Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News 824 New Armored Humvees sitting in lot in Kuwait

  1. Oct 21, 2005 #1
    It must be cheaper for the military to replace soldiers than Humvees. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of military snafu and bureaucratic bungling.

    It is my understanding that the new humvees also need an electronics upgrade that will require two months to complete. I have also read that the company in Ohio which makes the armor for the hummers has refused to license its technology to other companies, so that production could be speeded up. Are we at war or are we just playing corporate games in Iraq?:grumpy:

  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 21, 2005 #2
    *sigh* I'll give the same answer I gave last time someone asked that, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the... oh screw it.
  4. Oct 21, 2005 #3
    Only American soldiers travel in humvees in Iraq.

  5. Oct 21, 2005 #4
    It turns out that the Ohio company which manufactures the aromor plate for the humvees, and refuses to share it's technology and production, has friends in high places.

    http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/2005/06/ogarahess_eisen.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  6. Oct 21, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    We should strap our politicians to electrical chairs, so that when they conduct some sort of corrupt behavior, the nation can take a vote on it and execute them right on the spot. Oh, and I'm serious o:)
  7. Oct 21, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The company is, IMO, entirely within its rights to do that. It's the Govt's job to find more sources if it wants to keep the troops safer.
  8. Oct 21, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    How can the gov't find new sources if the company owns the patent and will not licence it? :confused:
  9. Oct 21, 2005 #8
    Governments can take over patents in times of need. War generally falls under this catagory.
  10. Oct 21, 2005 #9


    User Avatar

    My understanding is that under the international TRIPS agreement there must be a national emergency before the gov't can override a patent but besides that it was simply the apparently self-contradictory posting by Gokul I was questioning.
  11. Oct 21, 2005 #10
    This situation has cost the lives of a lot of young soldiers. To me that is a national emergency.

    During the first year of WWII U.S. companies banded together and turned out 9,000 Sherman tanks. Yet it took over a year to build 1000 armored humvees.
  12. Oct 21, 2005 #11
    Actually that deciscion was up to the federal government. They choose to buckle under to the lobbying of campaign contributor Armor Holdings inc.

    Armor Holdings, the manufacturer of the defective body armor that was first used in Iraq, also got the contract to manufacture the replacement body armor.
  13. Oct 21, 2005 #12
    What kind of idiot would do that? Defective body armor is a deal breaker in my book. :grumpy:
  14. Oct 21, 2005 #13
    I also question the fact that Armor Holdings, which manufactures the humvee armor in Akron Ohio, got the contract just before the 2004 election.

    Sept. 15, 2004 - Diversified manufacturer Armor Holdings Inc. received a $135 million contract award to provide additional M1114 Up-Armored HMMWVs to the U.S. Army. The total contract is now over $650 million.:grumpy:
  15. Oct 21, 2005 #14
    3 things:
    Yeah, and the Sherman was a real masterpiece too. :wink:
    Is the US legally at war though? I though? Has congress ratified it yet? (do they need to? I'm not sure what the american system is like)
    You know, it seems to me that it's the same people who complain about the war costing so much $$ that also complain about it not using expensive-enough equipment. :rolleyes:
    That's stupid. I'm serious too.
  16. Oct 21, 2005 #15
    Yes, the US is legally at war. Just like the US (SC ruled as much way back in the day) was at war in Viet Nam. Congress has authorized the war by funding it. The president has a legal "right" if you will to use the military for 90 days before congressional acquescence is needed. We have been there for what, two years? Congress is paying the bills thus they have accepted the conflict as a war.
  17. Oct 21, 2005 #16
    Another irony is that there was a far superior armored vehicle which had gone into limited production in 1999. It is the M1117 mentioned below. The Bush Administration cancelled the contract in 2002, just before the invasion of Iraq.:grumpy: There are two other vehicles available, the Rhino, and the Cougar. these vehicles are in Iraq in limited numbers and are used for visiting VIP's

  18. Oct 21, 2005 #17

    I have seen a lot of complaints about the overall cost of the war and the rebuilding of iraq, but I have seen no one complain about the cost of defending our troops.
    The cost of the equipment used on the ground in Iraq is only a very small fraction of the cost of the war. Now what the government is paying Halliburton, that is quite another story.
  19. Oct 21, 2005 #18
    So what people are really complaining about is funds being used to rebuild the country they just destroyed? They'd rather buy some fancy new guns...
  20. Oct 21, 2005 #19
    Actually my biggest complaint is that there are millions of dollars which went to companies like Haliburton, that are not accounted for. So far not much of Iraq has been rebuilt.

    I am not at all in favor of the war. This is a Dick Cheney, Donal Rumsfeld war that was promoted by their spokesperson, GW Bush.

    On the other hand I will always support the troops on the ground. They are a bunch of ordinary kids thrust into an extraordinary situation. I have been there and done that in my youth. I will always support the ordinary soldier, but not necessarily the tasks that they are ordered to carry out.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2005
  21. Oct 22, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I didn't say "new sources for the same patented armor". There are dozens of different grades of armor out there made by dozens of different manufacturers.

    Going back to the same company that made faulty armor ??!! That's just plain ridiculous !! :mad:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook