$27B Marine Corps vehicle program at crossroads

[Adsos Letter]

Source: AP/MyWay News

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. (AP) - The Pentagon spent more than $1 billion and 12 years developing a high-speed vehicle made to carry Marines from sea to shore only to have it fail miserably in 2006. It was overweight, sprung leaks and constantly broke down.

The Marine Corps and contractor General Dynamics Corp. (GD) (GD) now face another critical test. A failure this week for the vehicles designed to replace a Vietnam-era fleet could doom the $27 billion program.

Lawmakers estimate the do-over will cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $1 billion, and the program already is deemed irrelevant by critics given the latest threats in countries like Afghanistan that have no access to water, and require more agile vehicles to navigate rocky terrain.

The Marines have not performed large amphibious maneuvers since the Korean War. But the service remains undeterred, contending that with most foreign nations owning shoulder-fired, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-ship missiles, it's critical to have a vehicle that can deploy Marines farther offshore, keeping them undetected and out of harm's way.



Read more: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081214/D952P4QO0.html

[theophilus]

1. Snip snip. There's 27B saved right there. I'll bet there is plenty more. n/t

[Adsos Letter]

2. I am hoping President Obama will be able to really address the waste in military spending...

As long as we live in a world where people like to solve things through conflict I want an adequate military...but having been in it myself, I am well aware of how much is wasted, even at the level I was exposed to, and that doesn't even begin to address weapons systems.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. America, spending hundreds of billions of dollars on aircraft,

destroyers, aircraft carriers, battle cruisers, nuclear submarinery, and so forth.... and the only threat is the one they see in the mirror. How crazy is that?

[jetphixer]

5. Spending 4 Military

I am Retired US Navy. I will tellyou we do not need any more aircraft carriers They are obsolete, the carrier doomed the battle ship,the sub doomed the carrier I like the multi task ships and things like fast destroyers etc a quick highly responsive surface force. Things to remember Russia has the USA out gunned in subs we have china out gunned in carriers. an china isn't good with subs YET In My opinion the time of Army VS Army is over . The newer modern wars will be fast small an hard hitting.

[tclambert]

4. Marines are supposed to take the beaches.

But we have them fighting in deserts. It's just wrong.

[Adsos Letter]

6. Marines specialize in amphibious operations...

but they seem to end up in the land war anyway: World War I in Europe, Korea, VietNam, etc.

[geckosfeet]

7. $27b. The fed craps that out once a week. Lets have two of em!

[CLANG]

8. 1 billion and 12 years?

For nothing? They could have given the project to MIT and it would come in at half the cost, and half the time. It may not work, but neither does the GD version, so the taxpayer wins!

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

9. why are the Marines pouring money into this failed project?

I understand they have specific mission requirements, but how come they spent $27 BILLION into a program that just doesn't work??? That money could have gone to help treat alot of Veterans with their numerous healthcare problems (and that's ALL the veterans who gave their all for us btw). :shrug: