Billions wasted on new military vehicle?

World Net Daily ^ | 6/4/2003 | Jon Dougherty

[lshoultz]

The U.S. Army's newest armored vehicle is fraught with operational problems and physical limitations that make its predecessor not only a much better choice for soldiers, but one that may be more deployable and have better battlefield survivability, say weapon-systems analysts and military critics who have studied the issue.

[lshoultz]

The Army is getting a thrid rate system because it is the result of bribery and corruption at the very top of the Army's command structure. Lieutenant General David Heebner accepted a postition with General Dynamics while still serving as Shinseki's Deputy Chief of Staff. As the two fo them have rammed this ill-advised system through the Army procurement system, General Dynamics has paid Heebner over $800,000 for his and Shinseki's services.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Got a name of the vehicle or a pic ? that would be helpful

[R. Scott]

The upper echelons of the military are loaded with politician soldiers, not warrior soldiers – and they tend to congregate in the procurement sections.
Much like the Osprey program – which the military rejected for years but was pushed by Congress – it looks like we will be stuck with this too. It’s good for jobs back in the Congressman’s district.

[ppaul]

Got a name of the vehicle or a pic ?

The Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle.
Click on the pics:

[holyh2o]

It's like any kind of new engineering endeavor, R &d requires constant updates, they will get it right.

[xm177e2]

We should not replace the M113s until we can replace them with something better

[SLB]

This was posted yesterday

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922808/posts

[libertylover]

The military tries out a lot of new concepts. Some of them work out brilliantly and others fail spectacularly. They're directing engineers to invent something that doesn't currently exist and thus they're all expensive. I think we have to look at the big picture, say the war in Iraq. Overall, I think we got our money's worth.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

It's like any kind of new engineering endeavor, R &d requires constant updates, they will get it right.

I disagree. I take the what I call the "Mike Wallace-Ed Bradley" approach to arms development. No system is adequate unless it fulfills every adolescent fantasy of omnipotence and invulnerablity, while costing less than a subcompact to produce and can be developed on the same budget and schedule as a 60 Minutes episode.

[Lion Den Dan]

Sitting in the middle of this I guarantee this article is correct. Another fraud is this idea of contracting out military and Civil Service jobs. It is nothing but a money funnel to the properly connected. For those who think it saves money, you ain't seen money run down a rat hole yet.

[LS]

I'll say again that every complaint about the Stryker I've seen was SPECIFICALLY made (and more) about the Bradley when Mike Wallace ran a hit piece on it and FMC Corp. at the time the Bradley first came out.

I'm not saying this is an ideal, or even good, system. I'm saying, be VERY wary of early press reports about how "flawed" a system is. The M-16 had all sorts of problems its first couple of years, and only the Air Force MPs would use it.

[Kingasaurus]

"I disagree. I take the what I call the "Mike Wallace-Ed Bradley" approach to arms development. No system is adequate unless it fulfills every adolescent fantasy of omnipotence and invulnerablity, while costing less than a subcompact to produce and can be developed on the same budget and schedule as a 60 Minutes episode."

EXACTLY. I remember well - many years ago -60 Minutes "exposes" about both the M1-A1, and the Bradley fightong vehicle, saying how expensive and unreliable they were, and how the military was pushing ahead with both projects anyway. Thank goodness they did, as the Iraq war attests.

[mbynack]

EXACTLY. I remember well - many years ago -60 Minutes "exposes" about both the M1-A1, and the Bradley fightong vehicle, saying how expensive and unreliable they were, and how the military was pushing ahead with both projects anyway. Thank goodness they did, as the Iraq war attests.

I was thinking the same thing. I can't recall the military ever fielding a major system without someone crying that it was too expensive and the prototypes weren't perfect.

[MeekOneGOP]

M-113 Gavin pulls out an Army Humvee stuck in deep mud.

Stryker rolls off a C-130 transport plane.

Israel Defense Forces M-113 with reactive 'appliqué' armor.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I'm not saying this is an ideal, or even good, system. I'm saying, be VERY wary of early press reports about how "flawed" a system is.

Excuse me, I forgot to close my sarcasm tags.

[lshoultz]

Oh, you missed this one by a mile. General Dynamics, contractor for the Stryker, moved 1,500 high dollar jobs from York, PA to London, Ontario, Canada. The Congressman for that District in Pennsylvania has been contacted over a dozen times by mail, messenger and in person at his District meetings. He acts as though he cares less. Of course some of the original resistance to this abortion came from Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. He was paid off when an entire Brigade of these things were assigned to the Pennsylvania National Guard. Shinsenki said these Brigades can go anywere in the world in 96 hours. Most National Guard units can't even find all of their people in 96 hours. But, it bought off the entire Pennsylvania Congressional delegation which allowed General Dynamics to just steal the jobs. Remember the Berry Amendment? By law, these tonka toys MUST be built in America. When you buy the top two Army generals and a Congressional delegation you can do anything you want.

[lshoultz]

When Shinseki got the original authorization from Congress it was for "off the shelf" vehicles. General Dynamics gave Shinseki's Deputy over $300,000 in stock to make cetain that the Army bought an upgraded model of the LAV III. That is the vehicle named Stryker.

We have over 13,000 M113 chasses in inventory and the M113 beat the Stryker in field trials but Shinseki needed a new project to get his money from General Dynamics (paid through his Deputy, General David Heebner) and chose the Stryker. Since Heebner's original $300,000 from General Dynamics they have given him another $500,000 in stock. You don't think one man is worth that much? Neither do I but you wait until Shinseki retires and goes home to Hawaii. He is running for Senator Daniel Inouye's seat in the Senate. He needs this money for his campaign war chest.

[FreedomPoster]

Off-road mobility of wheeled vehicles stinks. Make sure to plan your next wars such that all fighting requiring armor does not include off-road jaunts.

The issue here is that this thing doesn't really do much (if anything) that an upgraded M-113 won't do, at substantially less cost. And an M-113, being tracked, will go places a Stryker won't.

[lshoultz]

We had 300 Strykers ready to be flown to Iraq. They were not sent because: 1) they will not fit into C-130s as their contract requires; and 2) there are no RPG "skirts" for the Strykers and there will be none. Skirts to deflect RPGs go OVER the wheels. The Stryker's wheels MUST be free to steer the vehicle. If these things ever meet an RPG - they're done. That's the reason that Shinseki has not sent them to Iraq or Afghanistan. He wants all built he can before the 13th of this month when he retires. It affects his bonus from General Dynamics. If he had committed these things to combat the entire program would have been scuttled.

[lshoultz]

Let me address the M-16 first. I carried one for seven months with the 1st Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division beginning in July, 1965 when they were brand new. I also carried one for eleven months at A-108 of the 5th Special Forces Group. I have NEVER seen a jam. Those were caused, in the main, by the Marine Corps refusing to buy them until after their troops were in Vietnam. The Army bought them early and we got a week on the range with them before we left. We learned: 1) the magazine spring is weak and will not pick up the top round if you put 20 rounds in a magazine - so, we put in 18; 2) the bolt is bad about not seating and making the quarter turn to the right when you change magazines so bump the bolt setter with the palm of your hand. After you learn to use them they are as reliable as the old M-1 Garand.

The Bradley came along in the 1980s when we were not waiting on them. We are now in the Balkans and need an APC badly. If the Stryker worked, it would have already been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shinseki will not allow that to happen because it has no RPG "skirts" and none can be mounted because the Stryker wheels must be kept free to steer. When this thing meets it first RPG, the program is over. Shinseki will not allow them to be committed to combat until he retires on 6/13/03. By then, he will have made enough money from General Dynamics to fund his candiacy for the Senate from Hawaii next year.