USA Today, December 29 , 2005: "Corps pays $100K for retooled JEEP"
 

Check out the front page of McPaper, I mean USA Today, today.

Salient points:

$100K for buggered M151

Has a DIESEL so it can run on the same fuel as Osprey

Also fire danger less

Carolina Growler has one a lot cheaper.

Although not a Jeep product, trademark of DCX, they call it a jeep
anyway. Must be a generic term.

Did I mention....DIESEL?

Re: USA Today, December 29 , 2005: "Corps pays $100K for retooled JEEP"
 

Bret Ludwig did pass the time by typing:
> Check out the front page of McPaper, I mean USA Today, today.
>
> Salient points:
>
> $100K for buggered M151
>
> Has a DIESEL so it can run on the same fuel as Osprey
>
> Also fire danger less
>
> Carolina Growler has one a lot cheaper.
>
> Although not a Jeep product, trademark of DCX, they call it a jeep
> anyway. Must be a generic term.
>
> Did I mention....DIESEL?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rps-jeep_x.htm

Typical "Beltway Bandit" ripoff, courtsy of General Dynamics.

And they wonder why there isn't enough money to train or outfit
the troups.

--
DougW

Re: USA Today, December 29 , 2005: "Corps pays $100K for retooled JEEP"
 

Bret Ludwig did pass the time by typing:
> Check out the front page of McPaper, I mean USA Today, today.
>
> Salient points:
>
> $100K for buggered M151
>
> Has a DIESEL so it can run on the same fuel as Osprey
>
> Also fire danger less
>
> Carolina Growler has one a lot cheaper.
>
> Although not a Jeep product, trademark of DCX, they call it a jeep
> anyway. Must be a generic term.
>
> Did I mention....DIESEL?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rps-jeep_x.htm

Typical "Beltway Bandit" ripoff, courtsy of General Dynamics.

And they wonder why there isn't enough money to train or outfit
the troups.

--
DougW

Re: USA Today, December 29 , 2005: "Corps pays $100K for retooled JEEP"
 

Bret Ludwig did pass the time by typing:
> Check out the front page of McPaper, I mean USA Today, today.
>
> Salient points:
>
> $100K for buggered M151
>
> Has a DIESEL so it can run on the same fuel as Osprey
>
> Also fire danger less
>
> Carolina Growler has one a lot cheaper.
>
> Although not a Jeep product, trademark of DCX, they call it a jeep
> anyway. Must be a generic term.
>
> Did I mention....DIESEL?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rps-jeep_x.htm

Typical "Beltway Bandit" ripoff, courtsy of General Dynamics.

And they wonder why there isn't enough money to train or outfit
the troups.

--
DougW

Re: USA Today, December 29 , 2005: "Corps pays $100K for retooledJEEP"
 

With a careful eye on the RAMJ+W charter....

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Check out the front page of McPaper, I mean USA Today, today.

USA Today article here:
<URL:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-28-corps-jeep_x.htm>


> Salient points:
>
> $100K for buggered M151

I'm not given to defending pork in the military budget, mind you, but it
is a bit more complicate than simply a buggered M-151:
<URL:http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/dec1/ospreys_cargo.htm>

It is designed to fit into the cargo bay of the V-22 Osprey, the
tilt-wing aircraft from the mid 1980s that likes to screw itself into
the ground. Frankly, I thought that the Osprey program had been
canceled, but that's a different barrel of pork.

Highlights:
The bay is only 5' x 5' x 17' and was designed to carry ground
pounders, not vehicles.
The artillery system consists of the modified Growler as a prime mover,
a 120mm towed rifled weapon (on a carriage modified to fit the V-22), a
gun crew of three and 24 rounds (because of the V-22s payload weight
limitations.)
Vehicle axle loads cannot exceed 2,450 per axle.
The militarized Growler will have a machine gun mount on the back of
the truck.
Because the vehicle is so narrow they had to lower it to improve
stability. We all know what lowering does to off-road capability.


> Has a DIESEL so it can run on the same fuel as Osprey
>
> Also fire danger less

That's the Single Battlefield Fuel program, started in the 1980s. See:
<URL:http://www.quartermaster.army.mil/oqmg/Professional_Bulletin/1997/Autumn/singlefuel.html>
It means that the military need only establish a single fuel pipeline
system for all operations instead of multiple parallel systems. It also
means that if you're out of tanks and trucks you can cannabilize the
fuel stores to operate your helocopters.


> Carolina Growler has one a lot cheaper.

But it apparently isn't the same vehicle -- it was redesigned to fit
that damned V-22, so part of that cost is in engineering, part is in
retooling, part is in conforming to milspec. Plus profit. Plus a
healthy amount of padding to cover the cost of change orders, so when
DoD comes back to them after the initial trials and says "We like it
just as it is. Oh, could you make it 3" narrower? And could you make
the wheels 2" taller? And could you add armor? And some sort of
explosives-sniffing sensors to the front? And could you make it
invisible to radar?" they don't lose their shirts.

Poking around the web I couldn't find anything that would tell me how
much oversight documentation added to the cost of things bought by Unka
Sam (although I did find a think-tank or two that claimed that such
costs are not routinely tracked). But I can tell you that a machinist
friend of mine won't do government contract work because, he says, just
the time spent doing the paperwork would kill him.


> Although not a Jeep product, trademark of DCX, they call it a jeep
> anyway. Must be a generic term.

They did call it a jeep small-J, not a jeep big-J. USAToday will be
hearing from DCX, no doubt. Defending trademarks is a growing business.


> Did I mention....DIESEL?

Yeah. JP-8 actually.

Re: USA Today, December 29 , 2005: "Corps pays $100K for retooledJEEP"
 

With a careful eye on the RAMJ+W charter....

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Check out the front page of McPaper, I mean USA Today, today.

USA Today article here:
<URL:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-28-corps-jeep_x.htm>


> Salient points:
>
> $100K for buggered M151

I'm not given to defending pork in the military budget, mind you, but it
is a bit more complicate than simply a buggered M-151:
<URL:http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/dec1/ospreys_cargo.htm>

It is designed to fit into the cargo bay of the V-22 Osprey, the
tilt-wing aircraft from the mid 1980s that likes to screw itself into
the ground. Frankly, I thought that the Osprey program had been
canceled, but that's a different barrel of pork.

Highlights:
The bay is only 5' x 5' x 17' and was designed to carry ground
pounders, not vehicles.
The artillery system consists of the modified Growler as a prime mover,
a 120mm towed rifled weapon (on a carriage modified to fit the V-22), a
gun crew of three and 24 rounds (because of the V-22s payload weight
limitations.)
Vehicle axle loads cannot exceed 2,450 per axle.
The militarized Growler will have a machine gun mount on the back of
the truck.
Because the vehicle is so narrow they had to lower it to improve
stability. We all know what lowering does to off-road capability.


> Has a DIESEL so it can run on the same fuel as Osprey
>
> Also fire danger less

That's the Single Battlefield Fuel program, started in the 1980s. See:
<URL:http://www.quartermaster.army.mil/oqmg/Professional_Bulletin/1997/Autumn/singlefuel.html>
It means that the military need only establish a single fuel pipeline
system for all operations instead of multiple parallel systems. It also
means that if you're out of tanks and trucks you can cannabilize the
fuel stores to operate your helocopters.


> Carolina Growler has one a lot cheaper.

But it apparently isn't the same vehicle -- it was redesigned to fit
that damned V-22, so part of that cost is in engineering, part is in
retooling, part is in conforming to milspec. Plus profit. Plus a
healthy amount of padding to cover the cost of change orders, so when
DoD comes back to them after the initial trials and says "We like it
just as it is. Oh, could you make it 3" narrower? And could you make
the wheels 2" taller? And could you add armor? And some sort of
explosives-sniffing sensors to the front? And could you make it
invisible to radar?" they don't lose their shirts.

Poking around the web I couldn't find anything that would tell me how
much oversight documentation added to the cost of things bought by Unka
Sam (although I did find a think-tank or two that claimed that such
costs are not routinely tracked). But I can tell you that a machinist
friend of mine won't do government contract work because, he says, just
the time spent doing the paperwork would kill him.


> Although not a Jeep product, trademark of DCX, they call it a jeep
> anyway. Must be a generic term.

They did call it a jeep small-J, not a jeep big-J. USAToday will be
hearing from DCX, no doubt. Defending trademarks is a growing business.


> Did I mention....DIESEL?

Yeah. JP-8 actually.

Re: USA Today, December 29 , 2005: "Corps pays $100K for retooledJEEP"
 

With a careful eye on the RAMJ+W charter....

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Check out the front page of McPaper, I mean USA Today, today.

USA Today article here:
<URL:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-28-corps-jeep_x.htm>


> Salient points:
>
> $100K for buggered M151

I'm not given to defending pork in the military budget, mind you, but it
is a bit more complicate than simply a buggered M-151:
<URL:http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/dec1/ospreys_cargo.htm>

It is designed to fit into the cargo bay of the V-22 Osprey, the
tilt-wing aircraft from the mid 1980s that likes to screw itself into
the ground. Frankly, I thought that the Osprey program had been
canceled, but that's a different barrel of pork.

Highlights:
The bay is only 5' x 5' x 17' and was designed to carry ground
pounders, not vehicles.
The artillery system consists of the modified Growler as a prime mover,
a 120mm towed rifled weapon (on a carriage modified to fit the V-22), a
gun crew of three and 24 rounds (because of the V-22s payload weight
limitations.)
Vehicle axle loads cannot exceed 2,450 per axle.
The militarized Growler will have a machine gun mount on the back of
the truck.
Because the vehicle is so narrow they had to lower it to improve
stability. We all know what lowering does to off-road capability.


> Has a DIESEL so it can run on the same fuel as Osprey
>
> Also fire danger less

That's the Single Battlefield Fuel program, started in the 1980s. See:
<URL:http://www.quartermaster.army.mil/oqmg/Professional_Bulletin/1997/Autumn/singlefuel.html>
It means that the military need only establish a single fuel pipeline
system for all operations instead of multiple parallel systems. It also
means that if you're out of tanks and trucks you can cannabilize the
fuel stores to operate your helocopters.


> Carolina Growler has one a lot cheaper.

But it apparently isn't the same vehicle -- it was redesigned to fit
that damned V-22, so part of that cost is in engineering, part is in
retooling, part is in conforming to milspec. Plus profit. Plus a
healthy amount of padding to cover the cost of change orders, so when
DoD comes back to them after the initial trials and says "We like it
just as it is. Oh, could you make it 3" narrower? And could you make
the wheels 2" taller? And could you add armor? And some sort of
explosives-sniffing sensors to the front? And could you make it
invisible to radar?" they don't lose their shirts.

Poking around the web I couldn't find anything that would tell me how
much oversight documentation added to the cost of things bought by Unka
Sam (although I did find a think-tank or two that claimed that such
costs are not routinely tracked). But I can tell you that a machinist
friend of mine won't do government contract work because, he says, just
the time spent doing the paperwork would kill him.


> Although not a Jeep product, trademark of DCX, they call it a jeep
> anyway. Must be a generic term.

They did call it a jeep small-J, not a jeep big-J. USAToday will be
hearing from DCX, no doubt. Defending trademarks is a growing business.


> Did I mention....DIESEL?

Yeah. JP-8 actually.