only itself to blame for being manipulated for years by a group of field grade and general officers — most now long retired from active duty — some still collecting as contractors or procurement minions. The progam for the AAAV transformed into the EFV. In either form it was a program without a valid requirement in the real world nor a reasonable mission profile. An unintended consequence of spending so much of the Marine Corps’ R & D and procurement budget for this contractor cash cow was a lack of funding to procure and install current generation stand-off armor on the AAV-7. A lot of Marine blood was split — ever see what an Iraqi RPG does to an Amtrack? There is much more to this story and very little of it has to do with the potential demise of an armor system program or the cuts that the political class will place on the military.
	Steve Lambert January 5th, 2011 at 8:25 pm Just a note from one in the back ground is that if we take the illegal personal and give them citizenship after a two year term in the Army, (with no pay) Four year limit giving two years pay,then should they be giving citenship of United States, Make them proud to be a citzen instead of a drain on the United States budget that is so ritaled with grief.Congressmen are getting US Dallars payed to them from tax payers that payed taxes from that dollar, so they should pay taxes on that money when it hits the hand.
	STEVE January 5th, 2011 at 8:33 pm I forgot to mention, thank you men and women of the force’s that keeps us strong,
	Edward John Paradis January 5th, 2011 at 8:34 pm We need to take care of home at this point. Yes there are all kinds of troubles out there, but are biggest one is becoming the one at home. There is too much bad seed here at home, and if we don’t correct the problem there will come a point were the negitive is greater than the positive. “Look” around , YES I SAID “LOOK” AROUND !!! Open your eyes and face the truth like our ” Four Fathers” did . TICK TOCK TICK TOCK !!! The will of GOD waits for no Person. And with that I say Good Night CHESTY , USMC for ever. ED !!!
	navyvet1987 January 5th, 2011 at 8:45 pm This guy must be living in his moms basement
	Ho Chi Minh January 5th, 2011 at 8:57 pm You have to understand that most military members are not democrats and tend to vote for republicans so why waste money on people that will not vote for them. It is more important for politicians to retain party power then to keep this country secure. Politics is an awful and dangerous game to play with the lives of service members.
	William C. January 5th, 2011 at 10:22 pm By default an amtrack can’t be too heavily armored in order to swim in anything other than a river or lake. The AAVP-7A1 had it’s armor upgraded a few years ago, but a typical PG-7VM rocket will slice through that armor. The EFV is supposed to have somewhat greater armor, but you can either have a high degree of armor protection or the ability to swim in sea conditions, not both. Active “hard-kill” defense systems would be a great improvement, but these are still in development and do nothing to counter threats like IEDs. The AAAV wasn’t a bad concept back when the program first began but it was a different threat back then, and the EFV has taken too long and cost too much to get to the stage it is today. Perhaps we underestimated the amount of technological development it required, but either-way the Marines need new armored personnel carriers. If those can’t swim, they are going to need more LCACs and other assets to compensate.
	Moose January 5th, 2011 at 11:53 pm Possibly because we have multiple other defensive layers on the ground and in the sky to intercept enemy aircraft before they got to SLAMRAAM range. It’s a nifty system, but redundant.
	Moose January 5th, 2011 at 11:54 pm You’re not me, and I disagree with you.
	Moose January 5th, 2011 at 11:57 pm Sure, because nations with impressive armies and terrible infrastructure have a great record in warfare.
	Roland January 6th, 2011 at 2:58 am Don’t cut off, just make all land, sea and air fighters run on clean energy like algae fuel, bio fuel and other clean energy to save on petroleum cost and create revenues through savings.
	vicgilroy January 6th, 2011 at 2:58 am AGAIN I REMIND YOU ALL,. THIRTEEN YEARS AND 3 BILLION DOLLARS LATER THE EFV IS STILL NOT OPERATIONAL DEPSITE THE OUTRIGHT LIES POSTED TO SPIN THE OBVIOUS TRUTH. GD IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR ITS POLITICAL MUSCLE TO DRAG THIS FAILED PROGRAM FOR THIRTEEN YEARS AND THREE BILLION DOLLARS. I SURE THEY GOT SOME NICE PROPERTY ON THE U. P.
	Roland January 6th, 2011 at 4:37 am And export sales of Algae fuel, biofuel and other clean energy. One example is Saudi gets its wealth through energy, through selling their oil internationally. We can also be like Saudi Arabia if we find clients to buy our locally made algae fuels on the international market and for domestic use to generate the needed revenues for development and help the economy.
	Bill R. January 6th, 2011 at 6:50 am You keep deserving my negative votes. EFV is a much bigger dog than Crusader, despite that program’s problem with the liquid propellant solution preselected by Army government engineers. Comanche is arguable, but “poor conceptualization” was not its problem. Let’s face it, Bub — you have no clue about Army systems, how that service does combat developments, or how it differs from other services. You conveniently leave out AGS and Grizzly, systems that the Army really needed and which were basically successful programs, but got cut anyhow. Your ivory tower PA&E bias is showing big time — so get off your high horse.
	Bill R. January 6th, 2011 at 6:54 am That was after all the old M-1 tank plant. Maybe they can get some refurbishment work for all our broken hardware.
	William January 6th, 2011 at 7:38 am You must smoke weed or be totally ignorant.
	Shail January 6th, 2011 at 7:41 am One of the problems we’ll be facing where concerned with the 30mm MK44 gun is, 30mm protective levels are becoming the new standard for how high to up-armor many IFV systems. That generally is across the frontal arc only, and the turret fully. But what that means is, potentially adversaries are well on their way to up-armoring AFVs, and by the time the EFV finally even sees IOC, it’s highly likely its 30mm gun won’t be a guaranteed killer of the potential threat vehicles it faces. Slap on an ATGM? Maybe so, but why then even waste the investment in the 30mm? It gets even worse for the Bradley and its 25mm: the only gun upgrade the Army even considered is, again, the 30mm. We’re slipping behind the curve on too many projects.
	canman January 6th, 2011 at 8:36 am How is that? I believe you are the one that needs the education. You would have to be an idiot to think that inflation and deficits are not the things that will make our money worthless and that risking our label of world police is the thing that will. Grab a book on economics. Inflation after an extended amount of time causes hyperinflation therefore rendering the money supply worthless.
	Geo January 6th, 2011 at 8:38 am Examination of the EFV and the overall design is that it is not mature enough to operate correctly and is a death trap to Marines. It needs to die before it kills Marines. Too many one shot kill vulnerabilities because of its complexity and it is a sitting duck if any little thing goes wrong. Battlefield repair was never a consideration. Some interesting technology that in about 20 years might be really cool, but not now. The sad part is that it can be fixed by simplification, but GD has an entire division based upon the money from this and they aren’t going to change it.
	NoCostOverruns January 6th, 2011 at 8:56 am You are the one that deserves negative votes (which I am too much of a gentleman to give you) for dragging debate down to lower and lower levels, “BUB”. OK that’s the last time I allow myself to drop down to your level. Please forgive me for leaving out AGS and Grizzly, I guess I’m only so limited in the amount of time and space and can cover only so many defense systems in any one post. Can you atleast agree with me there? I SUPPORT AGS or a similar concept. I have no idea why it was canceled, from what I understand the Army has some sort of problem with the concept of “light tanks”, like they were a threat to the heavier tanks. I don’t have a problem with the Grizzly vehicle as a concept either. I have no idealistic “high horse” problem. I have a rational, logical approach to defense investment decision making, with a zero tolerance for Cost Overruns due to Strategic Misrepresentation. Judging by your repeated use of insults and snobby attitude towards me, you are the one on the high horse. I’m willing to start over if you are.
	nomorecostoverruns January 6th, 2011 at 9:36 am I thought of something else too. I am sure that in your personal financial dealings you have zero tolerance for Cost Overruns. For example, say some plumber suckered you in with a low bid, and then ended up cleaning you out. You would be outraged right? Well that is how taxpayers deservedly feel when DoD & Industry sucker them into MDAPs that inevitably overrun as well. So how would you feel if the plumber started accusing you of being on an ivory tower high horse. You’d be pissed. Well if you would, then you should realize you are being a hypocrite for accusing me of being on an ivory tower high horse bias. Now it is a test of a man’s character to how they react when they have been confronted with their wrong behavior. Let’s see how you do.
	guest January 6th, 2011 at 9:53 am that is one to agree with
	Henry McDuff January 6th, 2011 at 10:15 am I have some Ideas on how to save money so DOD is able to stave off cuts in its Budget. Cut all welfare payments for aliens legal and illegal. When I brought my wife home from Thailand, I had to sign a paper that she would never be on welfare; if I did not sign she would not be able to come home with me. (She would not recieve a Visa.) Cut back on Medicaid. Cut back on all medical emergency and non-emergency aid for all illegal Aliens. Stop paying for the education of illegals (If they want an education go back from where ever they came from.) I know this will never happen as illegals are sacred cows for both the Republicans, and Democrats! Desperate times call for desperate remedies. Remember we are never attacked when we are strong, only when we are perceived as being weak.
	nomorecostoverruns January 6th, 2011 at 10:30 am thank you — please tell us more details…
	Unibrowser January 6th, 2011 at 1:17 pm Most of the contracors are not “thieving” and the actual margins are rather slim. The government workforce is much more expensive and less productive than the average worker in private industry. Oversight is a misnomer for more non-value added government workers. It should be the other way around, we need to have oversight on government. Most all this could be contracted out, including the oversight. If private oversight is product-award based it would be lots cheaper than the government doing it. Go to Reason.com and get an education of how government can be lean, less intrusive and cost effective.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 6th, 2011 at 1:21 pm If we assume the EFV is hopeless, then the sooner it is terminated, the sooner an alternative can be developed. I’m starting to believe that Defense Acquisitions is a lot like Civil War battles. Take the Battle of Fredericksburg for example. General Burnside sent brigade after brigade to get slaughtered. He would have kept on doing it if courageous members of his own staff did not stand up against him and pleaded with him to back out. Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg was a similar case. Tom Berenger played Gen Longstreet beautifully in the movie. In Defense Acquisitions, we know at Milestone B whether a not a program is on a solid foundation and has a good chance of succeed. If it is not, we must not proceed until we get our ducks in a row. Contrast that with the current practice of “Ready, Fire, Aim” and creating Too Big To Fail programs.
	BOOMER January 6th, 2011 at 5:30 pm Maybe during the reading of the Constitution on the hill today they all learned something. One thing the Marines could back door them with (although they never would) is that the government only has authority to establish and fund a Navy (which includes the marines), it never mentions an Army or Air Force — it does give the government the power to arm — train — and discipline a malitia but that would be the National Guard which would be covered for funding. But that is all beside the point — What I hope they learned is no where does it give them the right to provide military aid to forien governments or entities (NATO/ UN) from the defense budget which is where the cuts should start — agree there are bad programs that need to be gone but let the fighters decide which ones and not armchair politicians or the desk bound brass.
	joe bro January 6th, 2011 at 6:33 pm cut off all funding for illegals, make it a felony and permanent barring for them to return legally if caught in the us illegally. make it a mandatory 1000 dollar a day finefor each one to have illegals working for you. make it a mandatory loss of government program and contracts if caught using illegals. make the check the ssn of workers mandatory. close the “border gap” handle the border crisis. make it better for americans and “the children.” and finally make it the way the constitution intended that no ilegal entrant may confir citizenship on someone merely born in the us when they are not us citizens in the first place. call those that sell out the us in laws, rulings of laws stretching for french or foreign law rulings for supreme court decisions the traitors that they are. and finally forbid treatys to override the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. sorry for spelling my vision goes from being 70% s/c DAV meds. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
	STEVE January 6th, 2011 at 7:19 pm He’s so right, Companies should be accountible for the illegals working in place where American work force should be.
	E9 D.E. DuBose Ret January 6th, 2011 at 8:00 pm AS a retiree that served from 1961–1992, I can say with a little knowledge that the “military” has always been the broom in the closet. The only time it is taken out is when the Nation feels threated. Right now, with the present commander-in-cheat, we are being lead down the lala road and told that everything is going to be alright. We just have to be willing to give our would be enimies a lot of warm fuzzies and our tax dollars. Our defense is secondary to helping socialist like Chaviz, etc to become real world leaders, at our expense.
	elgatoso January 6th, 2011 at 10:44 pm No really a expert in AA but the Stinger is like 80 tech.Maybe it is that,
	Big Daddy January 7th, 2011 at 6:44 am I never have understood the need for the EFV, the American public would not support the type of casulties numbers we would recieve in a large amphib attack. If the Marines need a armored vehicle, get a varient of the Stryker. What you have with the EFV is a LARGE vehicle that doesn’t do anything “well”. I mean after all.….…just to get 34.5 metric tons of iron, up on plane, takes ‘quite a bit of h.p.” Unless there’s another WW, the Marines aren’t going in on amphibs. To many gurnts would be killed and injured, in that slow moving vehicle. It’d be a whole lot cheaper to prep the landing site via air, then chopper the troops in. Amphib landing have gone the way of the dodo.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 7th, 2011 at 8:42 am Boomer airplanes didn’t exist in the 18th century. Artcile VI of the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to create Supreme Laws of the Land. Security Act of 1947 signed into law by Harry Truman gives legal authority for the USAF to exist. Hope the Marines don’t try your argument!
	Bill R. January 7th, 2011 at 10:58 am The military analogy is facile, becaus after the fact predictions always work out to be true, so that’s another –1. I don’t have a problem with tightening up on the Milestone B decision point, although I think it is fundamentally wrong to push PDR before Milestone B. Getting back to FCS — I do think they rushed through Milestone B. There was only one year between Milestone A and B on that program, then the restructure came six months after Milestone B This implies that the acquisition lifecycle should be lengthened, not compressed. Current budgets also argue for that. Concepts mature over time — in fact, they can mature late in a system’s lifecycle. We were still arguing how to fight the M-1 tank after putting it into the field. If you do things right you can get some questions answered — keep in mind that it really does not matter what the system design says, warfighters have their own ideas. They will push the system to the limits of its performance regardless of what the engineers wrote down. That’s why operational testing is so very important and should be done as early in the process as possible, not just before a major production decision.
	Bill R. January 7th, 2011 at 11:08 am False analogy, really. My children are expert manipulators who know exactly how to extract the maximum amount of money from my wallet. Since we’re on the same time, I have the right to say yeah or nay, but for things they really need, I do my best to move the money around to make things work. Even though the Army uses contractors, the Army itself is not a contractor. And whether or not one is dealing with a public or private sector organization, a callous indifference to their interests and needs is no way to do business. If you want honesty and integrity, you need to be able to do your part, and not act as if you were judge, jury and executioner. Power corrupts, and Washington is full of arrogant and corrupt people who have grown sick on the taste of power. If I were the plumber, I’d be inclined to fire customers who asked me to do impossible things at a loss. The Army does not have that luxury.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 7th, 2011 at 11:12 am the problem we have is too many changes after MS B, not enough maturity prior to MS B. This creates a much more riskier situation in MDAPs then should be tolerated. The timeline between MS B and MS C must be shortened. The current situation is ridiculous. Program changes after MS B, means the MDA authorized something that is no longer valid. Warfighters need to understand Acquisition better. The changes they want create insane risks. We see the results of that in our failed programs, and destroyed credibility all the time. Change needs to happen, and it’s coming. Riskier endeavors need to be done in their proper context (like DARPA), they do not belong in MDAPs, when people are desperately needing a replacement platform for their 50’s to 70’s era technology. Failure is not acceptable.
	Bill R. January 7th, 2011 at 11:19 am The issue of light tanks has a history to it. In the 50s, the Army got rid of its light tanks, standardizing on the M48 as a “main battle tank”. Then we got the Sheridan care of Mr. McNamara and his superior operations research approach to systems management — a truly unreliable and deficient system if ever there was one. The Army ended up replacing the Sheridan with medium tanks in the cavalry squadrons, and the argument raged for years as to whether tanks belonged in the division cavalry squadron or not. In the meantime, the light and airborne divisions were naked — no tanks or tank destroyers at all. AGS was supposed to solve that problem — only to get cancelled. Then we go this ridiculous Stryker MCS variant — another instance of bad engineering rushed to the field. I learned about demotivation posters on FCS. One time I put one together with a little tank icon that said; Future Combat Systems: An Excellent Light Tank Doesn’t Just Come Around Every Day” And there it is.
	Krag January 7th, 2011 at 11:58 am “Amphib landings have gone the way of the dodo…” — the same thing was said right after WWII because then it was atomic bombs that made amphibious landings a thing of the past — and yet five years later we were running a huge amphibious assault that turned the tide of an entire war. Now its “too many casualties” or “too many antisurface missiles” but its all equally just as stupid as the claims in the late forties were. While there is water on the earth, and while the vast majority of the people live within 200 miles of that water, there will be amphibious assaults. Cutting your own ability to conduct them doesn’t make them go away, it makes you unable to do it — meaning someone else will eventually be landing on your shores with intentions other than singing kumbayah.
	j thal January 7th, 2011 at 5:13 pm AMEN Brother
	PolicyWonk January 7th, 2011 at 5:31 pm The EFV has been having serious problems for a long time — its been lucky not to get axed sooner than this, according to many folks I know. To be fair, when every feature known to man is being crammed into one platform, the engineering problems will be huge (let alone reliability).
	Henry McDuff January 8th, 2011 at 8:13 am This is still true our fearless leaders should read this! TOMMY by Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936) I went into a public-‘ouse to get a pint o’ beer, The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.“ The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
	Henry McDuff January 8th, 2011 at 8:19 am O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”; But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.
	Henry McDuff January 8th, 2011 at 8:21 am I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but ‘adn’t none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-‘alls, But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls! For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outside”; But it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide, The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide, O it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide. Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
	Henry McDuff January 8th, 2011 at 8:22 am An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit. Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul?“ But it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes” when the drums begin to roll.
	Henry McDuff January 8th, 2011 at 8:25 am You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all: We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace. For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!“ But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot; An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please; An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees! It is still TRUE
	Jay Citizen January 8th, 2011 at 12:42 pm You mean this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4se_9WrWyPw
	Jay Citizen January 8th, 2011 at 1:02 pm To me it just seems silly to expect an amphibious assault vehicle to swim that far; surely some kind of fast attack barge or sled of some kind could deliver it part way. Something fast and cheap, only holding small numbers of the EFVs. Such a barge would not even have to float above water, just skim below the surface at at a pace that would be faster than the swim speed of the EFV. I still wonder if using armored dinghies delivered by hydroplanes wouldn’t be just as affective, from the shock and fast surprise of it. Don’t laugh, I’ve seen the armor proven on similar craft built for the Army special operations on Future Weapons. The delivery hydroplanes could be armed with full auto 5″ deck guns, or even an NLOS-C variant of the 155mm.
	Jay Citizen January 8th, 2011 at 1:16 pm There is one simple barrier to implementing your plan. A REAL ID. The Real ID act was never successful because no one has come up with an ID that cannot be faked. It is possible to do of course, it is just that the stupid congress refuses to think. They WANT illegal immigration anyway, so we lose. The final failure of the Real ID act was the stupid attempt to FORCE the states to adopt it, where that is impossible, because the Constitution declares states powers to be supreme to the federal government when it comes to implementing such things. They needed a carrot and stick approach to make it successful and also Constitutional. You cannot successfully prosecute an employer for having illegals unless you have an ID system that is infallible. The employer cannot be held responsible for hiring folks who have impeccable fake IDs. They need an ID system that cannot be faked, and provable by the employer as well. Then you can go after the employers who ignore this system!
	Jay Citizen January 8th, 2011 at 1:19 pm You heard the General, they need them for soft power in world disasters! So actually they could build them with no armor and weapons for that mission, and save a lot of bucks! =D
	StopWastingMyTax$ January 8th, 2011 at 4:07 pm it is a textbook case of everything that is wrong in defense acquisition. it is also a textbook demonstration of the psychological & political problems that make canceling doomed to failure program much to difficult. just look at the people here who act like this is an insult to the USMC and still think the EFV should continue, or Loren Thompson’s headline story: “Gates Kills EFV; Marine Casualties To Follow” The widespread incompetence & corruption of such people is a threat to our national security.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 8th, 2011 at 4:12 pm why are you giving me –1’s when you are validating all my arguments? I’m arguing that Defense Acquisition needs to be done by the book and that MDAPs are not a place to take foolish risks and make foolish mistakes. So if you agree they rushed to MS B, then you should understand that MAYBE if they didn’t rush to MS B, the program would be alive and well. More risk reduction engineering needs to be done prior to MS B, and the timeline between MS B and MS C needs to be dramatically lshortened. If you change a system’s fundamental operational & system requirements past MS B, you have a recipe for disaster, E.G. FCS. Any program that needs a restructure just 6 months after MS B deserves whatever spankings OSD, GAO, and Congress dish out. I just hope the Services have learned this lesson for the last time.
	E9 D.E. DuBose Ret January 8th, 2011 at 4:12 pm And pray tell me why any of this should come at a surprise to those of us who have been there and done that. The gold of liberalism/socialism is to disarm our Nation and become a “simple part” of the New World Order(read), The United Nations. They would first have our citizens disarmed and then have the teeth ripped out of the mouth of our military. Hillary Clinton is the clown in resident at the UN. Our commander-in-cheat is in line for a top seeded position if and when the New World Order takes over. As long as we have Patroits in this country, we will never succomed to the desires of the UN. In hunters alone, we have the largest armed army in the world. No enemy, foreign or domestic will ever attack America, as long as we have hunters.
	Apollo January 9th, 2011 at 7:45 am The guys at Boeing, doing the coding for the Comanche flight software were way behind due to requirement changes by the Army. I know those guys in the trenches. Could it have flown? Yes… Someday. They were debugging AH-64D Longbow and V-22 all while developing Comanche. Hell they were years behind in writing the operational simulation software for Comanche. What happened? Comanche was cut and all of those software to firmware guys went to keeping V-22 from falling out of the sky and then to upgrade AH-64D Longbow. Firmware was debugged, new simulation software written and an amazing amount of sensor/software upgrades were added to AH-64D. V-22 is a technological dead end for heavy lift. I watched the program from the moment they had it behind closed doors at ILG, watched many of the test flights, witnessed it crash and know the man hours put into fixing it. The Marines and Bell/Boeing got it working but even the guys whose jobs depended on ot said it is not a replacement for the 53 or 46. It should be relegated to SOCOM duties where fast insertion is necessary. Ax it from everybody else and buy more CH-47Fs.
	Bill R. January 9th, 2011 at 6:50 pm That’s crazy. We cannot even get systems into production when we get to MS C, that is where programs mostly get killed. Ready what that man said about Commanche software. Software development does not become more efficient by throwing more bodies into the project. If you stretch SDD and flatten the personnel hump, you can reduce risk and keep within cost. As far as DARPA assuming more of the risk, DARPA does nothing to satisfy requirements and nothing outside 6.1 and 6.2. Could that change ? Perhaps, but the bottom line is that combat developers write concepts and requirements based on warfighting criteria, not constrained by budgets or programmatics. We can and do get by with interim and nonmaterial solutions — but there are capabilities that simply cannot be had without building new systems and the time and cost of systems development and integration should not be underestimated. In the software world, it is often “millions for integration, but not one thin dime for new development”. Not good.
	Bill R. January 9th, 2011 at 7:04 pm By the book, eh ? Well, let’s just say that 5000.2 ain’t the systems engineering bible, and in fact is not even the best lifecycle model at hand. The rapidity of FCS transition from MS B to MS C is a fact, and one can argue interpretation all one wishes, we don’t own our own facts. I will take the view that the AoA that went into MS B was as solid as it could be, and despite what the program became, the rationale in the AoA remains not just sound — but the Army deviates from that rationale at its own risk. The baseline requirements, the really important requirements, like getting a brigade combat team into theater from CONUS in four days and able to fight in a mid-intensity conflict, those requirements remain at hand, if not recognized by Pentagon leadership. Likewise, having a single integrated network within the brigade has been an issue since the onset of ABCS and the Brigade XXI experiment. So, spank all you please, but what the Army did in the post MS B restructure was necessary and sound, and to the devil with the accountant types in GAO — they don’t get paid to help programs succeed. And I’m giving you a Minus One for being a jerk.
	Bill R. January 9th, 2011 at 7:05 pm Errrata I originally said “The rapidity of FCS transition from MS A to MS B ” which was what I meant to say after all>
	Jay Citizen January 9th, 2011 at 11:42 pm Relegate to SOCOM and ax it from everybody else. I so totally agree. This mission is where is was really meant to shine, I can think of better ways to haul troops on regular sorties –however, I can’t think of a better available design than the shit hook!
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 10th, 2011 at 8:59 am It’s REGULATION, with authority derived from Title 10 USC and the Constitution. Every MDAP unless otherwise legally authorized, so yes it is the Bible. Programs that deviate from it will be exposed by GAO, and then DoD will have a political nightmare dealing with Congress over it. Like it or not, this is the way it is. “The rapidity of FCS transition from MS B to MS C”?? hmmm well MS B was in 2005 and the MS C kept on being pushed out to like 2014 or so, so you have an interesting definition of rapidity. The AoA was not sound — this is the way DoD works: the political power brokers come up with their COA in a closed room, and then expect an AoA to justify their decision.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 10th, 2011 at 8:59 am The fact that you would use inflammatory comments like “to the devil with GAO” shows your unrealistic notion of how government works as well as utter disrespect for the Nation and it’s Laws. GAO rules on unfair contract awards, promoting fairness in the acquisition process. GAO has exposed DoD’s inability to pass a financial audit. Congress depends on GAO and it all works out to legislation that makes things better: like the 2009 WSARA. Or would you rather that all problems are swept under the rug and no improvement happens? Your “-1s” and name calling are a real trip too, please keep them coming. And I just read your errata too underneath, your mistakes continue to confuse the debate. I’m here to set you straight. I’m sure you hate it, but you’re learning alot.
	Bill R. January 11th, 2011 at 3:10 pm We could save a good bit of money and make the government more efficient by applying the same reductions to GAO and similar organizations that are being and will be done to the force structure and to the engineering and scientific community in DoD. I read the GAO reports on FCS — it is really easy to drive from the back seat and make gross generalizations and unsupported predictions if you are paid to criticize more than you understand. The four options laid out in the last GAO report on FCS were ludicrous. They were 1: Kill the manned ground vehicles. 2. Kill the unmanned ground vehicles. 3. Kill the network. 4. Kill the whole program. What a brilliant analysis that was — NOT.
	Bill R. January 11th, 2011 at 3:15 pm Ummm, I think in the real world, 5000.2 gets “tailored” a good bit. But the predisposition, and what they teach you in school is towards the waterfall model. I was off FCS for a couple of months when I heard Nick Torrelli state that DoD was moving PDR before MS B. That would be accelerating a lifecycle process in a period of reduced budgets. Better — Cheaper — Faster. Pick 2, and remember that if you try to cut corners, you will pay the cost later, and in ways that are not always measurable in dollars. So you can wave Title 10 around all you like, and you still get –1.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 12th, 2011 at 9:43 am blah blah blah nice stream of conscious malarkey and deflecting attention away from what i would hope would be an engaging conversation. I have no idea what you mean or what your problem may be with ‘waving Title 10′. It’s too bad you have disregard for the law, also unwise as well.
	Bill R. January 12th, 2011 at 1:16 pm Looking at your book, it would appear that you know just enough about systems engineering and lifecycle management to be dangerous. Has it ever dawned on you that Congress might be the problem and not the solution ? In any case, I think the changes to 5000.2 that went into force in 2009 are significant and problematic. The companies tha bid on major programs do not need to be incentivized to cut corners up front in the systems engineering process. They already do that by nature, and so what you are really doing is limited the complexity of the systems you are able to develop. That is a fallacious virtue at best.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 12th, 2011 at 1:29 pm Rather than engage in personal attacks and expressing negative opinions you should try to engage in positions through logical reasoning. You think I’m dangerous? Well the current system manages to produce Cost & Schedule Overruns and Performance Shortfalls as a regular occurrence. We send our men & women to war in ancient, obsolete platforms, because the pursuit of gold-plated exotic high risk technologies results in too many failures. SecDef Gates had to circumvent the normal acquisition process in order to get MRAPs to the field. Of course I agree that Congress is a root of the problem. I am aware that Eisenhower originally wanted to include Congress in his “Miltiary Industrial Complex” farewell address to the Nation. But Congress is also the source of all funding and legislation that makes anything possible.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 12th, 2011 at 1:29 pm I’ve posted my overhaul of the DoD acquisition system elsewhere on DoD Buzz, I’m sure you’ll find plenty to complain about. Your opinions do not phase me. Change Agents throughout history have always been hated by the Status Quo Power Structure. You keep attacking me with “-1s” and personal attacks, I’ll keep showing everyone a better way through logic, mathematical reasoning, and the interests of the Nation, taxpayers, and warfighters in mind.
	Bill R. January 13th, 2011 at 7:10 am You can’t have it both ways, pal. On the one hand, you say 5000.2 is law and you have to follow it to the letter — but when you really, really, really need something, it is dispensible. All you are doing is shorten the horizon for acquisition, and kicking the can down the road. Minus One.
	NoMoreCostOverruns January 13th, 2011 at 8:09 am Please try to be professional. You are resorting to name calling, cliches, and childish taunts. You are making a mature discussion quite difficult. Explain yourself better.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

SLAMRAAM, EFV Getting Axed?

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments