Posted on 12/21/2005 5:52:15 AM PST by Moonraker
Why is it taking so long to design, develop, produce, and deploy — in adequate numbers — a troop-transporting armored vehicle that would replace the up-armored Humvee in Iraq? I've been asked that question time and again, not by soldiers and Marines who ride in Humvees daily, but by fellow journalists, many of whom have logged time in Iraq or Afghanistan.
One reporter said to me it was "criminal negligence" on the part of the White House and the Defense Department. Another referred to it as "the ultimate betrayal" of our soldiers. Despite their time in country, both reporters are wrong: Their opinions are based more on political animus than any real grasp of the facts.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Well, I would want a DVD player and spinners, too.
Why does the President refuse to use his magic wand to make make this happen, just as he refused to use his magic wand to fix New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?
Just as I had mustered the perfect response to this P.O.S. article - I find that you have already posted it!
He only has Magic Wand 1.3.2 ver5......armored carriers and hurricane relief is scheduled in release 6.....
Geez, do I have to explain everything around here?
What are Bush and Rummy doing all night? The lazy bums should be out in the garagedesigning and building the darn thing. Those reporters didn't get it wrong. They printed just what they intended.
Would one of these reporters be Joe Galloway? It seems he is riding his laurels for the Ia Drang Valley campaign a tad too much. He has been an unabashed critic harping his anti-Bush, anti-Rumsfeld screeds whilst hiding behind his glory moment of 40 years ago.
1. Waste
2. Corruption
Well, in February 1942 someone came up with the prototype for the bazooka. The first few thousand copies had been manufactured by May 1942. It was so new that troops going to invade N. Africa in November 1942 had never used it, and had to practice with it on shipboard.
In the 1970s or 1980s, it was proposed that we have a replacement for the M-113 armored personnel carrier.
It took committees SEVEN YEARS to decide on what to get--the Bradley.
That's the difference between wartime necessity and
peacetime congressional/contractor gaming.
Sorry, but while I am a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of Bush
and the war in Iraq, on this matter I'm with the critics.
To have this equipment now, the money needed to be budgeted and program started around 1995.
Somehow it wasn't a priority back then.
Um, it's a JEEP. So, stop using them as APC's.
Just issue everyone a M1A2 Tank and be done with it...
Just shoot them. They do shoot reporters in Iraq don't they? I heard in the news that they do.
To have this equipment now, the money needed to be budgeted and program started around 1995.
Somehow it wasn't a priority back then.
1.Waste
2.Corruption
These things take time.
Which begs the question: Why didn't bubba build it?
OTOH, it's probably a good thing he didn't. If he had, he would have sold it to China.
Um...yes. :)
You are right on your two points, but omitted the third reason: the Federal Acquisition Regulations, aka FAR, or government procurement system.
The bureaucratic jungle slows design, procurement, and delivery to a dead snails pace. The FAR, like the IRS and 60-70% of the federal government, should be trashed and started all over from new blueprints.
An entirely new design requires probably at least ten thousand parts that have to be designed for the vehicle.
Takes a little time even after they make up their minds what they want.
If all these guys rode around in the Abrams tank they would still lose people.
The up armored Humvee is probably as good as its going to get. If these Journalists are frightened to ride in them maybe they should stay home.
The FAR, like the IRS and 60-70% of the federal government, should be trashed and started all over from new blueprints.
I agree. It'll never happen.
The politicians have perfected the ultimate cash cow - "defense spending"
It should also be invisible and have a pizza warmer.
You are comparing developing a bazooka with developing a new vehicle that meets existing requirements for speed, handling, manueverability, and range, but also will protect against explosives better than a tank?
In that way, you may well be "with the critics on this one".
We up-armored the humvees really quickly. And it looks like we will have a new vehicle in another year or two.
9. Must be able to "swim" across small tidal inlets, lakes, rivers (and unmarried, drunk secretary; per Sen. Edward "Swimmer" Kennedy :) and other bodies of water. :D
Now, military R&D has had incredibly stupid moments or should I say monuments to stupidity (can anyone say Spruce Goose, 3x rapidly without smiling), but Congress is to blame for the FAR, much of it directly specified by them, almost always to ensure their district's/state's slice of the pork, which requires endless progress reviews and competition.
If the FAR had existed during WWII, Hitler most likely would have died in his bed a very old man, ruling most of Europe.
Since you posted it, what is your opinion?
Of course, that is your choice. Actually, you hit the nail on the head about the Bradley's design . Part of the problem you addressed is indeed the long lead times, but this is not anything new, again, refe back to the Bradley tmeframe. Add to this the Peace Dividend mentality and the urge to gold plate and you have a gridlock. Some time back in recent memory, our now senior Senator was harping about how she'd been urging the President to buy the V-100's grandson. Of course, this was a stretch of the facts as during Caligula's reign, this self same plant was kept alive only with orders from Saudi Arabia. That particular Senator did not exactly support the plant prior to the 2004 Election cycle. I still say Joe Galloway has hidden behind "We were soldiers.." too long. He is now a part of the problem and he sure as hell is not part of the solution.
I have some specific knowlege on the early bazooka as my grandfather worked on the electrical firing system as an employee at the Philadelphia Arsenal. He contended that the project was FUBAR from the start in that the warhead was never going to be large enough to take out the tanks that the Germans were fielding in North Africa in 1943. So, please, sometime a rush job is a screw-up in the making.
A historical sidenote: the 101st ABN division scavenged all the captured German Panzerfausts they could find because they were demonstrably superior to the bazooka in defeating the side & rear armor of most any tank. The bazooka's lack of lethality wasn't even corrected in time for the Korean War as veterans of Task Force Smith will attest.
As to the up-armored personnel carriers: Armor is not, and never has been, an absolute protection against every threat. If I add armor, I am accepting a weight penalty, and therefore a decrease in range, maneuverability, stealth, durability (the HumVee chasis wasn't designed for the additional weight). Plus the enemy just makes a bigger warhead, or changes his aim-points, or tactics.
Armor is intended to facilitate maneuver by protecting the soldier against common threats below a certain threshold. But it should also be noted that there have been a few M1 Tanks taken out by 'lucky' RPG shots.
Are you suggesting there is some kind of parallel between manufacturing a tube with some simple electronics and a trigger from a working prototype and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, designed and built from scratch?
With respect, that's patently absurd.
Additionally, the Bradley had a bunch of design flaws that had to be corrected before it was put into service and it also had a ton of critics that slowed up the process.
Psst! We've had to push that feature back to release 7. The current version occasionally turns everything into artichokes. Stupid Weasley modifications...
The M1A2 Tanks are not even safe against some of the latest IED's in Iraq. Four of the 105 shells are able to roll the M1A2 tank over. Armored vehicles are no longer capable of providing protection from the shaped charge IED's. Maybe they can put some wheels or tracks on a battle ship and use that for mobility and safety.
In a war such as this, there is little protection when it's hard to define your enemy. The best defense would require manned trenches along all used roadways so they could kill the azz wipes before they planted the IED's in the first place. Which would require a lot more men.
Airborne,
I have mixed feelings about it. Because it sounds like the writer Mr. Smith my have a political agenda himself.
Still, his article makes sense specially if you compare a hummvvee replacement to the twenty years it took to build the Raptor.
My neighbor's son is in Iraq and I shudder when I think of him riding in those "glorified jeeps."
I like artichokes....
I am beginning to really really dislike reporters. Politicians too.
It needs to have a bitchin' Bose sound system as well.
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.