Senate Rpt.108-260 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 [Armored Humvees]

THOMAS ^ | 108TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION | US Senate

[OXENinFLA]

Wheeled vehicle ballistic armor protection (sec. 112)

The committee recommends a provision that would add $610.0 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV) in sufficient quantities to acquire such vehicles up to a rate of 450 vehicles per month and for the procurement of add-on ballisticarmor protection for medium and heavy wheeled vehicles. The $610.0 million would be in addition to the $315.0 million increase in OPA for up-armored HMMWVs (UAH) the committee recommended elsewhere in this report. The provision will provide the Secretary of the Army with the flexibility to procure either or both UAHs and wheeled vehicle add-on armor. The Secretary will inform the congressional defense committees of any intended allocation not later than 15 days before an allocation is made under this provision.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) determined that the UAH and add-on armor for medium and light wheeled vehicles would provide a degree of protection for soldiers and Marines against enemy small arms and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). As a result, CENTCOM increased its requirement of UAHs and wheeled vehicle add-on ballistic armor for wheeled vehicles in theater. The committee supports this requirement, and recommends an increase of $315.0 million elsewhere in this report to maintain UAH production at 300 per month from April 2005 to September 2005. The committee understands that the manufacturers of the UAH, with additional funding, have the ability to produce 450 UAH per month beginning in November 2004.

The budget request included no funding for wheeled vehicle add-on ballistic armor protection. On April 22, 2004, the Army briefed the committee on an emerging $355.0 million requirement for add-on armor plating for various add-on armor kits for M915-series trucks, heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks, heavy equipment transporters, palletized load systems, and family of medium tactical vehicles.

[OXENinFLA]

Unlike my last post where I accused the Senate of restricting the number of Humvees the DoD could procure per month I'm just going to ask that you read the part I bolded and I'll let you tell me how you interpret it.

I know this may seem like I'm beating a dead horse, but with the recent comments of some Senators I think they need to be reminded of what said.

MODS: Not sure if this classifies as breaking, move if needed.

[OXENinFLA]

Did some more digging................

---

PING...

[OXENinFLA]

More

---

High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles

The budget request included $303.7 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV). Of that amount, the Army requested $124.9 million for 818 HMMWVs of the up-armored variant. During Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) determined that the up-armored HMMWV (UAH) would provide better protection for soldiers and Marines against enemy small arms and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) than the basic HMMWV. As a result, CENTCOM increased its requirement of up-armored HMMWVs in theater.

The committee notes that the Army has taken aggressive action to satisfy CENTCOM's evolving force protection requirements for UAHs by redistributing existing UAHs for other major command's assets not committed to OIF or Operation Enduring Freedom; diverting newly produced UAH to Iraq; and increasing the production of wheeled vehicle add-onarmor kits and UAHs.

As a result of the Army's efforts, as of April 22, 2004, 2,832 UAHs have been delivered to the CENTCOM area of operations, including 1,338 diverted from other sources. The Army intends to satisfy the remaining CENTCOM requirement by procuring new UAHs. The committee understands that the Army has received over $700.0 million from various sources to increase UAH production to 300 per month from August 2004 to March 2005. With this increased production, the Army will have produced the CENTCOM requirement of 4,454 vehicles by August 2004 and delivered the CENTCOM requirement of 4,454 vehicles by October 2004.

The committee understands that the Army has placed a priority on backfilling those units that provided UAHs to meet CENTCOM's urgent requirement. The committee notes that the Chief of Staff, Army, identified a fiscal year 2005 unfunded requirement to maintain UAH production at 300 per month from April 2005 to March 2006. The committee recommends an increase of $315.0 million in OPA to maintain UAH production at 300 per month through September 30, 2005.

[thag]

Thag works in the Army procurement system. We can't do anything without the funding from Congress and the identified, validated need from the field. Even when we get that, it takes time to get a contract in place and get product out the door, and more time to ship the product to the troops. Case in point: a year ago when we were "running out of bullets" we started urgent buys from second sources in the States and elsewhere. That was November 2003. We didn't start getting the bullets from those contracts until May-June of 2004, and that's as fast as "the system" will move.

thag

[snopercod]

Armor Comes from Stores ©

[OXENinFLA]

that's as fast as "the system" will move

Exactly my point, it seems to me that some people in "the system" (ie..Lott, Collins, McCain) need to start pointing their fingers at a mirror in order to answer the questions they are now posing in the press as to who's "fault" it was these UAHs didn't get made faster.

[OXENinFLA]

ping

[Wild Irish Rogue]

"The committee understands that the Army has placed a priority on backfilling those units that provided UAHs to meet CENTCOM's urgent requirement."
" The committee notes that the Army has taken aggressive action to satisfy CENTCOM's evolving force protection requirements for UAHs
by redistributing existing UAHs for other major command's assets not committed to OIF or Operation Enduring Freedom;
diverting newly produced UAH to Iraq;
and increasing the production of wheeled vehicle add-onarmor kits and UAHs."

The Senate understood the Army's " urgent " and priority " status to bring more UAH on line and to theater.
The Senate understood that the UAHs would only be produced at the rate of 300/ month, until the rate would increase to 450/month.
And yet, these Senate dirtbags would have knocked over their grandmothers, rushing to the mics to bemoan that only 300 UAH were being produced per month.
The more I see of the members of our national embarrassment, aka The US Senate, the more I worry about the future of our country.
Because the Senate clowns are only worrying about their own futures-the future of country and the military, be damned.

[OXENinFLA]

Don't forget that was 300 per month till 9-2005 and the Senate knew it wasn't possible to start to produce the 450 per month until 11-2004.

---

BTW.....This is the thread a referenced in the 1st post.

And why were they only making 450 Humvees a month?[Because it was law, that's why]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Outstanding work!

[Mo1]

This information needs to shoved down the throats of the idiots in Congress ..

Especially spineless Republican Senators who are too eager to point fingers at Rummy instead of themselves

I expect that kind of bs from the Dems .. not from the Republicans

[OXENinFLA]

Thanks.

};o)

[OXENinFLA]

I'd be real interested in finding out exactly when Armor Holding Inc. started making 450 per month. I bet it was in Nov.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

They are doing well:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

May be buried in the PDF docs on this page:

Read two recent articles from "Inside the Army". (PDF Format)

[OXENinFLA]

This month[Aug.04] , production of up-armored humvees should exceed 400 vehicles, and Armor Holdings expects to meet its goal of 450 per month by September -- two months ahead of schedule, Mecredy said.

“I’ve been consistent [that] it’s not about the requirement or ability to produce, it’s about the will to fund this. And what did the Congress do? The Congress allocated $572 million earmarked in the supplemental for the M1114 up-armored humvee,” he said. “We should be seeing contracts awarded for those vehicles in days, weeks at the most,” he said.

Those contracts will help the companies produce vehicles at the promised rate of production. “I can’t say what the Army will actually do with the money. The government is looking at alternatives every single day,”

Mecredy said, adding that he hopes enough supplemental funding is earmarked to “keep us at 450 [per month] until that money is exhausted.”

In the past, the Army has signaled that it would like to procure a mix of vehicles for its convoys including convoy protection vehicles, Armored Security Vehicles and vehicles with supplemental armor and up-armored humvees.

The Senate version of the supplemental bill said the Army should be given the flexibility to use the money for up-armored humvees and other vehicles as well (Inside the Army, July 5, p1). According to the conference report on the final bill, however,the money was designated for up-armored humvees.

---

Thanks for the links, I'll have to wait till I get to work tomorrow to watch the video clips.

First this answers the question of what there production #'s were, and when.

Now I've never seen the movie, but I know the line; "SHOW ME THE MONEY", and that is what it's sounding like to me that AH is saying "You make sure we get the money and we'll make sure the product is there when you asked for it". Looks to me that AH Inc. has held their end of the deal with the DoD. The Senate report 180-269 was ordered printed on MAy-11-04, so I'm thinking that some where between May and Aug. AH inc. was informed that they would need to produce the 450 per/mo and the 300 per/mo was scratched.

But still ONLY 450.

I bet when Congress comes back in Jan. there's going to be more money and new contracts and that 450 is going to be upped.

---

The wartime supplemental bill, signed into law Aug. 6,

HUH? Statement on H.R. 1572, H.R. 1914, H.R. 2768, H.R. 3277, and H.R. 4380

On Friday, August 6, 2004, the President signed the following bills into law:

H.R. 1572, Winston E. Arnow United States Courthouse of Pensacola, Florida;

H.R. 1914, Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act of 2004, to provide for the issuance of a coin to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the Jamestown settlement;

H.R. 2768, John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act, to provide for the minting of coins in commemoration of Chief Justice John Marshall;

H.R. 3277, Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act, to provide for the minting of coins in commemoration of the 230th Anniversary of the United States Marine Corps and to support construction of the Marine Corps Heritage Center; and

H.R. 4380, Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office Building of Holiday, Florida.

---

I don't see funding here................[I'm going to bed, to be continued in the morning.]

[OXENinFLA]

Never mind, they were off by a day.

Pres. Bush signed the bill on Aug 5 not 6.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-9.html

[OXENinFLA]

108-553

R E P O R T

of the

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

[to accompany h.r. 4613]


VEHICLE FORCE PROTECTION

Over the past year, the Committee observed the dramatic rise in the requirement for additional armored tactical and support vehicles, including armor kits for existing vehicles, as the threat to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from rocket propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices continued unabated. The Committee has long propounded the need for these vehicles and has provided increased funding for them in past appropriations acts. Once again, the Committee has acted to address the need for armored vehicles by recommending an increase of $674,300,000 to purchase additional up-armored HMMWVs and $198,400,000 for additional bolt-on armor kits within appropriations accounts under this title.

The Committee remains concerned that the heretofore haphazard approach to procuring armored vehicles resulted in increased risk to our troops in the field. To help quantify that risk and spur development of a clear policy for procuring armored vehicles, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that answers the following questions:

1. What is the Department's policy for purchasing armored vehicles, and how does the Department determine what percentage of the total vehicle fleet must be armored?

2. What factors have been used to set that policy, and when was it last updated?

3. What long-range plans does the Department have for purchasing armored vehicles and what funding has been allocated for that purpose?

4. What studies have been conducted by the Department or outside parties that characterize and/or quantify the protection provided by armored vehicles (versus non-armored vehicles) in the face of threats from rocket propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices, small arms fire and similar types of weapons?

5. How many U.S. casualties have been caused by these types of weapons; how many of these casualties were experienced by troops in non-armored vehicles; and how many of these casualties could have been avoided or minimized had the troops been using armored vehicles?

This report should be submitted (in unclassified and classified form, as appropriate) to Congress not later than November 15, 2004. The Committee intends to continue to work with the Department on this matter.