DoD repeatedly balked at pleas for MRAPs

[CommunityEditor]

Years before the war began, Pentagon officials knew of the effectiveness of another type of vehicle that better shielded troops from bombs like those that have killed Kincaid and the 1,500 other soldiers and Marines.

But military officials repeatedly balked at appeals — from commanders on the battlefield and from the Pentagon’s own staff — to provide the life-saving Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, or MRAP, for patrols and combat missions, USA Today found.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates late last month, two U.S. senators said the delays cost the lives of an estimated “621 to 742 Americans” who would have survived explosions had they been in MRAPs, rather than Humvees.

USA Today found that the first appeals for the MRAP came much earlier. As early as December 2003, Pentagon analysts sent detailed information about the superiority of MRAP vehicles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, e-mails obtained by the newspaper show.

Later pleas came from Iraq, where commanders saw that the approach the Joint Chiefs embraced in the fall of 2003 — adding armor to the sides of Humvees, the standard vehicles in the war zone — did little to protect against blasts beneath their vehicles.

Why the issue never received more of a hearing at the top remains a mystery, given the chorus of concern. One Pentagon analyst complained in an April 29, 2004, e-mail to colleagues, for instance, that it was “frustrating to see the pictures of burning Humvees while knowing that there are other vehicles out there that would provide more protection.”

The analyst was referring to the MRAP, whose V-shaped hull deflects explosions and puts the crew more than 3 feet off the ground. It was designed to withstand the underbelly bombs that were crippling the lower-riding Humvees and killing their crews.

Pentagon officials, civilians and military alike, had been searching for technologies to guard against improvised explosive devices. The homemade bombs are the No. 1 killer of U.S. forces.

The MRAP was neither new nor unfamiliar to the Pentagon.

The Pentagon had tested MRAPs in 2000, purchased less than two dozen and sent some to Iraq. They were used primarily to protect explosive ordnance disposal teams.

But even as the Pentagon balked at buying MRAPs for U.S. troops, USA Today found that the military pushed to buy them for a different fighting force: the Iraqi army.

On Dec. 22, 2004, a U.S. Army general solicited ideas for an armored vehicle for the Iraqis. The Army had an “extreme interest” in getting troops better armor, then-Brig. Gen. Roger Nadeau told a subordinate looking at foreign technology in an e-mail obtained by USA Today. In a follow-up message, Nadeau clarified his request: “What I failed to point out in my first message to you folks is that the US Govt is interested not for US use, but for possible use in fielding assets to the Iraqi military forces.”

The first contract for what would become the Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle, the Badger — made by BAE Systems and virtually identical to the MRAPs sought by U.S. forces then and now — was issued in May 2006. The vehicles began arriving in Iraq 90 days later, according to BAE. As of this spring, about 400 had been paid for and delivered.

The goal: Iraqis ‘stand up’ so U.S. can ‘stand down’

The rush to equip the Iraqis stood in stark contrast to the Pentagon’s efforts to protect U.S. troops.


Full article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...s_mrap_070716/


Note: This board is for discussion on Humvees, MRAPs and related topics.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Years before the war began, Pentagon officials knew of the effectiveness of another type of vehicle that better shielded troops from bombs like those that have killed Kincaid and the 1,500 other soldiers and Marines.

But military officials repeatedly balked at appeals — from commanders on the battlefield and from the Pentagon’s own staff — to provide the life-saving Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, or MRAP, for patrols and combat missions, USA Today found.

If I were a cynic, I'd say that the delay in providing the US military with the best equipment availale (once the need had been identified) was caused by two factors:

1. it didn't fit in with President Bush's "vision" of a short, victorious, war

and

2. they weren't developed and manufactured in the United States of America (hence they, obviously, weren't any good)

But, then again, have you ever known me to be cynical about the brilliant military strategist who is the American Commander-in-Chief?

[CommunityEditor]

Update: Depot maintenance funds to go toward MRAP (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...mrap_070718af/)


The Pentagon wants to use money from its existing budget, including the Army’s wartime equipment repair program, to cover the $1.2 billion it needs for new bomb-resistant vehicles.

Overall, the Army wants to spend about $800 million to buy Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles that have been saving lives in roadside bomb attacks. The Navy would get about $226 million to buy the vehicles on behalf of the Marines and special operations forces would spend about $110 million.

“These additional funds will enable the department [to] maximize production capacity to enable delivery of the MRAP vehicles to the theater in the earliest possible timeframe,” the Defense Department says in its request to lawmakers.

To cover the cost, the military proposes drawing money from various accounts used to support nondeployed troops, including $100 million for Air Force depot maintenance. However, the biggest chunk — $663 million — will be taken from the Army program that refurbishes equipment for units between deployments.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Update: Depot maintenance funds to go toward MRAP (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...mrap_070718af/)

!!W!O!W!! Another stroke of genius.

I don't suppose that you noticed the news article about the MRAPs and how they could not be sufficiently "uparmoured" to meet the latest DoD requirements without shortening their service life to the traditional used car guarantee length ("30/30" meaning "30 seconds or 30 feet - whichever comes first").

And, of course, the US military will then be putting in a request for "Emergency Funding" to deal with the "Unexpected and Dramatic Increase in Maintenance/replacement Requirements" which it finds itself completely unable to deal with within the confines of its previously budgeted amount.

In other words, the "plan" is to take money for work that no one can possibly say is not necessary and use it to purchase things that aren't quite what they are cracked up to be (but which ARE "Made in America") and then to whine about the fact that there isn't enough money to pay for the work that everyone agrees is necessary.

[TJMAC77SP]

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

If I were a cynic, I'd say that the delay in providing the US military with the best equipment availale (once the need had been identified) was caused by two factors:

1. it didn't fit in with President Bush's "vision" of a short, victorious, war

and

2. they weren't developed and manufactured in the United States of America (hence they, obviously, weren't any good)

But, then again, have you ever known me to be cynical about the brilliant military strategist who is the American Commander-in-Chief?

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

!!W!O!W!! Another stroke of genius.

I don't suppose that you noticed the news article about the MRAPs and how they could not be sufficiently "uparmoured" to meet the latest DoD requirements without shortening their service life to the traditional used car guarantee length ("30/30" meaning "30 seconds or 30 feet - whichever comes first").

And, of course, the US military will then be putting in a request for "Emergency Funding" to deal with the "Unexpected and Dramatic Increase in Maintenance/replacement Requirements" which it finds itself completely unable to deal with within the confines of its previously budgeted amount.

In other words, the "plan" is to take money for work that no one can possibly say is not necessary and use it to purchase things that aren't quite what they are cracked up to be (but which ARE "Made in America") and then to whine about the fact that there isn't enough money to pay for the work that everyone agrees is necessary.

I am confused. Are you saying that we should or should not be buying MRAP vehicles? For the record, with the possible exception of some work on the Golan being performed in Israel by Rafael (although they do have a US partner, Protected Vehicles Inc in N. Charleston, SC) and maybe some work in Canada for BAE (although they all have US manufacturing capability), all current MRAPs in the pipeline are being built by US companies. Also, do you REALLY believe your assertion about Bush delaying the acquisition of MRAP vehicles?

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

I am confused. Are you saying that we should or should not be buying MRAP vehicles?

I didn't say anything about whether or not the US military SHOULD be buying MRAPs.

However, I did say something about why the US military HADN'T bought MRAPs and the quality of the MRAPs that it was buying.

Is the difference clear to you?

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

For the record, with the possible exception of some work on the Golan being performed in Israel by Rafael (although they do have a US partner, Protected Vehicles Inc in N. Charleston, SC) and maybe some work in Canada for BAE (although they all have US manufacturing capability), all current MRAPs in the pipeline are being built by US companies.

Yes. And, of course, there weren't any at all available until US companies started manufacturing them - right?

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

Also, do you REALLY believe your assertion about Bush delaying the acquisition of MRAP vehicles?

Yes.

Mr. Bush has [(?) "planned" (?) to have a "short victorious war" that would leave him covered in glory. There isn't any need for MRAPs in that "vision" so they obviously weren't necessary - which means that there was no need to consider buying them.

[TJMAC77SP]

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

I didn't say anything about whether or not the US military SHOULD be buying MRAPs.

However, I did say something about why the US military HADN'T bought MRAPs and the quality of the MRAPs that it was buying.

Is the difference clear to you?
Yes. And, of course, there weren't any at all available until US companies started manufacturing them - right?
Yes.

Mr. Bush has [(?) "planned" (?) to have a "short victorious war" that would leave him covered in glory. There isn't any need for MRAPs in that "vision" so they obviously weren't necessary - which means that there was no need to consider buying them.

Ok, I see what you were saying although I am not sure of the point of it.

