Army Acquisitions getting blasted
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Army Acquisitions getting blasted
by PudriK » Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:02 am
Watching on CSPAN right now a hearing by the Armed Services Comittee with the Undersecretary of Acquisitions regarding the acquisitions of body armor, truck armor, and armored Humvees.
Rep Hunter (R-CA) told them right now "we can't tie our shoelaces."
The main point he has been drilling is the need for armored trucks to protect troops and convoys. Apparently, several months ago he witnessed an old Marine Sgt and a couple Marines build a double-hull armor box for the back of a 7-ton truck out of some left-over Styker hull steel in a couple hours. An industrial shop said they could build them at about 60/day. The truck was tested at Aberdeen and stood up to MG fire, 155 rounds, RPGs, etc. Since then, the project has been hung up in Army Acquisitions, as they retest it, discuss maintainability, etc., only one kit has been built, and none have been shipped to Iraq.
Right now in theater they are using a similar double hull design, built out of plywood using Iraqi machine shops. The design was also used in Viet Nam to protect against RPGs.
He's also highlighted similar hold-ups with the Hummer armor. Again, a simple kit which is easily installed was designed months ago, and it is hung up in bureaucracy.
So far the DOD's answers have been typical bureacratic BS. Michael Wynne has quibbled about flying it vs. shipping, expressed concern about contracting issues (the interests of the tax payer, a valid point--but perhaps not in these immiediate need situations), and other details. What disasppoints me is that none of these guys have said, your right, we'll have it there in three weeks, and we'll chop a few people out of the system so things get moving. Most of them are defending their slowness, and saying, we'll take a look at it and see what we can do. As Rep. Hunter just said, we were incapable of cutting a few pieces of steel and shipping into theater.
To the question, Let's see about getting some of this stuff over there.
Mr. Wynne, "I am inclined to get with Army immediately, see what the hold up is, and see what we can do."
Pitiful.
Anyway, there's more to it, but it's nice to see our representatives taking them to task.
Now Rep Taylor (D-MS) is steering this into a discussion of outsourcing... he's fishing for a statement that the reason we can't do this is because of our limited manufacturing base... even though we're talking about a less than a million dollar project.
Rep Hunter (R-CA) told them right now "we can't tie our shoelaces."
The main point he has been drilling is the need for armored trucks to protect troops and convoys. Apparently, several months ago he witnessed an old Marine Sgt and a couple Marines build a double-hull armor box for the back of a 7-ton truck out of some left-over Styker hull steel in a couple hours. An industrial shop said they could build them at about 60/day. The truck was tested at Aberdeen and stood up to MG fire, 155 rounds, RPGs, etc. Since then, the project has been hung up in Army Acquisitions, as they retest it, discuss maintainability, etc., only one kit has been built, and none have been shipped to Iraq.
Right now in theater they are using a similar double hull design, built out of plywood using Iraqi machine shops. The design was also used in Viet Nam to protect against RPGs.
He's also highlighted similar hold-ups with the Hummer armor. Again, a simple kit which is easily installed was designed months ago, and it is hung up in bureaucracy.
So far the DOD's answers have been typical bureacratic BS. Michael Wynne has quibbled about flying it vs. shipping, expressed concern about contracting issues (the interests of the tax payer, a valid point--but perhaps not in these immiediate need situations), and other details. What disasppoints me is that none of these guys have said, your right, we'll have it there in three weeks, and we'll chop a few people out of the system so things get moving. Most of them are defending their slowness, and saying, we'll take a look at it and see what we can do. As Rep. Hunter just said, we were incapable of cutting a few pieces of steel and shipping into theater.
To the question, Let's see about getting some of this stuff over there.
Mr. Wynne, "I am inclined to get with Army immediately, see what the hold up is, and see what we can do."
Pitiful.
Anyway, there's more to it, but it's nice to see our representatives taking them to task.
Now Rep Taylor (D-MS) is steering this into a discussion of outsourcing... he's fishing for a statement that the reason we can't do this is because of our limited manufacturing base... even though we're talking about a less than a million dollar project.
PudriK
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
("Pudd-rick")
Irregular player since 2003
- hightimber
-
- Posts: 1157
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 5:17 pm
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
by hightimber » Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:38 am
Maybe we can get Folic to weigh-in on this topic.... Paging Folic Acid!
- Folic_Acid
-
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:32 pm
- Location: Spying on you from Falls Church, VA
by Folic_Acid » Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Obviously, Chairman Hunter is making a valid point. Unfortunately, I think the DOD is a little gunshy - they don't want to go out on the limb too much with proactive ideas and contracts, because they'll likely be criticized and scrutinized in whatever they do, as they were in awarding some Iraq contracts to Halliburton subsidiaries. That's not really an excuse, but it is understandable.
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests