824 New Armored Humvees sitting in lot in Kuwait

  • News
  • Thread starter edward
  • Start date
  • #1
67
166
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:


Washington -- House lawmakers grilled Army officials Thursday about 824 top-of-the-line armored humvees sitting idle in a Kuwait parking lot at a time when Army and Marine Corps forces in Iraq need them for protection against roadside bombs and insurgent attacks.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/21/MNGH7FBR5D1.DTL
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
356
3
edward said:
Are we at war or are we just playing corporate games in Iraq?:grumpy:
*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.
 
  • #3
67
166
Only American soldiers travel in humvees in Iraq.

Yet the Bush administration has not made a top priority of replacing the Humvee with a modern armored vehicle.

When Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq last year, he traveled in an armored Rhino Runner, borrowed from the Halliburton Corporation, made by an American manufacturer in Israel. This “rolling fortress of steel,” Moss wrote, costs $250,000, while an armored humvee averages $140,000.

Members of Congress who have visited Iraq prefer the M1117 made in Louisiana by Texatron that costs $700,000.

State department officials travel in the Cougar, a $630,000 vehicle made by a small company called Force Protection.
 
  • #4
67
166
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.


The New York Times had two very enlightening stories yesterday worth mentioning. The first discussed the Pentagon's refusal to supply the troops with safer humvees. Turns out there's an exclusive humvee production contract held by an inept company called O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt. Not surprisingly, Warren B. Kanders, the CEO of O'Gara's parent company, Armor Holdings, was a big contributor to the Bush campaign. The failure to produce the humvees needed to keep our troops safe is in part a result of O'Gara's lobbying to keep their exclusive contract with our military. From NYTimes:
http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/2005/06/ogarahess_eisen.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
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:)
 
  • #6
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
edward said:
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.
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.
 
  • #7
Art
Gokul43201 said:
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.
How can the gov't find new sources if the company owns the patent and will not licence it? :confused:
 
  • #8
691
1
Art said:
How can the gov't find new sources if the company owns the patent and will not licence it? :confused:

Governments can take over patents in times of need. War generally falls under this catagory.
 
  • #9
Art
faust9 said:
Governments can take over patents in times of need. War generally falls under this catagory.
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.
 
  • #10
67
166
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.
 
  • #11
67
166
Gokul43201 said:
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.

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.
 
  • #12
221
0
edward said:
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.

What kind of idiot would do that? Defective body armor is a deal breaker in my book. :grumpy:
 
  • #13
67
166
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:
 
  • #14
356
3
3 things:
edward said:
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.
Yeah, and the Sherman was a real masterpiece too. :wink:
faust9 said:
Governments can take over patents in times of need. War generally falls under this catagory.
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)
edward's link said:
Yet the Bush administration has not made a top priority of replacing the Humvee with a modern armored vehicle.
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:
cronxeh said:
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
That's stupid. I'm serious too.
 
  • #15
691
1
Smurf said:
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.

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.
 
  • #16
67
166
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


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.
 
  • #17
67
166
Smurf said:
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.


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.
 
  • #18
356
3
edward said:
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.
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...
 
  • #19
67
166
Smurf said:
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...

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:
  • #20
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Art said:
How can the gov't find new sources if the company owns the patent and will not licence it? :confused:
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:
 
  • #21
221
0
Gokul43201 said:
Going back to the same company that made faulty armor ??!! That's just plain ridiculous !! :mad:

I know...I really cannot understand this. There is something going on there that we don't know...:grumpy:
 
  • #22
356
3
Townsend said:
I know...I really cannot understand this. There is something going on there that we don't know...:grumpy:
Yeah, I wonder what that is? I mean, in a war started for corporate profit, where we practically shower corporations in dollars even after they don't do anything with them, and then when they mess up go back to them and give them loads of money again... What could possibly be going on here?:confused:
 
  • #23
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
19,287
2,792
Townsend said:
I know...I really cannot understand this. There is something going on there that we don't know...:grumpy:
Maker of bullet proof vests (which aren't) may face charges
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=90984

http://www.napo.org/pr/BulletProofVestItems/July27_2004.htm [Broken]
The National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. (“NAPO”) has filed lawsuits against Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. and Armor Holdings, Inc. Both companies have made and marketed Zylon body armor to American police agencies and officers. (Armor Holdings is the parent company of Safariland, American Body Armor, Monadnock and Protech, among other companies.) NAPO has also sued Toyobo, a Japanese company that is the world’s sole producer of Zylon fiber, and which sold (and continues to sell) Zylon fiber knowing that it is used in the production of soft body armor for U.S. police. Zylon fiber has been shown to degrade faster than anticipated, thus leaving vests using the fiber at risk of penetration by bullets the vests are rated to stop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
19,287
2,792
At this point, one really has to wonder what the Bush/Cheney War Machine is really costing the US, and why is Congress allowing it to continue.

I mean the billions of dollars going to Halliburton and other companies, while vital equipment is sitting on the sidelines! And VIPS running around in very expensive alternatives? Post #3.

And this is acceptable to the majority of American people and Congress?

And Bush is telling the US public, that his administration is doing all it can for the service personnel?

It seems like the Bush administration is doing all it can to funnel money to its political supporters.

And will it still cost roughly $100 billion/yr, and after 10 years this is $1 trillion?
 
  • #25
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
249
Astronuc said:
Maker of bullet proof vests (which aren't) may face charges
You had me worried for a second there. My vest is by Second Chance, but luckily it's Kevlar rather than that other stuff. It's rated for up to .44 magnum handgun protection, but the test patch (supplied with the vest) stopped a 7mm Remington point-blank. Of course, getting hit by something like that would probably kill you anyhow because all of those broken ribs would be poking holes in your heart and lungs:eek: .
 

Related Threads on 824 New Armored Humvees sitting in lot in Kuwait

  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
D
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Top