Big Armored Vehicles' Big Surprise

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
" Wow, imagine this. The Pentagon just might not need all of the big, honkin' armored vehicles that the Army and Marine Corps have demanded. The extraordinarily heavily things, costing up to $2-3 million each, just might present some operational deployment issues. From Defense News (subscription required):

The Pentagon will store thousands of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, DoD’s [Department of Defense's] top procurement official told lawmakers Nov. 8.

“We might not need as many as we are buying. Some will be stored for a period of time,” said John Young, the defense acquisition undersecretary. “The service chiefs have indicated that these are heavy, large vehicles that might not fit well with mobile expeditionary missions.”

Young told the House Armed Services Committee and other congressional panels that he had asked service chiefs to assess their plans for the more than 15,000 MRAPs DoD intends to buy and ship to Iraq and Afghanistan by 2010.

December could see the next wave of MRAP orders — perhaps several thousand vehicles, far more than previous batches, industry and government officials said. Vehicle makers had been asking the Pentagon to keep the orders large to reduce cost. DoD spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin declined to speculate on upcoming orders.

Yes, who could have foreseen that a hasty, emotional call to procure very expensive, hard-to-build defense systems -- driven by Congress to bypass the standard requirements process -- might spiral out of control?

Big Armored Vehicles' Big Surprise | Danger Room from Wired.com
 

Attachments

  • mrap.jpg
    mrap.jpg
    29.1 KB · Views: 88
  • mrapgatesxlarge.jpg
    mrapgatesxlarge.jpg
    40.1 KB · Views: 143
  • Cougar.jpg
    Cougar.jpg
    80.1 KB · Views: 70

ImnoMensa

New Member
Its no great surprise,with the media and the Democrats squealing that Bush wasnt providing our military with equipment that was beyond destruction ,it stood to reason that sooner or later we would overbuild.

Now they can cry about that. BDS ,its a terrible debilitating disease.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Yesterday: YOU'RE NOT BUYING ENOUGH EQUIPMENT TO PROTECT THE TROOPS! :jameo:
Today: YOU'RE BUYING TOO MUCH EQUIPMENT TO PROTECT THE TROOPS! :jameo:

:rolleyes:
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
“We might not need as many as we are buying. Some will be stored for a period of time,”

AND??

We have warstocks in warehouses around the world.. THOUSANDS of M1's, Bradley's, HMMWV's... some have NEVER been used, some come out every two or three years and get 'exercised' and put back into their respective warehouses.. Why would this vehicle be any different?

Nothing like opening a door into a warehouse about the size of four football fields and seeing nothing but TANKS.. packed in so tight you can't even walk between them you have to walk on them.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
It is not...

...the medias fault we rushed off to Baghdad all fast and light and then got attacked where we are vulnerable. These things have been around long enough for us to have had a nice supply of them built long before we ever started gearing up to invade and we've seen plenty of memo's showing people down the chain said we needed them long before we needed them for the precise reasons we needed them.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
...the medias fault we rushed off to Baghdad all fast and light and then got attacked where we are vulnerable. These things have been around long enough for us to have had a nice supply of them built long before we ever started gearing up to invade and we've seen plenty of memo's showing people down the chain said we needed them long before we needed them for the precise reasons we needed them.

They are good at what they are intended to do.. but not every vehicle needs to be or should be armored.

Now you have a vehilce that can't carry anything, can't tow anything and here we've built entire systems out of backpacked shelters and trailers..

Every war the US has been in we've had our share of armored vehicles, but along with the armor was the lowly M151 jeep, the Deuce and a half.. Five tons.. all thin skinned unarmored vehilces that did their jobs very well.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
...the medias fault we rushed off to Baghdad all fast and light and then got attacked where we are vulnerable. These things have been around long enough for us to have had a nice supply of them built long before we ever started gearing up to invade and we've seen plenty of memo's showing people down the chain said we needed them long before we needed them for the precise reasons we needed them.

What's your point?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I'm not...

They are good at what they are intended to do.. but not every vehicle needs to be or should be armored.

Now you have a vehilce that can't carry anything, can't tow anything and here we've built entire systems out of backpacked shelters and trailers..

Every war the US has been in we've had our share of armored vehicles, but along with the armor was the lowly M151 jeep, the Deuce and a half.. Five tons.. all thin skinned unarmored vehilces that did their jobs very well.

...suggesting evey vehicle should be armored. Point is we needed SOME of them, it was known ahead of time and we didn't have any.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
...suggesting evey vehicle should be armored. Point is we needed SOME of them, it was known ahead of time and we didn't have any.

We have/ had them..

If you want Armor, climb in a tank or an infantry fighting vehicle, or a Stryker.. or even a LAV (wouldn't be my first choice).. We have thousands of these in the inventory now, and unlike Somalia, they are in country. (and they're paid for)

Armored and heavily armed..

More than maneuverable enough to be on streets, and fast enough to get around and to the action if need be.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I don't...

And what does that have to do with producing more than we need?

...really know other than to say; had we said "We want to have X for the occupation of Iraq" then we could have built them cheaper before hand and not been subjected to the dynamics of the screaming and hollering that went on later which lead to building too many and paying too much.

I mean, I am assuming force composition was addressed before hand in terms of tanks, planes, trucks, bombs, bullets, socks, boots, maintenance and repair and all the rest of that stuff.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
So...

We have/ had them..

If you want Armor, climb in a tank or an infantry fighting vehicle, or a Stryker.. or even a LAV (wouldn't be my first choice).. We have thousands of these in the inventory now, and unlike Somalia, they are in country. (and they're paid for)

Armored and heavily armed..

More than maneuverable enough to be on streets, and fast enough to get around and to the action if need be.

...if I read you correctly, we had vehicles that could do the job good enough to not have needed the MRAP's in the first place but no one decide to use them?
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
...if I read you correctly, we had vehicles that could do the job good enough to not have needed the MRAP's in the first place but no one decide to use them?

I'm suggesting that Bradleys, M1s and others are more armored than the MRAP..

Why the commanders decided not to use them is anyone's guess, but I'm thinking looking at the MRAP.. the Bradley, and the M113.. aren't much bigger..

We use to patrol the streets in Germany in Bradley's without any trouble.. I mean manuever wise.. and speed wise. (we weren't facing an IED threat there at the time).
 

ylexot

Super Genius
...really know other than to say; had we said "We want to have X for the occupation of Iraq" then we could have built them cheaper before hand and not been subjected to the dynamics of the screaming and hollering that went on later which lead to building too many and paying too much.

Acquisition doesn't work that way.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Then...

I'm suggesting that Bradleys, M1s and others are more armored than the MRAP..

Why the commanders decided not to use them is anyone's guess, but I'm thinking looking at the MRAP.. the Bradley, and the M113.. aren't much bigger..

We use to patrol the streets in Germany in Bradley's without any trouble.. I mean manuever wise.. and speed wise. (we weren't facing an IED threat there at the time).

...what you are saying is that the choice was made to stick with hummers and not use heavier vehicles that were readily available?
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
...how does it work in regards to IED's and vehicles? Wait for the body parts to start flying?

Use what ya got..

If they are killing you in HMMWV's stop using the HMMWV..

But NO vehicle is "unkillable"..

If they want to kill you bad enough, they'll find a way.
 
Top