Skip to comments.
Uncertainty rules at AM General [Armored Humvee Manufacturer]
Indianapolis Star ^
| November 28, 2003
| Ted Evanoff
Posted on 11/30/2003 9:20:43 AM PST by Ranger
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:26:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
DETROIT -- The battle for Iraq has been a mobile fight where many of the 130,000 U.S. troops rely on the Humvee army truck made in Mishawaka, Ind., to get through deserts, swamps and ambushes.
Now the U.S. Army's Tank-armament and Automotive Command in suburban Detroit wants more Humvees toughened to withstand bullets and metal fragments sprayed by explosives.
(Excerpt) Read more at indystar.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; US: Indiana; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: americangeneral; armor; humvee; iraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
The troops in Iraq have an immediate need for 3500 uparmored humvees. That production will not be met before June 2005 according to the latest Armed Services Committee meeting. Approximately 30% of our casualties are coming in unarmored humvees of which at least 8400 are unarmored in Iraq right now
Note no increase in employee production at the American General plant and the fact that the busiess is being sold. The owner, Renco Group, Rennert, is building a multi-year backlog at our troops expense in order to increase the recurring cashflow potential of American General. By building the recurring cash flow potential via backlogs created through lack of investment in more employees, the business can be sold at a higher price based on some cash flow multiple to be negotiated with GM or others.
Do a google search on Renco Group and Rennert and prepare to be appauled. Getting them armored humvees is of national significance yet production remains at a trickle relative to the need. This is a national travesty.
Debating whether a Strykker is better than a Bradley or whatever is irrelevant when 8400 unarmored humvees are patrolling Iraq with no protection whatever from small arms, RPG or IEDs.
1
posted on
11/30/2003 9:20:44 AM PST
by
Ranger
To: Cannoneer No. 4
ping. please ping to your distribution list of interested parties.
2
posted on
11/30/2003 9:24:21 AM PST
by
Ranger
To: Ranger; SLB; Matthew James; archy
This is a disgrace, that plant should be on 3 shifts X365.
Is there any in-country up-armoring being done? Kevlar panels etc? Polycarb plastic window glass can be worked with skillsaws and installed with drills and bolts. Are they sending kevlar and polycarb to Iraq to up-armor in place?
To: Ranger
By converting the Humvee to an armoured vehicle are we going to defeat it's purpose as a replacement for the Jeep? Will a new Jeep type of vehicle be needed to fill the purpose the old Jeep filled?
4
posted on
11/30/2003 9:33:29 AM PST
by
templar
To: Ranger
contract it out...Oshkosh truck would make a dandy armored Hummer- imo
5
posted on
11/30/2003 9:34:10 AM PST
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: Ranger
Evidently there was a hit piece in Vanity Fair, which was answered by the company here:
http://www.rencogroup.net/news/recent.html I don't know the ins and outs of all this, but I mistrust Vanity Fair. OTOH, what you say about Hummer production is worrying.
6
posted on
11/30/2003 9:36:56 AM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Travis McGee
In country armoring is being done adhoc at the local level with sandbags, welding torches, etc. Very little material is available. There is a need for Kevlar blankets and ceramic bolt on plating as one expedient though that won't provide protection to the gunner, windows or doors. This is a real bigtime issue traced directly to US cansualties on the ground. If one isolates air accidents one can see the vast majority of ground casualties are occuring in these vehicles, particularly if they are in the rear of the convoys where they are most vulnerable. Almost anything is better than what we have given the troops right now. A bradley, an armored hummer, a tank, a Strykker, just about anything to bring up the rear of these vehicle convoys would make all the difference. The troops in country have been afraid to go public with the problem yet I know that they've been trying to get armored humvees or anything that will give them some protection for months.
7
posted on
11/30/2003 9:37:59 AM PST
by
Ranger
To: templar
yeah, just bring back the JEEP.
cheap, small, light, and fuel efficient.
8
posted on
11/30/2003 9:38:41 AM PST
by
PokeyJoe
(Merry F'ing Christmas (From the new hit movie "Bad PokeyJoe"))
To: templar
I don't know. I'm guessing its largely an irrelevant discussion given that most of our casualties are coming from close in small arms fire, RPG and IED attacks.
9
posted on
11/30/2003 9:39:13 AM PST
by
Ranger
To: joesnuffy
Your getting no disagreement from me on that. Unfortunately we are evidently sole sourced on this item and don't seem to be in charge of getting the production to war wartime footing.
10
posted on
11/30/2003 9:40:54 AM PST
by
Ranger
The hummer probably affords less protection than the family sedan. The people compartment on hummers is mostly vinyl and aluminum,the hood is some sort of fiberglass/plastic composite, the main body which resides pretty much below the troops rather than around them is steel but no thicker than what regular cars are made of.
The question is does the army want a light High mobility vehicle or a Tank?
If money wasn't a problem Id replace all Hummers with LAV's.
11
posted on
11/30/2003 9:44:25 AM PST
by
mylife
To: templar
By converting the Humvee to an armoured vehicle are we going to defeat it's purpose as a replacement for the Jeep? You have several versions of the Hummer. The armored version will be used in combat zones, and unarmored in rear areas.
Realisticly, at $150K/per, the Army might do well to make all the new-production Hummers armored, and buy some off-the-dealer-lot Chevy Suburbans and paint them green (but that would not line some contractor's pockets, so it won't happen). In fact, putting some Kevlar panels on some Toyota pickups would do a good job on the cheap, but would not fly for the above reasons
12
posted on
11/30/2003 9:44:43 AM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === (Finally employed again! Whoopie))
To: Ranger
Renco doesn't produce hummvees until they are ordered. They do not read newspaper articles and say "hey, those troops need armored hummers. Let's start churning them out."
They may make more money in the long term because their will be a backlog that causes the value of the company to rise but that doesn't mean they designed the events that resulted.
It's is possible for scum to profit from a bad situation and not be the cause of the bad situation.
Good things do happen to bad people sometimes.
Is Renco run by bad people? I have no idea.
To: Cicero
I thought Vanity Fair was a one off distortion, but then I looked into it further. I recommend doing the same. Note the Justice department is after him big time. Also the issue of the WTC underfunded pension fund and the fact that the only source of real cash I can detect for Renco appears to be from the sale of American General is worrying in light of the evident slow uptick in productinon. For example why on earth are we making 600-800 sports equivalents to armored vehicles and exporting to foreign contracts when the army is screaming for production of armored humvees? Further note he seems to be building a huge residence as reported by the Hamptons, reportedly to be the largest in the U.S., while one company after another in the Renco Group is bankrupted. I would have expected that we'd be at three shifts, building capacity and second sourcing right now, but that isn't happening. Why?
14
posted on
11/30/2003 9:47:10 AM PST
by
Ranger
To: Travis McGee
With regard to in country up armoring don't expect anything official as that would require the perfumed princes in the Pentagon to do some thinking & hustling so it ain't gonna happen.
15
posted on
11/30/2003 9:51:25 AM PST
by
Nebr FAL owner
(.308 "reach out and thump someone " & .50 cal Browning "reach out & CRUSH someone")
M1114 at Janes Defence
16
posted on
11/30/2003 9:53:32 AM PST
by
mylife
To: mylife
Ooops link didnt work
17
posted on
11/30/2003 9:54:06 AM PST
by
mylife
To: big ern
You may very well be right. All I know is that production hasn't kicked in and evidently won't yet you can see a daily stream of injuries and casaulties as a result. I hope you don't have family riding in the back of one of these in Iraq. There seems to be a problem here in getting these uparmored humvees out. Is it that the defense department is slow and inept or that the issue is on down the line at the plant floor? Having looked into the matter, my conclusion is that one of the bottlenecks is at the corporate office of American General. Are there others? Probably. It looks like the army was been very slow off the mark. One area that doesn't seem to be a problem is available money from Congress. I have it from very good sources that the check book is open on this issue. Would you recommend that we drop the matter?
18
posted on
11/30/2003 9:57:41 AM PST
by
Ranger
To: Ranger
Drop it? No. Tell the Army to get off their ass and write some checks? Yes.
My relative is in a Bradley by the way.
To: mylife
20
posted on
11/30/2003 10:05:38 AM PST
by
mylife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson