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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 09:38 AM Sep 2012

Think There May Finally Be Some Sanity At The DoD?

Think again.

Sequestration has been on the news with Panetta, McKeon, Republics and Democrats who do not want the see the Pentagon losing $500 billion dollars from the military budget. (Of course context is all: $500 billion dollars over 10 years.) "Disastrous", "fiscal cliff", "dangerous" are some of the terms used. After a month of MIC / MIC-congresscritters attempting to hammer this meme home, they have discretely acknowledged that this "fiscal cliff" is bullshiit and are now whining that another $50 billion dollar a year cut to the Pentagon budget will still have devastating effects.

The MIC was up in arms last month and wanted to send WARN notices ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WARN_Act ) to their employees about potential layoffs due to sequestration. That was quashed on July 31, 2012:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Rapid-Fire-July-31-2012-07486/
Rapid Fire July 31, 2012: No WARN Act
Jul 31, 2012 10:45 EDT

The US Labor Department issued guidance [PDF] on the application of the WARN Act in advance of sequestration. They are saying defense contractors with have contracts at stake should not send WARN Act notices, contrarily to the position held by Lockheed Martin and others. They argue that while “it is currently known that sequestration may occur, it is also known that efforts are being made to avoid sequestration.” It is a bizarre line of reasoning given that executing sequestration next January is currently signed law. Perhaps knowing this, the Dept of Labor also argues that because DoD hasn’t announced which contracts would be affected, potential layoffs are speculative.
--

On a side note: If you read the article at the link, you see that Lockheed Martin delivered the 8th C-5M Galaxy and that "It may come in handy for moving blast-resistant MRAP vehicles from Afghanistan to their projected staging & storage areas, in Italy and the Western Pacific. Given North Korea’s known intent to use massive commando infiltration, MRAPs seem like a smart tactical choice in Korea."

Flying those heavy bad boys from Afghanistan to Korea seems to be another expensive proposition in the making.



Apparently folks at the DoD never got the memo about cutting back.




http://defense.aol.com/2012/08/31/humvee-replacement-jltv-will-probably-top-15-5-billion/
Navistar Files JLTV Protest; Humvee Replacement Will Probably Top $15.5B
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: August 31, 2012

Buy 54,599 armored trucks at $250,000 each and that works out to roughly $13.6 billion.

That's the military's current plan to build Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs), which will replace most of the Army and Marine Corps' vulnerable Humvees and unmaneuverable MRAPs (The program is now on hold, probably for months, while the GAO resolves a protest from rejected bidder Navistar). But the full cost to the taxpayer will be much higher, even if the program meets its ambitious target price per vehicle -- and the pressure to cut back quantities will be intense.

The Pentagon has not released an estimate for the total cost of the JLTV program, and -- after several days of discussions with AOL Defense -- the program office declined to issue one. With at least three companies still in competition (Lockheed, Oshkosh, and AM General), the final design undecided, and production not scheduled to start until 2015, there are simply too many unknowns in the acquisition costs alone. (Operating, maintaining, and supporting the vehicles over decades of service is often more expensive than buying them in the first place; the program expects to have some estimates by year's end). But sources in the Defense Department, industry, and Congress isolated the variables for AOL Defense.

~snip~

The competing companies swear they can make the $250,000 cost target for the vehicle itself (not counting weapons, radios, b-kits, government overhead, etc. etc.), but it's an ambitious target. Plenty of programs go over budget. Conversely, as budgets tighten, the economy limps along and the strategic "rebalancing" to the Pacific shifts attention and funding from ground forces to the Air Force and Navy, there may well be considerable pressure to trim the JLTV program.



Doesn't this sound like the F-35 program all over again?

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
4. The system is corrupted. It is bought, purchased.
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:32 AM
Sep 2012

We already know exactly what will happen in the end...what will be preserved in the budget and who will suffer. All the in-between is theater to create plausible excuses.


Praise the troops and eat your peas!

bigbrother05

(5,995 posts)
5. Companies only bid the basics, minimal to meet contract wording
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:35 AM
Sep 2012

They have highly paid techs to figure out what is missing that would make a system meet operational expectations for true combat use. They always make their money on the contract mods and life cycle costs, I.e. parts and upgrades.

rasputin1952

(83,130 posts)
7. I hold no reservations, (having a few years in the military)...
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:45 PM
Sep 2012

this will jump budget many times.

Your taxpayer dollars at work, and wasted.

WooWooWoo

(454 posts)
8. MRAPS are great. They only have one vulnerability
Sun Sep 2, 2012, 01:00 PM
Sep 2012

water. Ask anyone who's spent a few hours pulling one out of the mud during the rainy season in Afghanistan.

If a JLTV is lighter (which I presume it would be) - it might not get stuck so easily in mud and might be worth the money. But then again, that thing looks pretty heavy (certainly heavier than a standard humvee) - and might just as easily bog down in muddy weather.

I'd hate to be deployed with that thing in a place that rained year-round.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Think There May Finally B...