MRAP vehicles have been made in parts of the world where they were needed for quite awhile. A favorite tactic of the ANC and other resistance and liberation movements in South Africa of the Apartheid Era was IEDs in roads. The South African Army and police forces developed MRAP vehicles very similar to the ones we are seeing now. This development is a direct result of the threat of the IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. This threat emerged AFTER the fall of the Taliban and Saddam. To accuse the President of preventing or even stalling the production of vehicles to counter a credible threat that did not previously exist is specious to say the least.

Should we blame the Presidents of the 70's for the lack of metal detectors at airports prior to the rash of hijackings of that era?

[CommunityEditor]

Update: White House wants $5.3B for MRAPs in 2008 (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...e_mrap_070803/)


The White House this week sent Congress a $5.3 billion wartime spending request, dollars that would be used to purchase 1,520 new mine-resistant vehicles and increase production capacity on the heavily armored trucks.

This latest request for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles is part of a White House push to deliver 8,000 MRAPs to the Iraq and Afghan theaters by May 2008, according to the request, which was sent to Capitol Hill on Tuesday. The Pentagon could eventually purchase up to 21,000 of the V-hulled platforms, defense officials have said.

“This request would provide the additional resources necessary to maximize the production of [MRAP] vehicles and rapidly field this capability to our service members in Iraq and Afghanistan,” President Bush wrote in a memo addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

Ok, I see what you were saying although I am not sure of the point of it.

Then I suggest that you think about why nothing was done until after American producers had geared up to provide the vehicles?

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

MRAP vehicles have been made in parts of the world where they were needed for quite awhile.

Yes.

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

A favorite tactic of the ANC and other resistance and liberation movements in South Africa of the Apartheid Era was IEDs in roads.

Yes.

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

The South African Army and police forces developed MRAP vehicles very similar to the ones we are seeing now.

Yes.

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

This development is a direct result of the threat of the IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes.

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

This threat emerged AFTER the fall of the Taliban and Saddam.

True. There weren't any American troops in Afghanistan or Iraq for quite some time prior to that.

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

To accuse the President of preventing or even stalling the production of vehicles to counter a credible threat that did not previously exist is specious to say the least.

And to ignore the fact that the vehicles had been being requrested since 2003 (at the time that the "credible threat" developed) is - what?

I don't suppose that you have noticed that the delivery of the vehicles NOW isn't going to take four years. If the vehicles had been purchased (admittedly they would have had to have been purchased from nonAmerican sources) when the requests in response to the "credible threat" first started to come in, how many soldier's lives would have been saved?

1,000?

500?

250?

125?

100?

75?

50?

25?

10?

5?

1?

How many would have made it "worthwhile"?

Originally Posted by TJMAC77SP

Should we blame the Presidents of the 70's for the lack of metal detectors at airports prior to the rash of hijackings of that era?

No, but you might blame them for not installing metal detectors once the rash of hijackings started.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Update:The White House this week sent Congress a $5.3 billion wartime spending request, dollars that would be used to purchase 1,520 new mine-resistant vehicles and increase production capacity on the heavily armored trucks.

QUESTION:- "How much of that $5,300,000,000 is going to "purchase vehicles" and how much is going to pay for the building of additional production facilities that will be owned by private capital in order that that private capital can make more money?

I seriously doubt that the trucks are going to be costing $3,486,842.11 each ($5,300,000,000 / 1,520 = $3,486,842.105) because:

The next winner is an unexpected manufacturer for a small patrol vehicle. Oshkosh Truck Corporation (OTC) in Oshkosh, WI received a $30.6 million delivery order for 100 Category I MRAP patrol vehicles (M67854-07-D-5026). Oshkosh's release cites their existing production and service capacity, including support in theater, and pledges an expedited production schedule to deliver the first units within 120 days.

Oshkosh Truck' Category I entry is the Alpha, a 13 ton 4×4 armored vehicle with a v-hull and room for up to 8 occupants. It is actually designed by fellow MRAP contender Protected Vehicles, Inc. (PVI) of North Charleston, South Carolina. Past PVI statements have placed the Alpha's price at a very competitive $275,000, though it remains to be seen whether the Oshkosh partnership can deliver the vehicles at that same price point.

which would indicate that, even at $1,000,000 per vehicle, at least 71.32% of the contract price is actually going to be a gift to the manufacturers in order that they can build new facilities courtesy of the American taxpayers. (If the price does come in at $275,000 then that 71.32% becomes a "rather modest" 92.11%.)