|
|
|
Hard Charger
 
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:53 PM
Posts: 2,357,
Visits: 2,448
|
|
| This is partial explaination for the large number of 3 and 4 star retirements. Many of these officers are in the acquisitions area.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
The bottom line is, the Army has known about this for at least 6 months and Gen. Shinsuki and his buds have done their best to keep a lid on it for fear that it would be the final nail in the Stryker Program's coffin.
Here is some more info on Army corruption in the Stryker program:
http://militarycorruption.com/stryker.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Resident Lurker
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 7/7/2008 8:47 AM
Posts: 914,
Visits: 121
|
|
quote:
(Even with its ceramic cladding, certain spots on the Stryker remain unprotected against an accurately aimed RPG or even rifle fire.)
How would you like to be the Joe riding around in that Stryker knowing that?
Abncrazy, I totally agree with you, I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall in that meeting too. They better have an O2 tank and nitrus pills standing by. I think somebodies BP is going to go through the roof.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom."
|
|
|
|
|
Strac Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/7/2008 5:22 PM
Posts: 1,006,
Visits: 995
|
|
Aaaahhh a topic on P.net I can relate to!
Artic has it right.
The Govt as part of acquistion reform has no true insight into the operations of sumcontractors. We may know what they are doing, but that is only if the prime contractor decides to clue us in. The Govt can not direct any type of action to the subcontractors, IE, use this or use that. It is up to the prime contractor to ensure that all items from a Sub meet govt standards written for the program (either system specs, Govt ORD's, Govt or Mil-Specs etc. etc.)
If anyone will get axed it will be GD. They will have to pay to correct the strykers in the field on their own dime. GD in turn will axe their sub and go get one who can build it right.
The Govt Program manager and the contractor PM will probably get axed as well
The Army unfortunately is overdue for a reform of the ACQ community. They (not to the extent of the Navy) still operate in the "its the 80's" mentality. Overall, this system works good, but it has it's flaws. The main area of ACQ reform that has been addressed is the R&D. it is approximated that 80% of all futrue Logistics concerns can be addressed in the development of a program. It is these sustainemnt concerns that amount to 70% of the total cost of a system.
R&D in the 70's and 80's was the Govt dictating everything (size of this knick nack etc. etc)to the contractors. Unfortunately, that can not be done anymore. This was a very manpower intensive process (both Military and Civil Service) and with the drawdown's in the military, the serivces would rather axe a REMF like me than a front liner (and rightly so...front lines are where things get done)
As a result of this, ACQ reform has come into play. The army for weapons procurement has yet to experience it (there were few big $$$ programs for the army in the past 15 years). Acq reform revolves around the premise that the service and the contractor can not do things by themselves anymore. They must work together to ensure that the Contractor makes $$$ and the warfighter's get what they need. Overall, this has been a resounding success.
Unfortunately, once this process gets politized, then it is a knee-jerk reaction back to the 80's "us vs. them" mode of operation. Every service has their program cash cow (AF = F-22, MC = V-22, Navy - Seawolf, Army - Crusader) that get the limelight. This gives all ACQ weenies like myself a bad name, but as it has been said before, good news doesn't sell. it is the 95% of programs for all sides that you don't hear about that show the new system works. What did military bases look like before ACQ reform allowed contractors to sub out to who they wanted to? This change has allowed contractors to provide newer military construction at all bases, benefiting all troops life.
Aaagh...enough ranting...my 2.5 cents
 
Fighters are our salvation, But BOMBERS alone provide us with the means of VICTORY! - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 2/12/2008 10:25 AM
Posts: 271,
Visits: 2
|
|
All right so we have now all chewed out who is to blame, but noone has yet adressed what will happen to the guys from the Stryker Brigade if they are deployed into combat.
After I left the RGT I went to 3rd BDE/ 2ID Ft Rainstorm WA. Let me tell all of you a little story about this Stryker vehicle.
I reported to the Stryker Bde in August of 2001. At this point and time they were still, as some might recall, the Medium Brigade. We didn't have Strykers in any shape or form. We had LAV's (borrowed from the Canadians)to train with, which we weren't allowed to shoot the weapons of.
Does anyone think that is strange? Then we went on and on about getting them and finally they started issuing them. Not so much as that every Platoon had enough, but just one per platoon. This reduced training in them to practically nothing. Time went on and we started to get more of them. Now we were up on enough Strykers to conduct relatively good training in and around them and started to test their capabilities.
We took them everywhere and let me tell you what a shitsandwich that vehicle is.
First of all the tires pop like waterballoons.
Second, we never had them with the add-on armour, which is sure to make the thing just a tad bit more heavy and will make it a lot tougher to steer, especially at night itme in sandy terrain. The fun we had in Yak...
And last but not least the thing is so damn big that it is easier to hit than shooting fish in a barrel.
And god forbid that the gun jams up.
So all in all you might as well just roll around without any armour at all since it is blatantly stupid to take a Stryker into a City.
I wonder if they consulted anyone about this issue who had been around on 3/4 OCT 1993.
I hope that they cut the balls of ot the retarted group of numbnuts who decided to finance this vehicle. That was my angry 2 cents.
The thing is that once you are in one of those things and you have a brain, you will feel as if you are in a motorized coffin.
I hope that none of my former buddies get to tell any deathtrap stories when they get back.
Maybe you guys can give me your opinions on this.
RLTW
|
|
|
|
|
Ei Temporis Vita Semper Resumo Sese
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 9/1/2008 10:22 AM
Posts: 8,428,
Visits: 7,503
|
|
Matador275,
Your experiences with the Stryker fit well with the S2 I've been getting on it's training performance... Far as I'm concerned, the Army should scrap the concept and donate the vehicles now in the inventory to LEA's around the country (might do well in that role...)
"The degenerative and loony should never be denigrated but, rather, thanked. In their absence, the rest of you would be obliged to fill congressional seats... positions naturally unsavory to the sane and honorable." Thorax
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
quote:
Maybe you guys can give me your opinions on this.
Matador, thanks for the BTDT Stryker G2. If you do a search on this site for 'Stryker' in the active topics AND in the archived topics, you will find about 20+ topics where we discuss in detail our opinions of the POS Stryker Turkey.
I sincerely hope that the Army does not send the Strykers to Iraq until all the armor panels are fixed. I would really like to see Rummy cancel the Stryker program and send the existing vehicles to the MPs.
|
|
|
|
| | |