Marines pay 100k per jeep. D.R. pays 33k per jeep. Absurd.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Marine jeep contract under fire

Newspaper says the Corps is harshly criticized for new vehicles that cost $100K each.

December 29, 2005: 8:45 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The Marine Corps is paying $100,000 apiece for a revamped military jeep that some critics call a rip-off of taxpayers, according to a news report Thursday.

The Marines budgeted to buy more than 400 vehicles, called Growlers, under a contract that could total $296 million including ammunition, USA Today said, citing Pentagon records.

Built by Ocala, Fla.-based American Growler, the Growler is made partly from salvaged M151 jeep parts and is available in several versions.

Four years ago, the Dominican Republic paid $33,000 for a version of the Growler, the paper said citing U.S. Export-Import Bank records.

A commercial version of the jeep costs just $7,500.

The Marines and the contractor, General Dynamics, said the vehicle has been thoroughly revised with modern automotive parts and adapted to fit on the hybrid airplane-helicopter V-22 Osprey, according to the paper.

"Yes, it did start off with jeep technology, and it does look like a jeep in a lot of ways," John Garner, the Marines project manager, told the paper. But he says it's now "state of the art."

The Marines' version has considerable upgrades from the commercial and Dominican models, the Corps and contractor said, including a turbo-diesel engine, disc brakes and other systems adapted from modern vehicles.

But some critics charge that the unarmored vehicle makes no sense for today's missions, the paper said.

Under current military safety rules, the Growler would be barred from service in Iraq except as a utility vehicle that doesn't leave the security of a base, according to the report.

"In a time of war, we should not be wasting money on a junker which will not protect our troops," Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a non-profit group that monitors Pentagon contracts, told the paper.

The Growler is expected to be deployed with the V-22 in 2007, the paper said.

SOURCE

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,640 • Replies: 25

No top replies

"The Marines' version has considerable upgrades from the commercial and Dominican models, the Corps and contractor said, including a turbo-diesel engine, disc brakes and other systems adapted from modern vehicles. "

Then it is likely not the same vehicle, is it?

0 Replies

Re: Marines pay 100k per jeep. D.R. pays 33k per jeep. Absur

JustanObserver wrote:

Quote:

Marine jeep contract under fire

Newspaper says the Corps is harshly criticized for new vehicles that cost $100K each.

December 29, 2005: 8:45 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The Marine Corps is paying $100,000 apiece for a revamped military jeep that some critics call a rip-off of taxpayers, according to a news report Thursday.

The Marines budgeted to buy more than 400 vehicles, called Growlers, under a contract that could total $296 million including ammunition, USA Today said, citing Pentagon records.

Built by Ocala, Fla.-based American Growler, the Growler is made partly from salvaged M151 jeep parts and is available in several versions.

Four years ago, the Dominican Republic paid $33,000 for a version of the Growler, the paper said citing U.S. Export-Import Bank records.

A commercial version of the jeep costs just $7,500.

The Marines and the contractor, General Dynamics, said the vehicle has been thoroughly revised with modern automotive parts and adapted to fit on the hybrid airplane-helicopter V-22 Osprey, according to the paper.

"Yes, it did start off with jeep technology, and it does look like a jeep in a lot of ways," John Garner, the Marines project manager, told the paper. But he says it's now "state of the art."

The Marines' version has considerable upgrades from the commercial and Dominican models, the Corps and contractor said, including a turbo-diesel engine, disc brakes and other systems adapted from modern vehicles.

But some critics charge that the unarmored vehicle makes no sense for today's missions, the paper said.

Under current military safety rules, the Growler would be barred from service in Iraq except as a utility vehicle that doesn't leave the security of a base, according to the report.

"In a time of war, we should not be wasting money on a junker which will not protect our troops," Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a non-profit group that monitors Pentagon contracts, told the paper.

The Growler is expected to be deployed with the V-22 in 2007, the paper said.

SOURCE

It's unfortunate that news reporters either no longer do their jobs or are just horribly bad at math.

The current contract for the 400 "Growlers" (which the MC refers to as "ITVs") is at a cost of $18 million. The $296 million figure the article mentions is the maximum permissible amount that can be put on the contract over the total life of the contract - not the cost for these 400 units.

http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2004/ct20041110.html

At the $18 million cost that comes to $45,000 each and while the Dominican Republic may have purchased theirs at $33,000 each they didn't get the nifty trailer with the mortar launcher with theirs (The MC refers to the mortar launchers as an "Expeditionary Fire Support System").

There still may not be an actual need for these little beasts but this is shoddy reporting at it's finest.

0 Replies

While I concede that the government is terribly wasteful, the press is overly eager to jump in with exposes even when there is no validity to the claims of waste. I recall when there was a huge uproar over the fact that the military had hundreds of millions of can openers. What was not reported was that this included the disposable openers that were packed in each individual ready to eat meal of which the military properly possessed hundreds of millions.

0 Replies

Quote:

Under current military safety rules, the Growler would be barred from service in Iraq except as a utility vehicle that doesn't leave the security of a base, according to the report.

"In a time of war, we should not be wasting money on a junker which will not protect our troops," Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a non-profit group that monitors Pentagon contracts, told the paper.

Even with "sensationalistic" reporting, spending that kind of loot on a vehicle that wouldn't qualify for use outside of the security of the base seems like foolish spending.

How necessary is a turbo diesel engine for a vehicle that doesn't leave the green zone? Then again, I'm not military, so maybe I'm missing something here.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Even with "sensationalistic" reporting, spending that kind of loot on a vehicle that wouldn't qualify for use outside of the security of the base seems like foolish spending.

How necessary is a turbo diesel engine for a vehicle that doesn't leave the green zone? Then again, I'm not military, so maybe I'm missing something here.

I's agree that it seems foolish at this point in time but then again the V-22 Osprey that these things have been designed to fit into was canx'd back in 1992 and then revived by the Cinton Administration after a lot of whining by the MD Congressional delegation (the V-22s were to be built in MD). So far the government had dumped over $16 billion into the V-22 program over some 19 years and they still don't have a design that is feasible. Every time somone tries to kill the V-22 program all of the Congressional delegations from the states where the the parts are made or the plane is to be assembled manage to keep it alive.

There are better options available than the V-22 (like the Navy's MH-60S helicopter) but it isn't going away any time soon.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

There are better options available than the V-22 (like the Navy's MH-60S helicopter) but it isn't going away any time soon.

Actually, the MH-60's don't have NEAR the troop and cargo carrying capacity needed by the Marine Corps.

The other problem is that the CH-46 and CH-53's that represent the majority of the Marine's meduim and heavy lift aircraft are reaching the end of their planned service life and many have had to undergo extensive remanufacturing to extend their service life even longer. (The MH/UH-60 is a light helicopter in terms of cargo capacity and cannot replace either the 46 or the 53.)

The Osprey works ...
Not perfectly,
not even well by any standards...

But given time, it should become a successful and very needed addition to the Corps inventory.

I remember a time when they were going to scrap the Harrier program because of the number of pilots that had died flying them...

They worked out the bugs...
added some upgrades to computer stabilization and control and we now have a very effective aircraft in the Harrier II.

New technology ALWAYS takes time to work the kinks out.

0 Replies

<chuckle> Gotta love newsies and other critics who never got closer to the military than a video game. I remember well the flap and furor surrounding the development and introduction of the M1 Abrams tank - then; "Monstrous boondoggle, too expensive, too complicated, too maintenance-dependent", now, most respected, most successful armored fighting vehicle in history.

And then there were the folks that bitched about the expense and vulnerability of the aircraft carrier, when we had perfectly good battleships and cruisers.

Thinking back even further, John Browning designed and produced automatic weapons that were second to none in the world, yet political and economic considerations saddled our fighting men in the trenches of WWI with pathetic foreign-designed-and-manufactured, combat-ineffective travesties of weaponry.

And of course, there's the Spencer Repeating Rifle - had that been generally adopted by the Union Army as Lincoln favored, the Civil War would have been a rather different affair. The lobbyists, the "Old Guard", and the presstitutes won that one.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

<chuckle> Gotta love newsies and other critics who never got closer to the military than a video game. I remember well the flap and furor surrounding the development and introduction of the M1 Abrams tank - then; "Monstrous boondoggle, too expensive, too complicated, too maintenance-dependent", now, most respected, most successful armored fighting vehicle in history.

And then there were the folks that bitched about the expense and vulnerability of the aircraft carrier, when we had perfectly good battleships and cruisers.

Thinking back even further...

<chuckle> Gotta love people who enjoy contributing sarcastic, wise ass comments into a thread to make themselves feel better, yet volunteer nothing of consequence and ignoring the whole point.

Here, I'll ask it again:

Quote:

Even with "sensationalistic" reporting, spending that kind of loot on a vehicle that wouldn't qualify for use outside of the security of the base seems like foolish spending.

How necessary is a turbo diesel engine for a vehicle that doesn't leave the green zone? Then again, I'm not military, so maybe I'm missing something here.

You're clearly so much smarter than all of us on issues pertaining to the armed forces. Please, bless us with an answer, oh mighty military expert.

0 Replies

Just, if you fail to see the point, purpose, and relevance of what I posted, there is no point further elucidating. I'll observe only that the welfare and future of civilization is well served in that those of the sociopolitical bent evidenced by your posts have seen to it through the electoral process that they are not in charge of seeing to the necessary details.

0 Replies

Still, you'd think the military would find a way to intimidate the suppliers into lowering their costs somehow.

Surely charging that much is unpatriotic?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Just, if you fail to see the point, purpose, and relevance of what I posted, there is no point further elucidating. I'll observe only that the welfare and future of civilization is well served in that those of the sociopolitical bent evidenced by your posts have seen to it through the electoral process that they are not in charge of seeing to the necessary details.

Your elucidation of the relelvance of the visual transference of my ideas through the medium known as the "internet," and subsequent illustration of your conceptual message pertaining to the sociopolitical consequence of my interactions with the electoral process regarding control over the necessary details is facinating and utterly pointless.

( Well golly gee! Turns out I can use a bunch of big words, yet say absolutely nothing almost as well as you! )

0 Replies

Only by your own definition and in your own estimation. Relevance is an absolute. Understanding is not a given, perspicacity not a universal trait.

0 Replies

military "overspending" is not restricted to the united states . the canadian army brass ordered a supply of military boots a few years ago that would have outfitted every soldier for the next twenty years - the boots soon found their way into military surplus stores . about forty years ago the canadian navy ordered an aircraft-carrier (the "bonaventure") , once it was completed , it was found out it wasn't fit for duty in the north-atlantic - off to the scrap-yard !
more recently the canadian navy purchased some "slightly used" british subs that have tried to live up to the name of "submarine" ! (they refused to stay on top of the waves !)
i recall that american soldiers had to jury-rig some of their jeeps in iraq because they did not provide proper protection for the soldiers.
every now-and-then the u.s. government accounting office delivers some pretty scathing reports on money having been mis-spent (in canada it is the auditor general who issues such reports).
in the meantime suppliers are having a good time using the government (meaning : the taxpayer !) to enjoy life to its fullest ! hurrah for free enterprise - and a pox on those auditors ; they are spoilsports (i should know , i was an auditor) . hbg

0 Replies

There's no denying the military of any nation often spends stupidly. Some years back, it was disclosed the Israeli Defense Force had warehoused a 5-year supply of batteries which had a 3-year shelf life.

0 Replies

what really bothers me is that the foot-soldiers who should be looked after first will often be forgotten . they are the ones who should be given the best equipment and supplies . hbg

0 Replies

I want to see pictures

0 Replies

All I know is that I have about $15,000 in my Jeep and I don't even have one of those cool trailers with the mortars.

Here ya go Husker.

0 Replies

I used to have one like this when I was in highschool:

http://www.jeepglass.com/images/48-53%20CJ%203A.jpg

0 Replies

There is nothing to say what those vehicles cost in your link, fishin.

It states there is an initial $18 million contract for mostly design and then additional up to $296 million. We have no way of knowing how much of that additional 296 million has been contracted in the purchase of the 400 vehicles.

0 Replies

Marines pay 100k per jeep. D.R. pays 33k per jeep. Absurd.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know