The case for termination was made by citing the affordability of the EFV, not whether the EFV would be reliable and capable of meeting mission requirements.
Gentlemen, I'm learning a lot today, and I guess that's the point of these hearings.
So what is the answer?
The prime contractor of the EFV very vigorously disagrees with the decision of DOD.
We must maintain our capability to project power--and that includes projecting power in the face of armed opposition.
If it turns out it was a $15 million vehicle instead of $12 million vehicle, it becomes a dicier choice, doesn't it?
I want to thank the panel for being willing to go in depth with us on this issue.
That makes sense. Let me ask in conclusion about the industrial base.
We'd like to help you on that.
we are decommissioning amphibious ships too early in their lives and at a rate that cannot be sustained
Secretary Stackley, were those service life extensions through planned SLEPs or through an ad-hoc process?