As methinks anyone who's been readin' the Haditha thread, as well as some others here, knows it really gets me how some politicians use military personnel and their well bein' as nothin' more'n tools of the trade whilst playin' their power play games. Distortin' the military past of veterans, what we now frequently refer to as "Swift Boating", is IMHO another reprehensible tactic used by folks in both major political parties.
Found another real good example today, eh? Y'all might wanna check out "False Claims About Body Armor" from Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It shows how the subject of body armor for our troops has been used and misused by both Democrat and Republican candidates for office.
I'd be bettin' many here've seen even more good examples of this, eh? Ain't it time we demand politicians stop usin' our military personnel as nothin' more'n pawns in their quest for power?
Full Version: Misuse of military personnel by politicians
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
QUOTE(flydangler @ Oct 6 2006, 06:10 AM)
As methinks anyone who's been readin' the Haditha thread, as well as some others here, knows it really gets me how some politicians use military personnel and their well bein' as nothin' more'n tools of the trade whilst playin' their power play games. Distortin' the military past of veterans, what we now frequently refer to as "Swift Boating", is IMHO another reprehensible tactic used by folks in both major political parties.
Found another real good example today, eh? Y'all might wanna check out "False Claims About Body Armor" from Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It shows how the subject of body armor for our troops has been used and misused by both Democrat and Republican candidates for office.
I'd be bettin' many here've seen even more good examples of this, eh? Ain't it time we demand politicians stop usin' our military personnel as nothin' more'n pawns in their quest for power?
Found another real good example today, eh? Y'all might wanna check out "False Claims About Body Armor" from Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It shows how the subject of body armor for our troops has been used and misused by both Democrat and Republican candidates for office.
I'd be bettin' many here've seen even more good examples of this, eh? Ain't it time we demand politicians stop usin' our military personnel as nothin' more'n pawns in their quest for power?
Doc, I've seen this ad here in town a few times. I read the article on fact check just now and agree with you fully. The Military Men & Women should not be used falsely as a pawns in a political media blitz, which it appears they have. The ad should NOT run as it is.
There is enough truth in the real truth to upset me. Three of my extended family who are not reservists were emailing us for however many good vests we could muster up here in town. L.V Metro Police Dept stepped up to make sure that our local Military folks had the best body armor they could buy. These guys were some of the first boots on the ground type - and, it's just my opinion, they should have had the newer armor. If their is a story to tell it would be the slow cumbersome process of getting everyone updated armor, and the failure to foresee why they would need it. And why that occured, or which Political side played a part in that I have no idea.
I'll also add since I'm here - with the sky-high head injuries, every helmet our guys are wearing should be updated with that new padding. A group of us in town bought enough of them to retro-fit 25 men from Vegas. They should be standard issue in this war where IED's are everywhere.
Like I said, there is enough truth in real truth - to have to run false ads.
I'm glad to see Operation Helmet being referenced again!
Body armor is all well and good but when it's took to an extreme it's not worth it.
One fellow coming home from Iraq told me some of the body armor is like strapping two bags of sackrete to your body, one in front and one in back. Sure it will stop a bullet but try running a quarter of a mile, jump a couple of ditches along the way, plus climb a wall, and all in 115 degree heat.
His question was do you want to die fron a heat stroke or die from a bullet?
I'm all for our troops having the best available equipment but I got used to dealing with hand me downs and making do with what I got.
Some of what we moan and groan about is because what we are using was never intended to be used the way it is being used. I remember a lot of talk about us sending troops out in insufficiently armored HumVees. The HumVee was never intended to be an armored vehicle, wasn't designed to fulfill that role. The HumVee was meant to replace the Jeep and the 1 ton utility truck. The standard armor on a HumVee is designed to stop shrapenal , fragmentation, and a long off AK-47 round.
The Hillbilly armor we add on does all kinds of strange things to the HumVee's handling and causes many a maintenance nightmare.
The only advantage I ever saw the HumVee had over the Jeep is the HumVee is so damned big it's hard to lose them when you've forgot were you left one in the boonies.
One fellow coming home from Iraq told me some of the body armor is like strapping two bags of sackrete to your body, one in front and one in back. Sure it will stop a bullet but try running a quarter of a mile, jump a couple of ditches along the way, plus climb a wall, and all in 115 degree heat.
His question was do you want to die fron a heat stroke or die from a bullet?
I'm all for our troops having the best available equipment but I got used to dealing with hand me downs and making do with what I got.
Some of what we moan and groan about is because what we are using was never intended to be used the way it is being used. I remember a lot of talk about us sending troops out in insufficiently armored HumVees. The HumVee was never intended to be an armored vehicle, wasn't designed to fulfill that role. The HumVee was meant to replace the Jeep and the 1 ton utility truck. The standard armor on a HumVee is designed to stop shrapenal , fragmentation, and a long off AK-47 round.
The Hillbilly armor we add on does all kinds of strange things to the HumVee's handling and causes many a maintenance nightmare.
The only advantage I ever saw the HumVee had over the Jeep is the HumVee is so damned big it's hard to lose them when you've forgot were you left one in the boonies.
One of my major points of opposition to this administration is the abuse of the military. This article from last year demonstrates what I mean.
The situation is just intolerable......failure to provide the best vehicle for the theater where the military are expected to serve is treason in my book.
Putting them in the theater based on cherrypicked intel is another treasonous act.
When the real brown stuff hits the fan, the consequences are
liable to cripple the nation for decades.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/internat...agewanted=print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26, 2005
Safer Vehicles for Soldiers: A Tale of Delays and Glitches
By MICHAEL MOSS
When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Iraq last year to tour the Abu Ghraib prison camp, military officials did not rely on a government-issued Humvee to transport him safely on the ground. Instead, they turned to Halliburton, the oil services contractor, which lent the Pentagon a rolling fortress of steel called the Rhino Runner.
State Department officials traveling in Iraq use armored vehicles that are built with V-shaped hulls to better deflect bullets and bombs. Members of Congress favor another model, called the M1117, which can endure 12-pound explosives and .50-caliber armor-piercing rounds.
Unlike the Humvee, the Pentagon's vehicle of choice for American troops, the others were designed from scratch to withstand attacks in battlefields like Iraq with no safe zones. Last fall, for instance, a Rhino traveling the treacherous airport road in Baghdad endured a bomb that left a six-foot-wide crater. The passengers walked away unscathed. "I have no doubt should I have been in any other vehicle," wrote an Army captain, the lone military passenger, "the results would have been catastrophically different."
Yet more than two years into the war, efforts by United States military units to obtain large numbers of these stronger vehicles for soldiers have faltered - even as the Pentagon's program to armor Humvees continues to be plagued by delays, an examination by The New York Times has found.
Many of the problems stem from a 40-year-old procurement system that stymies the acquisition of new equipment quickly enough to adapt to the changing demands of a modern insurgency, interviews and records show.
Among other setbacks, the M1117 lost its Pentagon money just before the invasion, and the manufacturer is now scrambling to fill rush orders from the military. The company making one of the V-shaped vehicles, the Cougar, said it had to lay off highly skilled welders last year as it waited for the contract to be completed. Even then it was paid only enough to fill half the order.
And the Rhino could not get through the Army's testing regime because its manufacturer declined to have one of its $250,000 vehicles blown up. The company said it provided the Army with testing data that demonstrate the Rhino's viability, and is using the defense secretary's visit as a seal of approval in its contract pitches to the Defense Department.
Many officials in the military and the government say the demands of war sometimes require the easing of procurement requirements like testing, and express frustration at the slow process for getting equipment.
"When you have troops in the field in a dynamic environment, where the tactics of the opposition are changing on a regular basis, you have to be nimble and quick," said Representative Rob Simmons, a Connecticut Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "If you're not nimble and quick and adaptable, people will die."
Nearly a decade ago, the Pentagon was warned by its own experts that superior vehicles would be needed to protect American troops. The Army's vehicle-program manager urged the Pentagon in 1996 to move beyond the Humvee, interviews and Army records show, saying it was built for the cold war. Its flat-bottom-chassis design is 25 years old, never intended for combat, and the added armor at best protects only the front end from the heftier insurgent bombs, military officials concede.
But as the procurement system stumbled and the Defense Department resisted allocating money for more expensive vehicles, interviews and records show, the military ended up largely dependent on Humvees - a vast majority of which did not yet have any armor - in both combat and noncombat operations in the war.
Today, commuting from post to post in Iraq is one of the deadliest tasks for soldiers. At least 73 American military personnel were killed on the roads of Iraq in May and June as insurgent attacks spiked. In May alone, there were 700 bombings against American forces, the most since the invasion in March 2003. Late Thursday, a suicide car bomber killed five marines and a sailor in a convoy of mostly female marines who were returning to camp in Falluja. Thirteen others were injured. Officials said the vehicles most likely included a seven-ton truck.
Last winter, 135 convoys were attacked on the Baghdad airport road alone, and even the most fully armored Humvee is no longer safe from the increasingly powerful insurgency bombs.
Marine Corps generals last week disclosed in a footnote to their remarks to Congress that two of their best-armored Humvees were destroyed, while a Marine spokeswoman in Iraq said five marines riding in one such Humvee were killed this month in a roadside bomb attack.
Still, thousands of Humvees in Iraq do not have this much protection.
The Pentagon has repeatedly said no vehicle leaves camp without armor. But according to military records and interviews with officials, about half of the Army's 20,000 Humvees have improvised shielding that typically leaves the underside unprotected, while only one in six Humvees used by the Marines is armored at the highest level of protection.
The Defense Department continues to rely on just one small company in Ohio to armor Humvees. And the company, O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, has waged an aggressive campaign to hold onto its exclusive deal even as soaring rush orders from Iraq have been plagued by delays. The Marine Corps, for example, is still awaiting the 498 armored Humvees it sought last fall, officials told The Times.
In January, when military officials tried to speed production by buying the legal rights to the armor design so they could enlist other venders to help, O'Gara demurred, calling the move a threat to its "current and future competitive position," according to e-mail records obtained from the Army.
Defense Department officials defended their efforts in supplying troops with armored vehicles, saying they have managed to convert a largely unarmored fleet into one in which every vehicle in combat has some level of shielding.
"We are constantly assessing and making the necessary adjustments to make sure they have the best possible protection this country can provide," said a Pentagon spokesman, Bryan G. Whitman, adding that no amount of armor would defeat the insurgency's biggest bombs. He said Mr. Rumsfeld had ridden in many types of vehicles, including Humvees, and "travels in whatever vehicle the commander feels is appropriate."
The Defense Department created a task force last winter that is charged with revamping its entire fleet of light vehicles, including the Humvee.
Some say these efforts, however resolute, will suffer if the Pentagon does not also overhaul its underlying procurement system.
"There's been a confluence of factors that colluded to keep this system hidebound," said Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon's comptroller until May 2004. "It's going to take a joint effort by Congress and the executive branch working in good faith, and I underline good faith, to bring about a change."
Old Problems, New Details
By the time an Army National Guard member complained to Mr. Rumsfeld in December that troops were still scrounging for steel to fortify their Humvees, the Pentagon's troubles with armoring vehicles had been years in the making.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of insurgencies more than a decade earlier had changed the dynamics of war for American troops. The problem came into bloody relief in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993 when militia members cornered and killed 18 American soldiers who were trying to capture a warlord's top assistants using Black Hawk helicopters and unarmored Humvees.
At an Army command center in Warren, Mich., John D. Weaver saw the events unfold and set out to revamp the light-vehicle program that he managed.
One option came from executives at O'Gara, who proposed adding the extra steel shielding to Humvees. Mr. Weaver praised the effort but foresaw some flaws, he said in interviews.
Because the Humvee's hull is flat, its underbelly absorbs the force of blasts more readily than combat vehicles with angled bodies.
Moreover, the chassis can carry only so much armor, leaving the rear more exposed.
And while land mines were the biggest threat at the time, Mr. Weaver said his group began worrying about a more insidious one: a fragmentation mine called the M-18 Claymore.
Developed by the United States for the Vietnam War, the device can be remotely detonated to hurl its 700 steel spheres at any part of a passing vehicle - much like the improvised devices that insurgents are using in Iraq.
That means the armored Humvee is vulnerable to a timed attack that focuses on its underbelly or rear, Mr. Weaver said.
Its box shape also makes it less able to deflect low-flying bullets.
"We need to invest more in the details of the design, to integrate state-of-the-art material, which, while costing more, weighs less and provides greater levels of protection," Mr. Weaver wrote in a paper presented to the Army's 1996 armor conference at Fort Knox, Ky. "Finally, we must overcome the paradigm that wheels are cheap and 'throw away.' The vehicle may be, but the occupants are not."
By 1997, when Mr. Weaver left his post, he was helping draft an Army mandate requiring new vehicles like the M1117. "I'm not sure anybody got their arms around what was needed," he said.
By 1999, the Army began buying a limited number of M1117's. Three years later, it canceled the program.
At roughly $700,000 each, the M1117 is considerably more expensive than the current $140,000 price for an armored Humvee.
"This decision is based upon budget priorities," Claude M. Bolton Jr., an assistant Army secretary, wrote to Congress in 2002. Existing vehicles, he added, can be used instead "without exposing our soldiers to an unacceptable level of risk."
Yet the military was reluctant to mass-produce the armored Humvee, with many in the Army agreeing that the vehicle made little tactical sense.
By the time the Iraq war started, the Army had been ordering only 360 armored Humvees a year.
"We never intended to up-armor all the Humvees," said Les Brownlee, who was the acting Army secretary from 2001 until late last year.
"The Humvee is a carrier and derives its advantage from having cross-country mobility, and when you load it down with armor plating, you lose that."
But just months into the war in Iraq, it was lives the Pentagon was losing, and it reached for the quickest solution.
Clinging to a Contract
What the Defense Department thought would be the easiest option turned out otherwise.
The Humvee chassis is rapidly made on a vast assembly line near South Bend, Ind., by AM General. But before its vehicles can be rushed to Iraq, they are trucked four and a half hours to O'Gara's shop in Fairfield, in southern Ohio - which had 94 people armoring one Humvee a day when the war began. There, the Humvees are partly dismantled so the armor can be added.
"Clearly, if you could have started from scratch you wouldn't be doing it that way," Mr. Brownlee said in a recent interview.
In February 2004, Mr. Brownlee visited the O'Gara plant and asked the company to increase production, gradually pushing its monthly output to 450 from 220 vehicles. The Defense Department also wanted to contract with other companies to make armor.
Determined to hold onto its exclusive contract, O'Gara began lobbying Capitol Hill. Among those it drew to its side was Brian T. Hart, an outspoken father of a soldier who was killed in October 2003 while riding in a Humvee. Early last year, as a guest on a national radio show, Mr. Hart urged the Pentagon to involve more armor makers. Two weeks later a lobbyist for O'Gara approached him.
"He informed me that the company had more than enough capacity," Mr. Hart says. "There was no need to second-source."
Mr. Hart then redirected his efforts to help the company push Congress into forcing the Pentagon to buy more armored Humvees. With support from both parties, the company has received more than $1 billion in the past 18 months in military armoring contracts.
Meanwhile, the Army did not give up on trying to speed production by involving more armor makers. Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly said several armor companies were eager to be part of a plan to produce armored Humvees entirely on AM General's assembly line.
In January, when it asked O'Gara to name its price for the design rights for the armor, the company balked and suggested instead that the rights be placed in escrow for the Army to grab should the company ever fail to perform.
"Let's try this again," an Army major replied to the company in an e-mail message. "The question concerned the cost, not a request for an opinion."
The Army has dropped the matter for now, General O'Reilly said, adding that he hoped to have other companies making armor by next April.
Robert F. Mecredy, president of the aerospace and defense group at Armor Holdings, the parent company of O'Gara, acknowledged that the company was protecting its commercial interests. But, he said, the company has proved it can do the Humvee work and he blamed the Defense Department for delays. Military officials concede that it sometimes took months for requests made in Iraq to filter through the Defense Department. O'Gara says it has armored nearly 7,200 Humvees since the war began, and while there is a persistent need for more in Iraq, the company stresses that the Pentagon keeps changing its orders: from 3,600 in the fall of 2003 to 8,105 last year to more than 10,000 today.
Asked why the Marine Corps is still waiting for the 498 Humvees it ordered last year, O'Gara acknowledged that it told the Marines it was backed up with Army orders, and has only begun filling the Marines' request this month. But the company says the Marine Corps never asked it to rush.
The Marine Corps denies this, but acknowledges that it did not get the money to actually place the order until this February. Officials now say they need to buy 2,600 to replace their Humvees in Iraq that still have only improvised armor.
Beyond the Humvee
With insurgents using increasingly powerful bombs and bullets, American troops in Iraq have been looking beyond the Humvee.
When the Marine Corps returned to Iraq last year, it settled on the Cougar as a superior vehicle to perform one of its main jobs: searching the roads for improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s. The Cougar can take more than twice the explosive punch as the armored Humvee and deflect .50-caliber armor piercing bullets. British troops had used the vehicle during the invasion.
The Marines used a new ordering method called the Urgent Universal Need Statement, which allows it to skip competitive bidding, to speed the process, officials said.
Even at that, the Marines Corps took two months to complete a product study, its records show. The contract took two more months to prepare. By then, one of its units in Iraq, Company E of the First Marine Division, was suffering the highest casualty rate of the war; more than half of the 21 marines killed were riding in Humvees with improvised armor or none at all.
When the Cougar order was completed in April 2004, the Marine Corps got only enough money from the Iraq war fund to buy 15 of the 27 Cougars it wanted. "This start-stop game is driving everybody nuts," Michael Aldrich, an executive with the Cougar's maker, Force Protection, said in a recent interview.
Marine Corps officials, who have high praise for the Cougars they have, said they needed to move cautiously for fear of overwhelming the company, which had only 39 workers. It now has 250 and is racing to fill a new order for 122 Cougars, at $630,000 apiece, by next February.
"I think we are moving about as fast as we could move," Mr. Aldrich said. "It's the chicken and egg. If you don't have the order you can't make the investment, and there are extremely long lead times" on the components.
Wars are always tricky affairs for military contractors that are asked to ramp up overnight. But for this and other makers of armored vehicles, the Iraq war has been especially challenging.
To get Congress's attention last year, Mr. Aldrich compiled maps that showed the number of troops from each state who had died in Iraq in vehicles that were inadequately armored.
"I got some very open pupils and a couple of gasps and a couple of questions on who I had showed this to," said Mr. Aldrich, who presented his findings during the fall election campaign when the issue of equipping troops became a focus of intense debate. "The Republicans wanted to know if I showed it to the Democrats, and the Democrats wanted to know if I showed it to the Republicans."
The M1117, made by Textron in Louisiana, had advocates in that state's senators, who told Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, in a September 2003 letter that the vehicle was superior to the armored Humvee in blast and bullet protection.
Still, the M1117 did not shake off its 2002 cancellation until last summer, when the Army began placing a series of orders totaling 290. The company, which will make 16 vehicles this month, has been asked to more than triple that pace by next March, Textron officials said.
Labock Technologies, which makes the Rhino Runner in Israel, thought it had the best advertising ever. Besides posting photographs of Mr. Rumsfeld aboard the Rhino at Abu Ghraib, the company has pictures of a shackled Saddam Hussein going to court last summer, with the headline: "So safe. ... some V.I.P. won't ride anything else."
The Defense Department says some military personnel are using the privately owned Rhinos that run the gantlet of bombs on the airport road. But with the Army not accepting the company's test results, and Labock not wanting to destroy a Rhino on the chance of getting orders, some soldiers in Iraq are doing their own lobbying.
Last month, the company says, an Army colonel and two other soldiers at Camp Victory in Baghdad picked up a satellite phone and called Labock at its Florida office to pepper the company with questions about performance, price and how fast it could deliver.
Mark Dunlap, a company executive, said in recounting the exchange, "They said they would run it up their chain of command."
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
####################################################3
Perhaps the story would be different if the pet companies were involved, ----- we are much more threatened by political pollution here than other engineered boogey men.
lenal
:bat:
P.S. Color added by poster, also type size in the colored area, for emphasis.
The situation is just intolerable......failure to provide the best vehicle for the theater where the military are expected to serve is treason in my book.
Putting them in the theater based on cherrypicked intel is another treasonous act.
When the real brown stuff hits the fan, the consequences are
liable to cripple the nation for decades.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/internat...agewanted=print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26, 2005
Safer Vehicles for Soldiers: A Tale of Delays and Glitches
By MICHAEL MOSS
When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Iraq last year to tour the Abu Ghraib prison camp, military officials did not rely on a government-issued Humvee to transport him safely on the ground. Instead, they turned to Halliburton, the oil services contractor, which lent the Pentagon a rolling fortress of steel called the Rhino Runner.
State Department officials traveling in Iraq use armored vehicles that are built with V-shaped hulls to better deflect bullets and bombs. Members of Congress favor another model, called the M1117, which can endure 12-pound explosives and .50-caliber armor-piercing rounds.
Unlike the Humvee, the Pentagon's vehicle of choice for American troops, the others were designed from scratch to withstand attacks in battlefields like Iraq with no safe zones. Last fall, for instance, a Rhino traveling the treacherous airport road in Baghdad endured a bomb that left a six-foot-wide crater. The passengers walked away unscathed. "I have no doubt should I have been in any other vehicle," wrote an Army captain, the lone military passenger, "the results would have been catastrophically different."
Yet more than two years into the war, efforts by United States military units to obtain large numbers of these stronger vehicles for soldiers have faltered - even as the Pentagon's program to armor Humvees continues to be plagued by delays, an examination by The New York Times has found.
Many of the problems stem from a 40-year-old procurement system that stymies the acquisition of new equipment quickly enough to adapt to the changing demands of a modern insurgency, interviews and records show.
Among other setbacks, the M1117 lost its Pentagon money just before the invasion, and the manufacturer is now scrambling to fill rush orders from the military. The company making one of the V-shaped vehicles, the Cougar, said it had to lay off highly skilled welders last year as it waited for the contract to be completed. Even then it was paid only enough to fill half the order.
And the Rhino could not get through the Army's testing regime because its manufacturer declined to have one of its $250,000 vehicles blown up. The company said it provided the Army with testing data that demonstrate the Rhino's viability, and is using the defense secretary's visit as a seal of approval in its contract pitches to the Defense Department.
Many officials in the military and the government say the demands of war sometimes require the easing of procurement requirements like testing, and express frustration at the slow process for getting equipment.
"When you have troops in the field in a dynamic environment, where the tactics of the opposition are changing on a regular basis, you have to be nimble and quick," said Representative Rob Simmons, a Connecticut Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "If you're not nimble and quick and adaptable, people will die."
Nearly a decade ago, the Pentagon was warned by its own experts that superior vehicles would be needed to protect American troops. The Army's vehicle-program manager urged the Pentagon in 1996 to move beyond the Humvee, interviews and Army records show, saying it was built for the cold war. Its flat-bottom-chassis design is 25 years old, never intended for combat, and the added armor at best protects only the front end from the heftier insurgent bombs, military officials concede.
But as the procurement system stumbled and the Defense Department resisted allocating money for more expensive vehicles, interviews and records show, the military ended up largely dependent on Humvees - a vast majority of which did not yet have any armor - in both combat and noncombat operations in the war.
Today, commuting from post to post in Iraq is one of the deadliest tasks for soldiers. At least 73 American military personnel were killed on the roads of Iraq in May and June as insurgent attacks spiked. In May alone, there were 700 bombings against American forces, the most since the invasion in March 2003. Late Thursday, a suicide car bomber killed five marines and a sailor in a convoy of mostly female marines who were returning to camp in Falluja. Thirteen others were injured. Officials said the vehicles most likely included a seven-ton truck.
Last winter, 135 convoys were attacked on the Baghdad airport road alone, and even the most fully armored Humvee is no longer safe from the increasingly powerful insurgency bombs.
Marine Corps generals last week disclosed in a footnote to their remarks to Congress that two of their best-armored Humvees were destroyed, while a Marine spokeswoman in Iraq said five marines riding in one such Humvee were killed this month in a roadside bomb attack.
Still, thousands of Humvees in Iraq do not have this much protection.
The Pentagon has repeatedly said no vehicle leaves camp without armor. But according to military records and interviews with officials, about half of the Army's 20,000 Humvees have improvised shielding that typically leaves the underside unprotected, while only one in six Humvees used by the Marines is armored at the highest level of protection.
The Defense Department continues to rely on just one small company in Ohio to armor Humvees. And the company, O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, has waged an aggressive campaign to hold onto its exclusive deal even as soaring rush orders from Iraq have been plagued by delays. The Marine Corps, for example, is still awaiting the 498 armored Humvees it sought last fall, officials told The Times.
In January, when military officials tried to speed production by buying the legal rights to the armor design so they could enlist other venders to help, O'Gara demurred, calling the move a threat to its "current and future competitive position," according to e-mail records obtained from the Army.
Defense Department officials defended their efforts in supplying troops with armored vehicles, saying they have managed to convert a largely unarmored fleet into one in which every vehicle in combat has some level of shielding.
"We are constantly assessing and making the necessary adjustments to make sure they have the best possible protection this country can provide," said a Pentagon spokesman, Bryan G. Whitman, adding that no amount of armor would defeat the insurgency's biggest bombs. He said Mr. Rumsfeld had ridden in many types of vehicles, including Humvees, and "travels in whatever vehicle the commander feels is appropriate."
The Defense Department created a task force last winter that is charged with revamping its entire fleet of light vehicles, including the Humvee.
Some say these efforts, however resolute, will suffer if the Pentagon does not also overhaul its underlying procurement system.
"There's been a confluence of factors that colluded to keep this system hidebound," said Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon's comptroller until May 2004. "It's going to take a joint effort by Congress and the executive branch working in good faith, and I underline good faith, to bring about a change."
Old Problems, New Details
By the time an Army National Guard member complained to Mr. Rumsfeld in December that troops were still scrounging for steel to fortify their Humvees, the Pentagon's troubles with armoring vehicles had been years in the making.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of insurgencies more than a decade earlier had changed the dynamics of war for American troops. The problem came into bloody relief in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993 when militia members cornered and killed 18 American soldiers who were trying to capture a warlord's top assistants using Black Hawk helicopters and unarmored Humvees.
At an Army command center in Warren, Mich., John D. Weaver saw the events unfold and set out to revamp the light-vehicle program that he managed.
One option came from executives at O'Gara, who proposed adding the extra steel shielding to Humvees. Mr. Weaver praised the effort but foresaw some flaws, he said in interviews.
Because the Humvee's hull is flat, its underbelly absorbs the force of blasts more readily than combat vehicles with angled bodies.
Moreover, the chassis can carry only so much armor, leaving the rear more exposed.
And while land mines were the biggest threat at the time, Mr. Weaver said his group began worrying about a more insidious one: a fragmentation mine called the M-18 Claymore.
Developed by the United States for the Vietnam War, the device can be remotely detonated to hurl its 700 steel spheres at any part of a passing vehicle - much like the improvised devices that insurgents are using in Iraq.
That means the armored Humvee is vulnerable to a timed attack that focuses on its underbelly or rear, Mr. Weaver said.
Its box shape also makes it less able to deflect low-flying bullets.
"We need to invest more in the details of the design, to integrate state-of-the-art material, which, while costing more, weighs less and provides greater levels of protection," Mr. Weaver wrote in a paper presented to the Army's 1996 armor conference at Fort Knox, Ky. "Finally, we must overcome the paradigm that wheels are cheap and 'throw away.' The vehicle may be, but the occupants are not."
By 1997, when Mr. Weaver left his post, he was helping draft an Army mandate requiring new vehicles like the M1117. "I'm not sure anybody got their arms around what was needed," he said.
By 1999, the Army began buying a limited number of M1117's. Three years later, it canceled the program.
At roughly $700,000 each, the M1117 is considerably more expensive than the current $140,000 price for an armored Humvee.
"This decision is based upon budget priorities," Claude M. Bolton Jr., an assistant Army secretary, wrote to Congress in 2002. Existing vehicles, he added, can be used instead "without exposing our soldiers to an unacceptable level of risk."
Yet the military was reluctant to mass-produce the armored Humvee, with many in the Army agreeing that the vehicle made little tactical sense.
By the time the Iraq war started, the Army had been ordering only 360 armored Humvees a year.
"We never intended to up-armor all the Humvees," said Les Brownlee, who was the acting Army secretary from 2001 until late last year.
"The Humvee is a carrier and derives its advantage from having cross-country mobility, and when you load it down with armor plating, you lose that."
But just months into the war in Iraq, it was lives the Pentagon was losing, and it reached for the quickest solution.
Clinging to a Contract
What the Defense Department thought would be the easiest option turned out otherwise.
The Humvee chassis is rapidly made on a vast assembly line near South Bend, Ind., by AM General. But before its vehicles can be rushed to Iraq, they are trucked four and a half hours to O'Gara's shop in Fairfield, in southern Ohio - which had 94 people armoring one Humvee a day when the war began. There, the Humvees are partly dismantled so the armor can be added.
"Clearly, if you could have started from scratch you wouldn't be doing it that way," Mr. Brownlee said in a recent interview.
In February 2004, Mr. Brownlee visited the O'Gara plant and asked the company to increase production, gradually pushing its monthly output to 450 from 220 vehicles. The Defense Department also wanted to contract with other companies to make armor.
Determined to hold onto its exclusive contract, O'Gara began lobbying Capitol Hill. Among those it drew to its side was Brian T. Hart, an outspoken father of a soldier who was killed in October 2003 while riding in a Humvee. Early last year, as a guest on a national radio show, Mr. Hart urged the Pentagon to involve more armor makers. Two weeks later a lobbyist for O'Gara approached him.
"He informed me that the company had more than enough capacity," Mr. Hart says. "There was no need to second-source."
Mr. Hart then redirected his efforts to help the company push Congress into forcing the Pentagon to buy more armored Humvees. With support from both parties, the company has received more than $1 billion in the past 18 months in military armoring contracts.
Meanwhile, the Army did not give up on trying to speed production by involving more armor makers. Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly said several armor companies were eager to be part of a plan to produce armored Humvees entirely on AM General's assembly line.
In January, when it asked O'Gara to name its price for the design rights for the armor, the company balked and suggested instead that the rights be placed in escrow for the Army to grab should the company ever fail to perform.
"Let's try this again," an Army major replied to the company in an e-mail message. "The question concerned the cost, not a request for an opinion."
The Army has dropped the matter for now, General O'Reilly said, adding that he hoped to have other companies making armor by next April.
Robert F. Mecredy, president of the aerospace and defense group at Armor Holdings, the parent company of O'Gara, acknowledged that the company was protecting its commercial interests. But, he said, the company has proved it can do the Humvee work and he blamed the Defense Department for delays. Military officials concede that it sometimes took months for requests made in Iraq to filter through the Defense Department. O'Gara says it has armored nearly 7,200 Humvees since the war began, and while there is a persistent need for more in Iraq, the company stresses that the Pentagon keeps changing its orders: from 3,600 in the fall of 2003 to 8,105 last year to more than 10,000 today.
Asked why the Marine Corps is still waiting for the 498 Humvees it ordered last year, O'Gara acknowledged that it told the Marines it was backed up with Army orders, and has only begun filling the Marines' request this month. But the company says the Marine Corps never asked it to rush.
The Marine Corps denies this, but acknowledges that it did not get the money to actually place the order until this February. Officials now say they need to buy 2,600 to replace their Humvees in Iraq that still have only improvised armor.
Beyond the Humvee
With insurgents using increasingly powerful bombs and bullets, American troops in Iraq have been looking beyond the Humvee.
When the Marine Corps returned to Iraq last year, it settled on the Cougar as a superior vehicle to perform one of its main jobs: searching the roads for improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s. The Cougar can take more than twice the explosive punch as the armored Humvee and deflect .50-caliber armor piercing bullets. British troops had used the vehicle during the invasion.
The Marines used a new ordering method called the Urgent Universal Need Statement, which allows it to skip competitive bidding, to speed the process, officials said.
Even at that, the Marines Corps took two months to complete a product study, its records show. The contract took two more months to prepare. By then, one of its units in Iraq, Company E of the First Marine Division, was suffering the highest casualty rate of the war; more than half of the 21 marines killed were riding in Humvees with improvised armor or none at all.
When the Cougar order was completed in April 2004, the Marine Corps got only enough money from the Iraq war fund to buy 15 of the 27 Cougars it wanted. "This start-stop game is driving everybody nuts," Michael Aldrich, an executive with the Cougar's maker, Force Protection, said in a recent interview.
Marine Corps officials, who have high praise for the Cougars they have, said they needed to move cautiously for fear of overwhelming the company, which had only 39 workers. It now has 250 and is racing to fill a new order for 122 Cougars, at $630,000 apiece, by next February.
"I think we are moving about as fast as we could move," Mr. Aldrich said. "It's the chicken and egg. If you don't have the order you can't make the investment, and there are extremely long lead times" on the components.
Wars are always tricky affairs for military contractors that are asked to ramp up overnight. But for this and other makers of armored vehicles, the Iraq war has been especially challenging.
To get Congress's attention last year, Mr. Aldrich compiled maps that showed the number of troops from each state who had died in Iraq in vehicles that were inadequately armored.
"I got some very open pupils and a couple of gasps and a couple of questions on who I had showed this to," said Mr. Aldrich, who presented his findings during the fall election campaign when the issue of equipping troops became a focus of intense debate. "The Republicans wanted to know if I showed it to the Democrats, and the Democrats wanted to know if I showed it to the Republicans."
The M1117, made by Textron in Louisiana, had advocates in that state's senators, who told Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, in a September 2003 letter that the vehicle was superior to the armored Humvee in blast and bullet protection.
Still, the M1117 did not shake off its 2002 cancellation until last summer, when the Army began placing a series of orders totaling 290. The company, which will make 16 vehicles this month, has been asked to more than triple that pace by next March, Textron officials said.
Labock Technologies, which makes the Rhino Runner in Israel, thought it had the best advertising ever. Besides posting photographs of Mr. Rumsfeld aboard the Rhino at Abu Ghraib, the company has pictures of a shackled Saddam Hussein going to court last summer, with the headline: "So safe. ... some V.I.P. won't ride anything else."
The Defense Department says some military personnel are using the privately owned Rhinos that run the gantlet of bombs on the airport road. But with the Army not accepting the company's test results, and Labock not wanting to destroy a Rhino on the chance of getting orders, some soldiers in Iraq are doing their own lobbying.
Last month, the company says, an Army colonel and two other soldiers at Camp Victory in Baghdad picked up a satellite phone and called Labock at its Florida office to pepper the company with questions about performance, price and how fast it could deliver.
Mark Dunlap, a company executive, said in recounting the exchange, "They said they would run it up their chain of command."
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
####################################################3
Perhaps the story would be different if the pet companies were involved, ----- we are much more threatened by political pollution here than other engineered boogey men.
lenal
:bat:
P.S. Color added by poster, also type size in the colored area, for emphasis.
2 words: War Profiteering
The military will always be a political football as long as it's an economic cash cow.
My guess is that the Humvee was oversold and now they have to use it where it wasn't designed to be used, in urban combat, to justify the expenses.
Does the Stryker not fit in some of these tight alleys.
Well at least they seem to be learning some lessons with the ULTRA AP
The military will always be a political football as long as it's an economic cash cow.
My guess is that the Humvee was oversold and now they have to use it where it wasn't designed to be used, in urban combat, to justify the expenses.
Does the Stryker not fit in some of these tight alleys.
Well at least they seem to be learning some lessons with the ULTRA AP
QUOTE(lenal @ Oct 6 2006, 05:06 PM)
The situation is just intolerable......failure to provide the best vehicle for the theater where the military are expected to serve is treason in my book
Methinks the NYT article you cited identifies some of the problems in procurin' new generation vehicles, not the least of which is a military procurement system initiated durin' the Kennedy administration, but there are other considerations too. One of them is the fact that there're so many folks screamin' 'bout the size of the military budget (most of which is really personnel related), and methinks we see many of these same folks wantin' to have it both ways when they complain 'bout the lack of this and that while wantin' to make huge cuts, eh?QUOTE(billfmsd @ Oct 6 2006, 07:17 PM)
The military will always be a political football as long as it's an economic cash cow.
True, but methinks there are other political considerations that come into play too. Where and by whom will an item be built is a major one.QUOTE
My guess is that the Humvee was oversold and now they have to use it where it wasn't designed to be used, in urban combat, to justify the expenses
Not so much oversold, but definitely used in ways that it wasn't intended. Remember that it was originally intended as nothin' more'n a replacement for the venerable jeep and its variants.Tho folks here might not like the source, here is an article by a former Marine officer that puts a little more perspective on the matter, eh? Methinks it too fails to mention some of the considerations that come into play though.
Heavier more sophisticated vehicles have drawbacks. They use more fuel, which you have to be able to get to where they're bein' used. Serviceability in the field rather than at depots is another consideration. There are limitations on transportability such as deployment space aboard Navy ships for Marine deployments, use of helos to transport them inside or slung below and the like. In other words methinks this simple problem ain't really so simple.
If y'all do a little research methinks you'll find that from 1988 through 1992 the House Armed Services Committee held many hearings on the Humvee. Controlled by the Democrats they constantly shot down requests by the Army and Marines for a heavier better armored personnel carrier for urban warfare and recon missions, and that vehicle is what we now call the up armored Humvee. Seems the Humvee manufacturers had many of these congress critters in their pockets and didn't want the competition.
Yup, methinks the Humvee is a good demonstration of how our military personnel get misused and abused. Try takin' everything into consideration and methinks you'll see them makin' the procurement decisions have more on their plate than most folks realize. That'll probably never cut down the related rhetoric and hyperbole though, eh?
I'll probably get jumped for this but a major source of our military being abused is retired brass working for contractors. Look at how tenaciously they clung to DIVAD, which proved it could reliably target and destroy enemy outhouses. High tech has its place, so does reliable low tech, but high tech has political sex appeal (partly for selling to the public, mostly for huge R&D budgets).
I think the ability to become corporate officers or lobbyists for defense contractors upon retirement from the military or politics needs to be abolished.
I think the ability to become corporate officers or lobbyists for defense contractors upon retirement from the military or politics needs to be abolished.
I agree - the use of military contractors is too mercenary, and exploitive budgetwise and certainly should be erosive of military morale, when something a grunt does for low pay is awarded to the bloodsuckers for megabucks.
Next time I see an article on this I will post it, I have read some on this subject.
lenal
:bat:
Next time I see an article on this I will post it, I have read some on this subject.
lenal
:bat:
QUOTE(lenal @ Oct 7 2006, 07:56 PM)
I agree - the use of military contractors is too mercenary, and exploitive budgetwise and certainly should be erosive of military morale, when something a grunt does for low pay is awarded to the bloodsuckers for megabucks.
Next time I see an article on this I will post it, I have read some on this subject.
lenal
:bat:
Next time I see an article on this I will post it, I have read some on this subject.
lenal
:bat:
I wasn't thinking of those contractors, but you're right, their impact (and it was completely predictable) should preclude their use to supplement both military and intelligence groups. If we need to increase incentives so be it! Then again, I even see major problems with Halliburton providing so many basic services, the military needs to be budgeted and planned to stand on its own as much as possible, to do otherwise undermines the troops.
Snip.....
I'll probably get jumped for this but a major source of our military being abused is retired brass working for contractors.
ends snip
Thanks for the amplification tomhye, I see now that you were thinking of retired military moving into the upper echelons of the defense industry, right?
lenal
I'll probably get jumped for this but a major source of our military being abused is retired brass working for contractors.
ends snip
Thanks for the amplification tomhye, I see now that you were thinking of retired military moving into the upper echelons of the defense industry, right?
lenal
QUOTE(lenal @ Oct 7 2006, 09:00 PM)
Snip.....
I'll probably get jumped for this but a major source of our military being abused is retired brass working for contractors.
ends snip
Thanks for the amplification tomhye, I see now that you were thinking of retired military moving into the upper echelons of the defense industry, right?
lenal
I'll probably get jumped for this but a major source of our military being abused is retired brass working for contractors.
ends snip
Thanks for the amplification tomhye, I see now that you were thinking of retired military moving into the upper echelons of the defense industry, right?
lenal
Yes, but your point was more than valid and I should have been thinking about that too.
JESUS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO SAY IT; HUMVEES ARE NOT AN ARMORED VEHICLE NOR WHEN THEY WERE SPEC'D AND PURCHASED WERE THEY EVER INTENDED TO BE AN ARMORED VEHICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Either y'all just don't pay attention or you are mind numb from the left wing kool aid.
HumVees were intended to replace the venerable old Jeep and the 1 ton utlity truck. The hillbilly armor on the HumVee speaks to the ingenuity of the American Soldier. There are better solutions than hanging a few metal plates, which may or may not have the metalurgical qualities to really be considered armor, than the HumVee.
I've seen armor hung on to a Jeep too, I wouldn't call it an armored car though
Either y'all just don't pay attention or you are mind numb from the left wing kool aid.
HumVees were intended to replace the venerable old Jeep and the 1 ton utlity truck. The hillbilly armor on the HumVee speaks to the ingenuity of the American Soldier. There are better solutions than hanging a few metal plates, which may or may not have the metalurgical qualities to really be considered armor, than the HumVee.
I've seen armor hung on to a Jeep too, I wouldn't call it an armored car though
QUOTE(Marine @ Oct 9 2006, 06:35 AM)
JESUS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO SAY IT; HUMVEES ARE NOT AN ARMORED VEHICLE NOR WHEN THEY WERE SPEC'D AND PURCHASED WERE THEY EVER INTENDED TO BE AN ARMORED VEHICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Either y'all just don't pay attention or you are mind numb from the left wing kool aid.
HumVees were intended to replace the venerable old Jeep and the 1 ton utlity truck. The hillbilly armor on the HumVee speaks to the ingenuity of the American Soldier. There are better solutions than hanging a few metal plates, which may or may not have the metalurgical qualities to really be considered armor, than the HumVee.
I've seen armor hung on to a Jeep too, I wouldn't call it an armored car though
Either y'all just don't pay attention or you are mind numb from the left wing kool aid.
HumVees were intended to replace the venerable old Jeep and the 1 ton utlity truck. The hillbilly armor on the HumVee speaks to the ingenuity of the American Soldier. There are better solutions than hanging a few metal plates, which may or may not have the metalurgical qualities to really be considered armor, than the HumVee.
I've seen armor hung on to a Jeep too, I wouldn't call it an armored car though
Your ultra sensitivity is showing again. Here take two chill pills,
and call your doc in the morning.Maybe you can send a template to whoever is so offending.Specification for required terminology when mentioning anything relating to military.No use blowing gaskets unnecessarily.
lenal
QUOTE(lenal @ Oct 9 2006, 11:35 PM)
Your ultra sensitivity is showing again. Here take two chill pills, and call your doc in the morning.
Maybe you can send a template to whoever is so offending.Specification for required terminology when mentioning anything relating to military.No use blowing gaskets unnecessarily.
lenal
and call your doc in the morning.Maybe you can send a template to whoever is so offending.Specification for required terminology when mentioning anything relating to military.No use blowing gaskets unnecessarily.
lenal
No Lenal, I'm just fed up with the left wing bloggers seizing upon a topic which is totally irrelevant. I believe I'd call it smoke and mirrors.
The HumVee was designed, spec'd, thought out, and purchased to be a replacement for the Jeep and the one ton utility truck. The standard armor on the HumVee is designed to stop fragments from not a direct hit mortar round or grenade or an AK-47 round fired from a fair distance. It was never designed, spec'd out, thought out, or purchased to used as an armored reconaisance vehicle which the left wing bloggers keep implying.
This topic keeps emerging about every 2 or 3 months so I would suspect that the left wing bloggers feel somehow Joe and Jane Average American are sitting around wringing their hands that our military has been saddled with an inferior piece of equipment. I guess these left wing bloggers somehow believe this will some how discredit the Bush administation.
If the Bush administration has done some to be discredited over that is fine and dandy but inventing something out of the thin blue is horse hockey. It invites those who know better to really question if the democrats really got such a good message then why do they need to make things up like this? And sooner or later, everyone figures these things out; some people are just a bit slower than others.
We'll respectfully disagree with what the message is, I see the deserved criticism as targeting the lack of providing the appropriate vehicle whether someone is precise enough to describe such to your military spec---- this is primarily,I suppose, a unavoidable civilian flaw and not a left wing blog scheme. It in no way delegitimizes the present facts in the Pentagon mismanagement. The albatross of cost plus and no bids, or limited participation, short changes the forces. Raids the treasury. Weakens our capabilites and let's hope there will be more sunshine on the problems and a acknowledgement that we can have a better supplied and managed military if audit principles are not continually ignored.
Let's hear it all -- decisions are too often not what best suits the force but who can grow the fattest on the contracts. Too often the result is inferior equipment that the forces have to contend with and which does result in malfunctions that add to the loss of military lives.
We have an over-buttered bureacracy that is almost a sabotage of efforts to get a better bang for the bucks.
lenal
Let's hear it all -- decisions are too often not what best suits the force but who can grow the fattest on the contracts. Too often the result is inferior equipment that the forces have to contend with and which does result in malfunctions that add to the loss of military lives.
We have an over-buttered bureacracy that is almost a sabotage of efforts to get a better bang for the bucks.
lenal
QUOTE(Marine @ Oct 6 2006, 10:26 AM)
Body armor is all well and good but when it's took to an extreme it's not worth it.
One fellow coming home from Iraq told me some of the body armor is like strapping two bags of sackrete to your body, one in front and one in back. Sure it will stop a bullet but try running a quarter of a mile, jump a couple of ditches along the way, plus climb a wall, and all in 115 degree heat.
His question was do you want to die fron a heat stroke or die from a bullet?
I'm all for our troops having the best available equipment but I got used to dealing with hand me downs and making do with what I got.
Some of what we moan and groan about is because what we are using was never intended to be used the way it is being used. I remember a lot of talk about us sending troops out in insufficiently armored HumVees. The HumVee was never intended to be an armored vehicle, wasn't designed to fulfill that role. The HumVee was meant to replace the Jeep and the 1 ton utility truck. The standard armor on a HumVee is designed to stop shrapenal , fragmentation, and a long off AK-47 round.
The Hillbilly armor we add on does all kinds of strange things to the HumVee's handling and causes many a maintenance nightmare.
The only advantage I ever saw the HumVee had over the Jeep is the HumVee is so damned big it's hard to lose them when you've forgot were you left one in the boonies.
One fellow coming home from Iraq told me some of the body armor is like strapping two bags of sackrete to your body, one in front and one in back. Sure it will stop a bullet but try running a quarter of a mile, jump a couple of ditches along the way, plus climb a wall, and all in 115 degree heat.
His question was do you want to die fron a heat stroke or die from a bullet?
I'm all for our troops having the best available equipment but I got used to dealing with hand me downs and making do with what I got.
Some of what we moan and groan about is because what we are using was never intended to be used the way it is being used. I remember a lot of talk about us sending troops out in insufficiently armored HumVees. The HumVee was never intended to be an armored vehicle, wasn't designed to fulfill that role. The HumVee was meant to replace the Jeep and the 1 ton utility truck. The standard armor on a HumVee is designed to stop shrapenal , fragmentation, and a long off AK-47 round.
The Hillbilly armor we add on does all kinds of strange things to the HumVee's handling and causes many a maintenance nightmare.
The only advantage I ever saw the HumVee had over the Jeep is the HumVee is so damned big it's hard to lose them when you've forgot were you left one in the boonies.
ROTGLOL; Couldn't agree with you more. Know they have the shoulder "DAPs", the Groin guard, the neck guard, the throat guard... I felt like the a boy in a bubble; -- a 130 degree bubble some days.
guidance was to wear it all... in the up armor humvee...
trouble was the enemy was grouping more and more 155 rounds together in shape charges.
It didn't matter how much body armor you had or what kind of vehicle you were in.
If you like the up armor HumVees invest in Tires. We'd be swapping out tires monthly.
What we really could have used was intercomm headsets, hand helds, field computers and blue force trackers. Some of which we ordered on arrival and got a few weeks before we departed country.
LOL.
The first rotation of soldiers in our AO commonly rolled in SUV's on lease from local contractors. Then some Hum Vees, then fitted with "hillybilly" armor plates, then the M1116 and M1057.
There are drawbacks to the heavier vehicles. They definately are recognizable from a distance on the open road. They still roll over easily, they don't fit on some of the narrower streets limiting your access and easement routes. They need alot more maintenance and service. I could go on and on...
Given a choice of driving one vs. say legging it.... it's no contest.
The US Army is by far the best outfitted in the world. Are sleazy contractors on a heavy cream diet. yes some are. I don't equate it as a Demcratic or Republican issue... members from both have been invovled and neither party has a system for policing their own.
There are drawbacks to the heavier vehicles. They definately are recognizable from a distance on the open road. They still roll over easily, they don't fit on some of the narrower streets limiting your access and easement routes. They need alot more maintenance and service. I could go on and on...
Given a choice of driving one vs. say legging it.... it's no contest.
The US Army is by far the best outfitted in the world. Are sleazy contractors on a heavy cream diet. yes some are. I don't equate it as a Demcratic or Republican issue... members from both have been invovled and neither party has a system for policing their own.
QUOTE(lenal @ Oct 10 2006, 12:28 PM)
We'll respectfully disagree with what the message is, I see the deserved criticism as targeting the lack of providing the appropriate vehicle whether someone is precise enough to describe such to your military spec---- this is primarily,I suppose, a unavoidable civilian flaw and not a left wing blog scheme. It in no way delegitimizes the present facts in the Pentagon mismanagement. The albatross of cost plus and no bids, or limited participation, short changes the forces. Raids the treasury. Weakens our capabilites and let's hope there will be more sunshine on the problems and a acknowledgement that we can have a better supplied and managed military if audit principles are not continually ignored.
Let's hear it all -- decisions are too often not what best suits the force but who can grow the fattest on the contracts. Too often the result is inferior equipment that the forces have to contend with and which does result in malfunctions that add to the loss of military lives.
We have an over-buttered bureacracy that is almost a sabotage of efforts to get a better bang for the bucks.
lenal
Let's hear it all -- decisions are too often not what best suits the force but who can grow the fattest on the contracts. Too often the result is inferior equipment that the forces have to contend with and which does result in malfunctions that add to the loss of military lives.
We have an over-buttered bureacracy that is almost a sabotage of efforts to get a better bang for the bucks.
lenal
Well, I'd suggest going back and reaming on about the past 4 administrations and into the 1980s when all the decisions were made to purchase what they did then.
A whole lot of what you get from the "Generals Revolt" is from folks trained to deal with the Warsaw Pack being unwilling to learn to be lighter on their feet.
Have no doubt about it, the United States military is the best equipped and trained military ever to trod the face of this earth. I think if we had to we could take on the next two most powerful militaries currently on the face of this earth at the same time and still kick ass.
What we are dealing with in Iraq is like a swarm gnat biting an elephant, the elephant isn't equipped to deal all that well with a swarm of gnats but he'll get some everyday. We've lost about 2,700 people killed from all reasons in 3 and a half years, some of the battles of the first world war say over 20,000 people die in one day.
We're doing a hell of a lot better than the elitist in the MSM want us to believe we are.
To varying degrees I blame the last 8 administrations for the procurement problems (especially LBJ,Reagan and GWB) with regard to graft and overcharging (as well as planning more for profit than our troops), the last 2 for force reductions and the system (largely on the back of congress for the last 4 decades) for problems with lobbying and retirement careers.
We're doing a great job militarily, but it's counteracted by political and diplomatic failures (I include things like reconstruction contracts in those categories). From what I've seen if the administration would listen to input from troops who've been in country we'd do a lot better, unfortunately this doesn't seem to fit the agenda of either party.
We're doing a great job militarily, but it's counteracted by political and diplomatic failures (I include things like reconstruction contracts in those categories). From what I've seen if the administration would listen to input from troops who've been in country we'd do a lot better, unfortunately this doesn't seem to fit the agenda of either party.
QUOTE(Marine @ Oct 12 2006, 08:50 AM)
Well, I'd suggest going back and reaming on about the past 4 administrations and into the 1980s when all the decisions were made to purchase what they did then.
A whole lot of what you get from the "Generals Revolt" is from folks trained to deal with the Warsaw Pack being unwilling to learn to be lighter on their feet.
Have no doubt about it, the United States military is the best equipped and trained military ever to trod the face of this earth. I think if we had to we could take on the next two most powerful militaries currently on the face of this earth at the same time and still kick ass.
What we are dealing with in Iraq is like a swarm gnat biting an elephant, the elephant isn't equipped to deal all that well with a swarm of gnats but he'll get some everyday. We've lost about 2,700 people killed from all reasons in 3 and a half years, some of the battles of the first world war say over 20,000 people die in one day.
We're doing a hell of a lot better than the elitist in the MSM want us to believe we are.
A whole lot of what you get from the "Generals Revolt" is from folks trained to deal with the Warsaw Pack being unwilling to learn to be lighter on their feet.
Have no doubt about it, the United States military is the best equipped and trained military ever to trod the face of this earth. I think if we had to we could take on the next two most powerful militaries currently on the face of this earth at the same time and still kick ass.
What we are dealing with in Iraq is like a swarm gnat biting an elephant, the elephant isn't equipped to deal all that well with a swarm of gnats but he'll get some everyday. We've lost about 2,700 people killed from all reasons in 3 and a half years, some of the battles of the first world war say over 20,000 people die in one day.
We're doing a hell of a lot better than the elitist in the MSM want us to believe we are.
QUOTE(Marine @ Oct 12 2006, 11:50 AM)
Well, I'd suggest going back and reaming on about the past 4 administrations and into the 1980s when all the decisions were made to purchase what they did then.
A whole lot of what you get from the "Generals Revolt" is from folks trained to deal with the Warsaw Pack being unwilling to learn to be lighter on their feet.
Have no doubt about it, the United States military is the best equipped and trained military ever to trod the face of this earth. I think if we had to we could take on the next two most powerful militaries currently on the face of this earth at the same time and still kick ass.
What we are dealing with in Iraq is like a swarm gnat biting an elephant, the elephant isn't equipped to deal all that well with a swarm of gnats but he'll get some everyday. We've lost about 2,700 people killed from all reasons in 3 and a half years, some of the battles of the first world war say over 20,000 people die in one day.
We're doing a hell of a lot better than the elitist in the MSM want us to believe we are.
A whole lot of what you get from the "Generals Revolt" is from folks trained to deal with the Warsaw Pack being unwilling to learn to be lighter on their feet.
Have no doubt about it, the United States military is the best equipped and trained military ever to trod the face of this earth. I think if we had to we could take on the next two most powerful militaries currently on the face of this earth at the same time and still kick ass.
What we are dealing with in Iraq is like a swarm gnat biting an elephant, the elephant isn't equipped to deal all that well with a swarm of gnats but he'll get some everyday. We've lost about 2,700 people killed from all reasons in 3 and a half years, some of the battles of the first world war say over 20,000 people die in one day.
We're doing a hell of a lot better than the elitist in the MSM want us to believe we are.
What's an MSM?
It was only a few years ago I participated in an annual training event above Corps level that dealt with the N Korea and Chnese hords crossing the DMZ. I couldn't help but think... what happens when the NK tanks start to fall apart and run out of gas. Shouldn't we be training for capitulation of North Korea?and tens of thousands of starving refugees headed south?... the answer came back this is what we have been doing for 40 years. and it's way above your pay grade.
QUOTE(SFC_White @ Oct 12 2006, 10:09 AM)
What's an MSM?
It was only a few years ago I participated in an annual training event above Corps level that dealt with the N Korea and Chnese hords crossing the DMZ. I couldn't help but think... what happens when the NK tanks start to fall apart and run out of gas. Shouldn't we be training for capitulation of North Korea?and tens of thousands of starving refugees headed south?... the answer came back this is what we have been doing for 40 years. and it's way above your pay grade.
It was only a few years ago I participated in an annual training event above Corps level that dealt with the N Korea and Chnese hords crossing the DMZ. I couldn't help but think... what happens when the NK tanks start to fall apart and run out of gas. Shouldn't we be training for capitulation of North Korea?and tens of thousands of starving refugees headed south?... the answer came back this is what we have been doing for 40 years. and it's way above your pay grade.
Main Stream Media Top. I get pretty well fed up when Ted Turner or the like decides to put the political hit on anybody.
You're dead on about the Chinese made crap, Russian isn't much better. I'd participate in the NATO excercises where the godless Russian hordes would invade Europe; be glad you're a Soldier, their idea of how to use Marines sucked.
The Marines in the exercise are basically a light Infantry brigade, their idea of how best to use us was as a blocking force against the Soviet's Armor; our mission, hold em until the Army got their ammo passed out. I always knew those Army Generals didn't like Marines.
The umpires always ruled we was always all killed or captured, what a morale booster!
I got ya. I havn't been watching TV other than PBS and reruns of Raymond and some other comedy stuff. If I can't laugh at it, I'd rather be reading a book.
What's a Marine in Europe? A speed bump for a T-72.
Havn't got 1SG orders yet although they slotted me in July. This month I'll start drilling again so we'll see whats up.
What's a Marine in Europe? A speed bump for a T-72.
Havn't got 1SG orders yet although they slotted me in July. This month I'll start drilling again so we'll see whats up.
QUOTE(SFC_White @ Oct 12 2006, 12:02 PM)
I got ya. I havn't been watching TV other than PBS and reruns of Raymond and some other comedy stuff. If I can't laugh at it, I'd rather be reading a book.
What's a Marine in Europe? A speed bump for a T-72.
Havn't got 1SG orders yet although they slotted me in July. This month I'll start drilling again so we'll see whats up.
What's a Marine in Europe? A speed bump for a T-72.
Havn't got 1SG orders yet although they slotted me in July. This month I'll start drilling again so we'll see whats up.
Actually I prefer Dora the Explorer and Kipper the Dog; Pingu the Penguin brings up a close third though. (Who ever said Marines ain't cultured?)
In NATO exercises we actually scored pretty good against our adversaries until they figured out what a puny force we were, then they'd cream us. But that's what we were there for, speed bump for the T-72s.
Those orders will come; I had the same thing happen when I made E-7, the only thing I regreted was two jokers in the company actually got their stripes before me and felt entiled in assisting pinning mine on even though we all had the same date of rank.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Why_do_US_...tary_050503.htm
Why Do U.S. Military Helicopters Keep Crashing?
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
In the beginning weeks of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as during the war on terrorism, military helicopter crashes and "hard landings" were a common occurrence. A number of BuzzFlash readers wrote in to comment on this, with many questioning why U.S. helicopters seemed to pose more of a threat than the enemy.
Indeed, the war with Iraq was supposed to be an "ambitious test" for the Apache helicopters, which were never used in battle in Kosovo because of logistical problems and deadly training accidents. (Bear in mind that each AH-64A Apache costs at least $14 million, according to Jane’s Information Group and the U.S. Army. The newer version, the Longbow, costs about $18 million.)
The news media also began to raise questions -- and tried to provide answers. "Series of crashes highlights the vulnerability of copters," read a March 23, 2003 Boston Globe headline. "For soldiers, the crashes served as reminders that helicopters - the workhorses they rely on for quick delivery into and out of hostile areas, as well as countless more mundane operations - are delicate crafts whose stability can be easily affected by changes in weather and visibility and sudden maneuvers."
The Washington Post reported April 4: "After a spell of bad weather and hasty repairs, many of the high-tech Apaches attached to the Army's 11th Aviation Regiment are once again in the thick of war. But they are flying more cautious missions than the long-distance ones envisioned for the world's most advanced attack helicopters."
Writing in May 2002, James Ridgeway of the Village Voice may have been one of the first columnists to question the number of aircraft-related deaths in Afghanistan: "Could the lack of adequate maps have played a role? Were the deaths from poor training or musty equipment? One Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment. Another said the number of crashes didn't seem unusual to him," wrote Ridgeway.
"Helicopters hate dust, and there's plenty of it in Afghanistan," was the title of this Stars and Stripes story from Feb. 21, 2002. Dust and sandstorms were mentioned as contributing causes to helicopter malfunctions in Iraq, as well.
You just have to wonder: Didn't the military commanders know this would be a problem? Has the amount of sand increased so much since the 1991 Persian Gulf War that no one thought, gee, maybe helicopters aren't reliable for the sort of desert missions the military has planned?
The age of the helicopters was also frequently cited in the press: The CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter that crashed in Kuwait, killing 12 American and British soldiers, "was part of an aging U.S. Marine Corps fleet that is long overdue for retirement,"according to the Orlando Sentinel (via Stars and Stripes). "The CH-46 went out of production in 1971 and was scheduled to be phased out by 1999. But safety problems with its replacement, the V-22 Osprey, has the future of both helicopters in limbo. That leaves the marines with no choice but to keep flying their fleet of nearly 300 CH-46s into combat, where they are used primarily to transport troops and equipment."
(As an aside, Stars and Stripes reported in February, 2003 that by fiscal 2009, "the [Marine] Corps hopes to buy 117 of the Osprey for a total of $9.9 billion." Yes, folks, $9.9 billion -- even though the Osprey has been blamed for dozens of deaths and there have been charges of misconduct concerning the investigation into the troubled Osprey. "I've got some real problems with this airplane," Edward "Pete" Aldridge, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, logistics and technology, told defense reporters last August. "I'm probably the most skeptical person in the Defense Department at this time on the V-22." Knowing this doesn't raise performance expectations now, does it?)
Even amid all the controversy, some people aren't convinced that the military needs to take a hard look the role of helicopters: "In no uncertain terms are the rates we’re experiencing for all types of airframes out of the ordinary," Lt. Col. Benjamin Moody, the executive assistant for the Marine Corps' safety division, told Stars and Stripes April 7, referring to the number of helicopter accidents that occurred during the war with Iraq. "We’re doing fantastic," said Marine Col. David Kerrick, deputy commander of Naval Safety Center in Norfolk, Va.
Fortunately, however, not everyone’s buying that line.
Fred Kaplan, who’s been providing military analysis for Slate, called for reducing funding for the Longbow and the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter in this April 31 article. In a previous article, "Chop the Chopper," he wrote: "With [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld's star rising and the generals' tarnished, he can be expected to mount a new offensive on their bureaucratic turf at the first opportunity. He might want to start by junking the Army's attack helicopter. The current version, the AH-64D Apache Longbow, is in many ways a vast improvement over earlier models, but it is still too dangerous to the pilots who fly it and not dangerous enough to the enemy it's designed to attack."
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
* * *
For more information: See the U.S. Army aviation accident statistics for the current fiscal year. Class A accidents -- those in which damage exceeds $1 million or results in a fatality -- are up 60 percent over last year. The Navy and the Marines are also having off years, according to military data.
* * *
HELICOPTER FATALITES: 2001- 2003
U.S. Helicopter Fatalities
-- Due to Accidents Related to War on Terrorism/Operation Iraqi Freedom 2001-2003: 46
-- Due to Accidents, Other Parts of the World (noted with **): 14
Total: 60
U.S. Helicopter Fatalities
-- Due to Enemy Fire 2001-2003: 7
BuzzFlash has researched these incidents to the best of its ability, but may have overlooked something. If so, please let us know so we can provide the most accurate count.
* * *
Fatalities Due to Accidents
2003
Date: April 4, 2003
Place: Iraq
Number Killed: 2
Copter: AH-1W Super Cobra (U.S. Marines)
Mission: combat operations
Cause: under investigation
More: http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2411441p-2245183c.html
Date: April 2, 2003
Place: Iraq
Number Killed: 6 (4 others injured)
Copter: UH-60 Black Hawk (U.S. Army)
Mission: providing guidance to ground forces
Cause: under investigation: some initial reports indicated it was shot down by small arms fire near city of Karbala; mechanical trouble or friendly fire were later mentioned as possible causes
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...21&archive=true
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,929365,00.html
Date: March 30, 2003
Place: Iraq
Number Killed: 3 (1 other injured)
Copter: UH-1 N Huey (U.S. Marines)
Mission: combat operations
Cause: crashed on takeoff in southern Iraq after refueling
More: http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/...erecalleda.html
Date: March 23, 2003
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 6
Copter: HH-60G Pave Hawk (U.S. Air Force)
Mission: medical evacuation
Cause: under investigation
More: Article Link
Date: March 21, 2003
Place: Kuwait
Number Killed: 12 (4 American, 8 British)
Copter: CH-46E (U.S. Marine)
Mission: assault on Iraq's Faw peninsula
Cause: under investigation
More: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030321_131.html
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...10&archive=true
Date: March 11, 2003 **
Place: Fort Drum Army post, New York
Number Killed: 11
Copter: Black Hawk (U.S. Army)
Mission: routine training exercise
Cause: under investigation
More: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/14...l.ap/index.html
Date: Feb. 25, 2003
Place: Kuwait
Number Killed: 4
Copter: UH-60 Black Hawk
Mission: practicing use of night-vision goggles in desert
Cause: under investigation; weather conditions listed as windy and dusty
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...42&archive=true
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...56&archive=true
Date: Jan. 30, 2003
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 4
Copter: MH-60 Black Hawk (U.S. Army)
Mission: nighttime training
Cause: under investigation
More: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/cent...licopter.crash/
2002
Date: Aug. 21, 2002 **
Place: South Korea
Number Killed: 2
Copter: AH-64 Apache (U.S. Army)
Mission: training flight; en route to base camp when copter disappeared
Cause: under investigation; chopper slammed into hillside above a car tunnel
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...41&archive=true
(This crash followed an Aug. 1 crash in South Korea in which the two-member crew survived, but the AH-64D Longbow helicopter caught fire and burned: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...2&archive=true)
Date: June 12, 2002
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 3 (2 airmen, 1 soldier died; 7 members injured)
Copter: MC-130H Combat Talon
Mission: had just taken off from dirt airstrip
Cause: under investigation; high winds, poor visibility noted
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...81&archive=true
Date: Feb. 22, 2002
Place: southern Philippines
Number Killed: 10 (8 soldiers, 2 Air Force members)
Copter: MH-47E Chinook (Special Ops Airborne)
Mission: en route to Mactan air base, logistics base for anti-terrorist training operation, after flying troops and supplies from bases to staging areas on Basilan island
Cause: under investigation
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...78&archive=true
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...70&archive=true
Date: Jan. 20, 2002
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 2 (5 others injured)
Copter: CH53 Echo (U.S. Marines)
Mission: re-supply mission
Cause: Rumsfeld says on "Meet the Press" it appears to be due to "a mechanical problem"
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...63&archive=true
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/cent...licopter.crash/
2001
Date: Oct. 19, 2001
Place: Pakistan
Number Killed: 2
Copter: Blackhawk (U.S. Army)
Mission: waiting in Pakistani airspace to provide rescue help, if needed, for about 100 commandos raiding Taliban complexes near Kandahar
Cause: under investigation, swirling dust thought to be cause
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...46&archive=true
Date: Oct. 11, 2001 **
Place: Poland
Number Killed: 1 (co-pilot injured)
Copter: AH-64 Apache
Mission: routine training mission, part of Victory Strike II, a V Corps attack-helicopter training exercise.
Cause: under investigation, copter made a "hard landing"
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...44&archive=true
* * *
Fatalities Due to Enemy Fire
Date: March 4, 2002
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 6 (approximately 11 injured)
Copter: MH-47
Mission: Operation Anaconda (offensive combat with Al Qaeda and Taliban)
Cause: small-arms fire caused copter to make a "hard landing"; deaths may have been the result of gunfire that occurred after landing
Date: March 4, 2002
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 1
Copter: MH-47
Mission: Operation Anaconda (offensive combat with Al Qaeda and Taliban)
Cause: A grenade bounced off the helicopter when it was airborne, and one soldier fell to his death
More: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/march0...copter_3-4.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/cent...fghan.fighting/
POWs Captured As Result Of Enemy Fire
Date: March 24, 2003
Place: Iraq
Number Captured: 2
Copter: Apache
Mission: nighttime combat
Cause: small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/internat...24CND-HELI.html
"With a hail of small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, Iraqi forces downed two Apache helicopters today and forced 30 other helicopters in their brigade back to their base. … All 32 helicopters sustained some damage, occasionally slight, Army officials said, in what was a significant setback for the allies."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing like living in the area where many of these are either manufactured or tested or both, and hearing over the years of all the problems and knowing that they are still being pushed, evidently not on merit.
(Color added to article text for emphasis by poster.)
lenal
Why Do U.S. Military Helicopters Keep Crashing?
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
In the beginning weeks of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as during the war on terrorism, military helicopter crashes and "hard landings" were a common occurrence. A number of BuzzFlash readers wrote in to comment on this, with many questioning why U.S. helicopters seemed to pose more of a threat than the enemy.
Indeed, the war with Iraq was supposed to be an "ambitious test" for the Apache helicopters, which were never used in battle in Kosovo because of logistical problems and deadly training accidents. (Bear in mind that each AH-64A Apache costs at least $14 million, according to Jane’s Information Group and the U.S. Army. The newer version, the Longbow, costs about $18 million.)
The news media also began to raise questions -- and tried to provide answers. "Series of crashes highlights the vulnerability of copters," read a March 23, 2003 Boston Globe headline. "For soldiers, the crashes served as reminders that helicopters - the workhorses they rely on for quick delivery into and out of hostile areas, as well as countless more mundane operations - are delicate crafts whose stability can be easily affected by changes in weather and visibility and sudden maneuvers."
The Washington Post reported April 4: "After a spell of bad weather and hasty repairs, many of the high-tech Apaches attached to the Army's 11th Aviation Regiment are once again in the thick of war. But they are flying more cautious missions than the long-distance ones envisioned for the world's most advanced attack helicopters."
Writing in May 2002, James Ridgeway of the Village Voice may have been one of the first columnists to question the number of aircraft-related deaths in Afghanistan: "Could the lack of adequate maps have played a role? Were the deaths from poor training or musty equipment? One Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment. Another said the number of crashes didn't seem unusual to him," wrote Ridgeway.
"Helicopters hate dust, and there's plenty of it in Afghanistan," was the title of this Stars and Stripes story from Feb. 21, 2002. Dust and sandstorms were mentioned as contributing causes to helicopter malfunctions in Iraq, as well.
You just have to wonder: Didn't the military commanders know this would be a problem? Has the amount of sand increased so much since the 1991 Persian Gulf War that no one thought, gee, maybe helicopters aren't reliable for the sort of desert missions the military has planned?
The age of the helicopters was also frequently cited in the press: The CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter that crashed in Kuwait, killing 12 American and British soldiers, "was part of an aging U.S. Marine Corps fleet that is long overdue for retirement,"according to the Orlando Sentinel (via Stars and Stripes). "The CH-46 went out of production in 1971 and was scheduled to be phased out by 1999. But safety problems with its replacement, the V-22 Osprey, has the future of both helicopters in limbo. That leaves the marines with no choice but to keep flying their fleet of nearly 300 CH-46s into combat, where they are used primarily to transport troops and equipment."
(As an aside, Stars and Stripes reported in February, 2003 that by fiscal 2009, "the [Marine] Corps hopes to buy 117 of the Osprey for a total of $9.9 billion." Yes, folks, $9.9 billion -- even though the Osprey has been blamed for dozens of deaths and there have been charges of misconduct concerning the investigation into the troubled Osprey. "I've got some real problems with this airplane," Edward "Pete" Aldridge, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, logistics and technology, told defense reporters last August. "I'm probably the most skeptical person in the Defense Department at this time on the V-22." Knowing this doesn't raise performance expectations now, does it?)
Even amid all the controversy, some people aren't convinced that the military needs to take a hard look the role of helicopters: "In no uncertain terms are the rates we’re experiencing for all types of airframes out of the ordinary," Lt. Col. Benjamin Moody, the executive assistant for the Marine Corps' safety division, told Stars and Stripes April 7, referring to the number of helicopter accidents that occurred during the war with Iraq. "We’re doing fantastic," said Marine Col. David Kerrick, deputy commander of Naval Safety Center in Norfolk, Va.
Fortunately, however, not everyone’s buying that line.
Fred Kaplan, who’s been providing military analysis for Slate, called for reducing funding for the Longbow and the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter in this April 31 article. In a previous article, "Chop the Chopper," he wrote: "With [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld's star rising and the generals' tarnished, he can be expected to mount a new offensive on their bureaucratic turf at the first opportunity. He might want to start by junking the Army's attack helicopter. The current version, the AH-64D Apache Longbow, is in many ways a vast improvement over earlier models, but it is still too dangerous to the pilots who fly it and not dangerous enough to the enemy it's designed to attack."
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
* * *
For more information: See the U.S. Army aviation accident statistics for the current fiscal year. Class A accidents -- those in which damage exceeds $1 million or results in a fatality -- are up 60 percent over last year. The Navy and the Marines are also having off years, according to military data.
* * *
HELICOPTER FATALITES: 2001- 2003
U.S. Helicopter Fatalities
-- Due to Accidents Related to War on Terrorism/Operation Iraqi Freedom 2001-2003: 46
-- Due to Accidents, Other Parts of the World (noted with **): 14
Total: 60
U.S. Helicopter Fatalities
-- Due to Enemy Fire 2001-2003: 7
BuzzFlash has researched these incidents to the best of its ability, but may have overlooked something. If so, please let us know so we can provide the most accurate count.
* * *
Fatalities Due to Accidents
2003
Date: April 4, 2003
Place: Iraq
Number Killed: 2
Copter: AH-1W Super Cobra (U.S. Marines)
Mission: combat operations
Cause: under investigation
More: http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2411441p-2245183c.html
Date: April 2, 2003
Place: Iraq
Number Killed: 6 (4 others injured)
Copter: UH-60 Black Hawk (U.S. Army)
Mission: providing guidance to ground forces
Cause: under investigation: some initial reports indicated it was shot down by small arms fire near city of Karbala; mechanical trouble or friendly fire were later mentioned as possible causes
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...21&archive=true
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,929365,00.html
Date: March 30, 2003
Place: Iraq
Number Killed: 3 (1 other injured)
Copter: UH-1 N Huey (U.S. Marines)
Mission: combat operations
Cause: crashed on takeoff in southern Iraq after refueling
More: http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/...erecalleda.html
Date: March 23, 2003
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 6
Copter: HH-60G Pave Hawk (U.S. Air Force)
Mission: medical evacuation
Cause: under investigation
More: Article Link
Date: March 21, 2003
Place: Kuwait
Number Killed: 12 (4 American, 8 British)
Copter: CH-46E (U.S. Marine)
Mission: assault on Iraq's Faw peninsula
Cause: under investigation
More: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030321_131.html
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...10&archive=true
Date: March 11, 2003 **
Place: Fort Drum Army post, New York
Number Killed: 11
Copter: Black Hawk (U.S. Army)
Mission: routine training exercise
Cause: under investigation
More: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/14...l.ap/index.html
Date: Feb. 25, 2003
Place: Kuwait
Number Killed: 4
Copter: UH-60 Black Hawk
Mission: practicing use of night-vision goggles in desert
Cause: under investigation; weather conditions listed as windy and dusty
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...42&archive=true
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...56&archive=true
Date: Jan. 30, 2003
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 4
Copter: MH-60 Black Hawk (U.S. Army)
Mission: nighttime training
Cause: under investigation
More: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/cent...licopter.crash/
2002
Date: Aug. 21, 2002 **
Place: South Korea
Number Killed: 2
Copter: AH-64 Apache (U.S. Army)
Mission: training flight; en route to base camp when copter disappeared
Cause: under investigation; chopper slammed into hillside above a car tunnel
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...41&archive=true
(This crash followed an Aug. 1 crash in South Korea in which the two-member crew survived, but the AH-64D Longbow helicopter caught fire and burned: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...2&archive=true)
Date: June 12, 2002
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 3 (2 airmen, 1 soldier died; 7 members injured)
Copter: MC-130H Combat Talon
Mission: had just taken off from dirt airstrip
Cause: under investigation; high winds, poor visibility noted
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...81&archive=true
Date: Feb. 22, 2002
Place: southern Philippines
Number Killed: 10 (8 soldiers, 2 Air Force members)
Copter: MH-47E Chinook (Special Ops Airborne)
Mission: en route to Mactan air base, logistics base for anti-terrorist training operation, after flying troops and supplies from bases to staging areas on Basilan island
Cause: under investigation
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...78&archive=true
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...70&archive=true
Date: Jan. 20, 2002
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 2 (5 others injured)
Copter: CH53 Echo (U.S. Marines)
Mission: re-supply mission
Cause: Rumsfeld says on "Meet the Press" it appears to be due to "a mechanical problem"
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...63&archive=true
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/cent...licopter.crash/
2001
Date: Oct. 19, 2001
Place: Pakistan
Number Killed: 2
Copter: Blackhawk (U.S. Army)
Mission: waiting in Pakistani airspace to provide rescue help, if needed, for about 100 commandos raiding Taliban complexes near Kandahar
Cause: under investigation, swirling dust thought to be cause
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...46&archive=true
Date: Oct. 11, 2001 **
Place: Poland
Number Killed: 1 (co-pilot injured)
Copter: AH-64 Apache
Mission: routine training mission, part of Victory Strike II, a V Corps attack-helicopter training exercise.
Cause: under investigation, copter made a "hard landing"
More: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...44&archive=true
* * *
Fatalities Due to Enemy Fire
Date: March 4, 2002
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 6 (approximately 11 injured)
Copter: MH-47
Mission: Operation Anaconda (offensive combat with Al Qaeda and Taliban)
Cause: small-arms fire caused copter to make a "hard landing"; deaths may have been the result of gunfire that occurred after landing
Date: March 4, 2002
Place: Afghanistan
Number Killed: 1
Copter: MH-47
Mission: Operation Anaconda (offensive combat with Al Qaeda and Taliban)
Cause: A grenade bounced off the helicopter when it was airborne, and one soldier fell to his death
More: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/march0...copter_3-4.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/cent...fghan.fighting/
POWs Captured As Result Of Enemy Fire
Date: March 24, 2003
Place: Iraq
Number Captured: 2
Copter: Apache
Mission: nighttime combat
Cause: small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/internat...24CND-HELI.html
"With a hail of small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, Iraqi forces downed two Apache helicopters today and forced 30 other helicopters in their brigade back to their base. … All 32 helicopters sustained some damage, occasionally slight, Army officials said, in what was a significant setback for the allies."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing like living in the area where many of these are either manufactured or tested or both, and hearing over the years of all the problems and knowing that they are still being pushed, evidently not on merit.
(Color added to article text for emphasis by poster.)
lenal
I was going through the responses candidates send to the league of women voters in my county/state. I noticed this is not just a federal issue. Check out Governors positions on Federalizing state troops and under what conditions.
States are giving up those military personnel to war. The states are arguing this point at a state gubernatorial and legislative level.
Remember Katrina, there state militia was in Iraq and many lost homes and family when they could have been here saving them.
If I had a youngster right now I would guide them toward the coast guard and let them defend our country from our own borders.
States are giving up those military personnel to war. The states are arguing this point at a state gubernatorial and legislative level.
Remember Katrina, there state militia was in Iraq and many lost homes and family when they could have been here saving them.
If I had a youngster right now I would guide them toward the coast guard and let them defend our country from our own borders.
As bad and as dangerous as helicopters are... they still are dam effective at CAS (that's Close Air Support for you civilians).
Thermal night observation, providing overwatch while we recover a vehicle hit with an IED; med evacs, setting up quick Traffic Control points....etc, etc,
They don't like sand this is true... I don't know of any combustion engine that does....
Thermal night observation, providing overwatch while we recover a vehicle hit with an IED; med evacs, setting up quick Traffic Control points....etc, etc,
They don't like sand this is true... I don't know of any combustion engine that does....
Oh yeah, helicoptors are dangerous. I can personally testify to that fact.
I am probably the only person living who has fell out of a helicopter twice and is alive to tell about it.
First time, I stopped to talk to the crew chief, wasn't aware the bird had lifted off while I was jacking my jaw, turned around and stepped out into thin air from about 20-25 feet off the ground. That only resulted in wearing a cast from my hip to my ankle for six weeks.
Second time, me and five other Marines were standing at the open ramp to get off quick, the pilot came in too hard, stood the bird on it's tail to slow her down, and dumped all six of us out the opened ramp. That one almost got me medicaled out of the Marines.
The military can be a dangerous profession.
I am probably the only person living who has fell out of a helicopter twice and is alive to tell about it.
First time, I stopped to talk to the crew chief, wasn't aware the bird had lifted off while I was jacking my jaw, turned around and stepped out into thin air from about 20-25 feet off the ground. That only resulted in wearing a cast from my hip to my ankle for six weeks.
Second time, me and five other Marines were standing at the open ramp to get off quick, the pilot came in too hard, stood the bird on it's tail to slow her down, and dumped all six of us out the opened ramp. That one almost got me medicaled out of the Marines.
The military can be a dangerous profession.
QUOTE(SFC_White @ Oct 13 2006, 09:16 AM)
They don't like sand this is true... I don't know of any combustion engine that does....
Methinks 'tain't just combustion engines sand screws up. Y'all oughta see what it does to winches, turbines, and even the paint on the hulls of ships operatin' in the Persian Gulf, eh? Seems like anything it can get into and screw up it does!
Wow you are a lucky Sumovabi1ch Marine.
That moon dust could really mess up the crew served weapons too We' had them mounted on the HMMV.
One day of riding and they come back looking like it fell in the crapper along with the gunner.
I'm still washing that talcum power dust out of the clothes.
That moon dust could really mess up the crew served weapons too We' had them mounted on the HMMV.
One day of riding and they come back looking like it fell in the crapper along with the gunner.
I'm still washing that talcum power dust out of the clothes.
QUOTE(SFC_White @ Oct 16 2006, 03:16 PM)
Wow you are a lucky Sumovabi1ch Marine.
That moon dust could really mess up the crew served weapons too We' had them mounted on the HMMV.
One day of riding and they come back looking like it fell in the crapper along with the gunner.
I'm still washing that talcum power dust out of the clothes.
That moon dust could really mess up the crew served weapons too We' had them mounted on the HMMV.
One day of riding and they come back looking like it fell in the crapper along with the gunner.
I'm still washing that talcum power dust out of the clothes.
Will the clothes tolerate being washed in very slightly acidic water? I'm thinking along the lines of how a squeeze of lemon or a trace of instant tea powder get water into your system faster, by breaking the water down from clumps of 24 molecules to clumps of 6. That might give the extra penetration to push the powder out.
QUOTE(SFC_White @ Oct 16 2006, 04:16 PM)
Wow you are a lucky Sumovabi1ch Marine.
That moon dust could really mess up the crew served weapons too We' had them mounted on the HMMV.
One day of riding and they come back looking like it fell in the crapper along with the gunner.
I'm still washing that talcum power dust out of the clothes.
That moon dust could really mess up the crew served weapons too We' had them mounted on the HMMV.
One day of riding and they come back looking like it fell in the crapper along with the gunner.
I'm still washing that talcum power dust out of the clothes.
I've forgotten how many concussions I had but it enough to make a NFL quarterback look like a wussie.
The last one I got was after I retired in an auto accident about 3 years ago. Had to get an MRI of my head because this concussion was really deabilatating.
The Doc said one more time may be it for me; no more Rugby, parachutes, not so much as a ladder.
One consolation, I don't know when but the Doc virtually assure me I'd check out with a cerebral hemmorage some day. Sort of nice knowing how your going to die, huh?
Speaking of dust, here in Texas we were in a two year drought, I can relate to a little of the dust like you been dealing with. When I ran my tractor up and down the field cutting hay two weeks ago I had to wear a dust mask so as to breath.
When I came in from the field I was uni-color gray. My wife made me strip off out in the barn yard and hose down with a garden hose. Good thing we live in the boonies, eh?
If anyone's still interested in this topic methinks an item from the Annenberg Center at the University of PA might bear some consideration. See "Hurting the Troops?" for some good examples how politicians misuse our military and things affectin' them rhetorically for their own purposes, eh?
QUOTE(flydangler @ Oct 31 2006, 06:05 PM)
If anyone's still interested in this topic methinks an item from the Annenberg Center at the University of PA might bear some consideration. See "Hurting the Troops?" for some good examples how politicians misuse our military and things affectin' them rhetorically for their own purposes, eh?
It's not just democrats doing it Doc.
Vaughn posted a website in this thread assigning grades to lawmakers. I don't have a thing against this organization and it appears about 95% of the time they are non partisan and are looking out for the troops. But, whoever assigned the criteria for the grades assigned them in mind to give a biased result.
I don't know if I'd call that misuse of military personel of just plain old deceptive politiking.
QUOTE(Marine @ Oct 31 2006, 10:21 PM)
Vaughn posted a website in this thread assigning grades to lawmakers. I don't have a thing against this organization and it appears about 95% of the time they are non partisan and are looking out for the troops. But, whoever assigned the criteria for the grades assigned them in mind to give a biased result.
I've been doin' a whole bunch of comparin' of individual legislators' results from that site since someone else posted it before he did, and methinks when I get finished and write up what I found you might think differently. Seems the criteria for different politicians wasn't all the same as claimed, and legislation for each was selected and scored differently to give Dems much higher scores. When they gave Senator McCain a D- and Congressman Patrick Kennedy an A- I got real suspicious. That's why I checked it all out and finally figured what they did and how they did it.
Hopefully I'll finish tomorrow and you can see for yourself.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.