This investigative reporter compares military vehicles for field soldiers. The successful vehicle is completely open - no doors, roof, or sides and did not meet bid specs. The second vehicle is completely enclosed with armor and meets all bid specs. The successful bidding company is run by retired colonel with contacts at the Pentagon. It seems Congress should be investigating situations like this rather than spending days debating meaningless, non-binding resolutions. If this is true, it is shameful. Reportedly, the successfully bidded vehicles have been in use and still do not meet the bid specs.
This is my first post. I hope that I have provided enough info for viewing the report(s).
1 posted on
02/24/2007 7:47:27 AM PST by
mouske
To: mouske
No roof, doors, or sides. The succesful bid vehicle was a toboggan??
2 posted on
02/24/2007 7:53:22 AM PST by
Williams
To: mouske
Not every military vehicle must be armored. Some roles require a lighter vehicle without armor. We fought WWII with topless jeeps and canvas sided trucks.
A vehicle like the Growler with an armored compartment would be a contradiction in terms.
3 posted on
02/24/2007 7:59:10 AM PST by
bondjamesbond
(No matter how PC you are, there's always somebody more PC than you, to condemn you as un-PC.)
To: mouske
First what were the "Bid Specifications", if one has a federal government contract the company is NOW allowed to change any contract specification unless approved by the agency in charge and the contracting officer in charge of that buy. Further, the procurement officer and the contracts officer have full authority on the contact so I am skeptical of any reporter that knows little or nothing about government contracts and is probably trying to help the terrorist kill Americans.
As I read part of the Specifications the American Growler must be small, light weight and able to fit into an Osprey. Because the Osprey has space and weight limits, the vehicles must be less than 5 feet wide, weigh no more than 3,000 pounds and be able to withstand G-forces. At the same time, the weight must be evenly balanced so it wont alter the aircrafts balance.
This is more like a WW II and Korea and Vietnam Jeep that the armored vehicles in use.
And as I understand it, it is VERY illegal to take a camera into a factory making defense vehicles or weapons. The reporter should be in jail.
4 posted on
02/24/2007 8:23:41 AM PST by
YOUGOTIT
(56 Supporters of al Qaeda are seated in the US Senate)
To: mouske
5 posted on
02/24/2007 8:36:48 AM PST by
YOUGOTIT
(56 Supporters of al Qaeda are seated in the US Senate)
To: Joe Brower
This ought to make you as livid as it did me. VERY ping worthy.
To: mouske
I was very involved in the testing of this vehicle as a consulting engineer to General Dynamics OTS. This vehicle was NOT the primary reason for this award. The marines were not just buying this vehicle they were buying a weapon system. The Growler vehicle was designed to be a prime mover for a 120mm mortar system. Unfortunately for the other company the mortar that they offered was not and is not nearly as good as the GDOTS system.
9 posted on
02/24/2007 9:14:34 AM PST by
Citadel84_1
(Reformed Rocket Scientst)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson