Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
April 3, 2013
German's new Puma troop carrier
CBO To Army: Scrap Ground Combat Vehicle, Buy German Puma (BREAKING)
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: April 2, 2013
(updated) WASHINGTON: The Army's proposed Ground Combat Vehicle would offer less combat power, at a higher cost, than buying the German-made Puma already in production or even just upgrading the Army's existing M2 Bradley, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO issued a report today assessing different alternatives to upgrade Army heavy brigades' infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), tank-like war machines with tracks and turrets designed to carry troops into combat.
The non-partisan CBO, Capitol Hill's in-house thinktank, has slammed the Ground Combat Vehicle program before, but never this hard. The office's analysts took the Army's own criteria and created a grading system that scored different combat vehicles for effectiveness. Using a scoring scheme that prioritized protection above all, followed by firepower, mobility, and passenger capacity, in that order, the CBO rated the Puma highest, followed by a notional upgrade to the Bradley, followed in distant third place by the GCV. (The Israeli-built Namer came in fourth). Even under an alternative grading scheme that weighted all four criteria equally -- putting much more emphasis on the capacity to carry troops -- the 6-passenger Puma still edged out the 9-passenger GCV, largely because of its superior firepower.
Add in the cost and risk of developing a new vehicle, and the analysis swings even farther in favor of the Puma. Since the Germans already have the Puma in production -- the vehicle entered Bundeswehr service in 2011 -- there's no untested technology to cause problems. And even after buying 25 percent more Pumas to make up for its smaller carrying capacity, the Army would spend half as much as to develop, test, and build the GCV, according to CBO's estimate: $14.5 billion for 2,048 Pumas as opposed to $28.8 billion for 1,748 GCVs.
~snip~
There is room to argue with CBO's scoring system. To start with, since the GCV does not yet exist, CBO grades the vehicle based on the Army's 2010 "Design Concept After Trades"; the actual GCV might be better or worse. For example, CBO assumes the GCV will have only a 25 millimeter cannon, rather than the Puma's 30 mm, but Army officials I spoke to were still hoping for the larger caliber.
CBO To Army: Scrap Ground Combat Vehicle, Buy German Puma (BREAKING)
http://defense.aol.com/2013/04/02/cbo-to-army-scrap-ground-combat-vehicle-buy-german-puma-break/?icid=trending2German's new Puma troop carrier
CBO To Army: Scrap Ground Combat Vehicle, Buy German Puma (BREAKING)
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: April 2, 2013
(updated) WASHINGTON: The Army's proposed Ground Combat Vehicle would offer less combat power, at a higher cost, than buying the German-made Puma already in production or even just upgrading the Army's existing M2 Bradley, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO issued a report today assessing different alternatives to upgrade Army heavy brigades' infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), tank-like war machines with tracks and turrets designed to carry troops into combat.
The non-partisan CBO, Capitol Hill's in-house thinktank, has slammed the Ground Combat Vehicle program before, but never this hard. The office's analysts took the Army's own criteria and created a grading system that scored different combat vehicles for effectiveness. Using a scoring scheme that prioritized protection above all, followed by firepower, mobility, and passenger capacity, in that order, the CBO rated the Puma highest, followed by a notional upgrade to the Bradley, followed in distant third place by the GCV. (The Israeli-built Namer came in fourth). Even under an alternative grading scheme that weighted all four criteria equally -- putting much more emphasis on the capacity to carry troops -- the 6-passenger Puma still edged out the 9-passenger GCV, largely because of its superior firepower.
Add in the cost and risk of developing a new vehicle, and the analysis swings even farther in favor of the Puma. Since the Germans already have the Puma in production -- the vehicle entered Bundeswehr service in 2011 -- there's no untested technology to cause problems. And even after buying 25 percent more Pumas to make up for its smaller carrying capacity, the Army would spend half as much as to develop, test, and build the GCV, according to CBO's estimate: $14.5 billion for 2,048 Pumas as opposed to $28.8 billion for 1,748 GCVs.
~snip~
There is room to argue with CBO's scoring system. To start with, since the GCV does not yet exist, CBO grades the vehicle based on the Army's 2010 "Design Concept After Trades"; the actual GCV might be better or worse. For example, CBO assumes the GCV will have only a 25 millimeter cannon, rather than the Puma's 30 mm, but Army officials I spoke to were still hoping for the larger caliber.
April 3, 2013
A Marine F-35B Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter prepares to land vertically at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., March 21. "This marks the first vertical landing of a Marine Corps F-35B outside of a testing environment," the corps said.
Marine F-35 Jump-Jet PR: Caveataxpayer Emptor
By Winslow Wheeler
March 27, 2013
The Marines issued a flashy press release last week: “first operational F-35B conducts initial Vertical Landing.” It was an amateurish, somewhat slimy piece of hype.
In one important way, the press release contradicted itself, and in another it inadvertently revealed one of the many reasons why the Marines’ Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 – that’s the F-35B — will never be the battlefield-based close-combat support bomber the Marines like to advertise it as.
~snip~
The press release, which was formatted as if it were some sort of news article, inadvertently cued alert readers to the fact that this “first” “operational” “STOVL flight for an F-35B outside of the test environment” was flown by a test pilot.
~snip~
In the world of F-35-double-talk, it is apparently reasonable to announce flights as operational when they are flown by test pilots.
Marine F-35 Jump-Jet PR: Caveataxpayer Emptor
http://nation.time.com/2013/03/27/marine-f-35-jump-jet-pr-caveataxpayer-emptor/A Marine F-35B Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter prepares to land vertically at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., March 21. "This marks the first vertical landing of a Marine Corps F-35B outside of a testing environment," the corps said.
Marine F-35 Jump-Jet PR: Caveataxpayer Emptor
By Winslow Wheeler
March 27, 2013
The Marines issued a flashy press release last week: “first operational F-35B conducts initial Vertical Landing.” It was an amateurish, somewhat slimy piece of hype.
In one important way, the press release contradicted itself, and in another it inadvertently revealed one of the many reasons why the Marines’ Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 – that’s the F-35B — will never be the battlefield-based close-combat support bomber the Marines like to advertise it as.
~snip~
The press release, which was formatted as if it were some sort of news article, inadvertently cued alert readers to the fact that this “first” “operational” “STOVL flight for an F-35B outside of the test environment” was flown by a test pilot.
~snip~
In the world of F-35-double-talk, it is apparently reasonable to announce flights as operational when they are flown by test pilots.
April 3, 2013
Some Serious Paper Shredding at the F-35 Program Office
Paper shredding contracts get lumped in with widgets, gadgets and gizmos on the Federal Business Opportunities website, and over the years a fair number have passed by my eyeballs. (I know, I should get a life.)
I usually don’t pay much attention to shredding solicitations, except to marvel at how many agencies still need such an old fashioned service in the digital age.
The March 28 shredding services procurement from the F-35 Joint Program Office stands out for its detailed and lengthy requirements. It also serves as a metaphor for the flawed, delayed and over-budget project to build 2,500 aircraft for all four military services, which started in 1996 and won’t deliver a combat ready plane until 2019.
Paper or document shredding is a plain vanilla service, far easier than development of a tail hook for the Navy version of the F-35, but the folks at the Joint Program Office put out a 12-page statement of work for such a simple service. The statement starts out with what amounts to an ode to the F-35, touting “cutting-edge technologies” including “advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, avionics, (and) propulsion systems.”
unhappycamper comment:
Et cetra, et cetra, et cetra. . . . . .
Some Serious Paper Shredding at the F-35 Program Office
http://www.nextgov.com/defense/whats-brewin/2013/04/some-serious-paper-shredding-f-35-program-office/62214/Some Serious Paper Shredding at the F-35 Program Office
Paper shredding contracts get lumped in with widgets, gadgets and gizmos on the Federal Business Opportunities website, and over the years a fair number have passed by my eyeballs. (I know, I should get a life.)
I usually don’t pay much attention to shredding solicitations, except to marvel at how many agencies still need such an old fashioned service in the digital age.
The March 28 shredding services procurement from the F-35 Joint Program Office stands out for its detailed and lengthy requirements. It also serves as a metaphor for the flawed, delayed and over-budget project to build 2,500 aircraft for all four military services, which started in 1996 and won’t deliver a combat ready plane until 2019.
Paper or document shredding is a plain vanilla service, far easier than development of a tail hook for the Navy version of the F-35, but the folks at the Joint Program Office put out a 12-page statement of work for such a simple service. The statement starts out with what amounts to an ode to the F-35, touting “cutting-edge technologies” including “advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, avionics, (and) propulsion systems.”
unhappycamper comment:
Et cetra, et cetra, et cetra. . . . . .
April 3, 2013
A U.S. Stryker vehicle rolls down a farm road near Khan Bani Sa'ad Iraq on March 1, 2008.
DOD Inspector General finds $900 million stockpile of Stryker parts
Adam Ashton | Tacoma News Tribune
Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013
The Army program charged with keeping thousands of eight-wheeled Strykers running over the past decade had its eye so much on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it neglected to keep its books.
It accumulated nearly $900 million worth of Stryker replacement parts - most of them in an Auburn warehouse - with much of the gear becoming outdated even as the military continued to order more equipment, according to a Defense Department Inspector General report released late last year.
~snip~
Or, the 9,179 small replacement gears called pinions the Army bought as a temporary fix for a Stryker suspension problem that surfaced between 2007 and 2009. The Army took care of the root malfunction in 2010, but kept buying pinions.
It needed only 15 of the gears. The 9,164 extra pinions are worth $572,000, the Inspector General reported.
unhappycamper comment: This is the 21st century version of a $600 hammer.
No worries. The DOW is attempting to open an RFP for their new $250 grand Ground Combat Vehicle.
DOD Inspector General finds $900 million stockpile of Stryker parts
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/31/187297/dod-inspector-general-finds-900.htmlA U.S. Stryker vehicle rolls down a farm road near Khan Bani Sa'ad Iraq on March 1, 2008.
DOD Inspector General finds $900 million stockpile of Stryker parts
Adam Ashton | Tacoma News Tribune
Posted on Sunday, March 31, 2013
The Army program charged with keeping thousands of eight-wheeled Strykers running over the past decade had its eye so much on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it neglected to keep its books.
It accumulated nearly $900 million worth of Stryker replacement parts - most of them in an Auburn warehouse - with much of the gear becoming outdated even as the military continued to order more equipment, according to a Defense Department Inspector General report released late last year.
~snip~
Or, the 9,179 small replacement gears called pinions the Army bought as a temporary fix for a Stryker suspension problem that surfaced between 2007 and 2009. The Army took care of the root malfunction in 2010, but kept buying pinions.
It needed only 15 of the gears. The 9,164 extra pinions are worth $572,000, the Inspector General reported.
unhappycamper comment: This is the 21st century version of a $600 hammer.
No worries. The DOW is attempting to open an RFP for their new $250 grand Ground Combat Vehicle.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
