You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Probe Sought in Marine Vehicle Delays
2008-02-26
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Marine Corps has asked the Pentagon's inspector general to examine allegations that a nearly two-year delay in the fielding of blast-resistant vehicles led to hundreds of combat casualties in Iraq.

The system for rapidly fielding needed gear to troops on the front lines has been examined by auditors before and continues to improve, Col. David Lapan, a Marine Corps spokesman, said Monday night. Due to the seriousness of the allegations, however, "the Marine Corps has taken the additional step" of requesting the IG investigation, Lapan said in an e-mailed statement.

In a Jan. 22 internal report, Franz Gayl, a civilian Marine Corps official, accused the service of "gross mismanagement" that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks. Gayl's study, which reflected his own views, said cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down a 2005 "urgent" request from battlefield commanders for the so-called MRAPs.

Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which weigh up to 40 tons and can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded, charged Gayl, who prepared the study for the Marine Corps' plans, policies and operations department.

Gayl, a retired Marine officer, is the science and technology adviser to Lt. Gen. Richard Natonski, who heads the department. The Associated Press first reported on Gayl's study Feb. 15. At that time, Gayl's work had not been reviewed by his immediate supervisor, Col. David Wilkinson, Lapan said Monday. "The paper represents Gayl's personal opinions and is clearly marked as such," Lapan said. "It is both preliminary and pre-decisional, and therefore a mischaracterization to term his work an official study or report."
Posted by:Steve White

#8  I think the majority of our future wars are going to either be in the Sandbox area, or in Africa or South America. The MRAP would work for all three. Sometimes, a few people can screw up even the best of deals. It took firing one guy at Bell Helicopters to free up Huey production in 1965. The IG should indeed take a close look at what's going on, and should have the power to fire whoever is screwing things up.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-02-26 20:08  

#7  The first major MRAP producer was Force Protection. The JERV came from South Africa via GD-Canada and is not totally relevant. Anyway, Force Protection was in now way capable of delivering or supporting the types of numbers that were being called for without some ramp-up time. Normal, especially since they are a relatively young company. It wasn't until the Pentagon called in other big vehicle manufacturers to contribute to the production that things started to shake loose. I can only envision how the spare parts issue was bigger than getting the new ones. Real tough to make spare parts when you are flat out making your normal production.
Posted by: remoteman   2008-02-26 17:46  

#6  Actually a lot of the problem we dealt with was spare parts for them and the maint cycle. The manufacturer was in SC IIRC. At one point it came down that they would/could send a whole MRAP quicker then the class-9 block or pre-extended bin to go with the normal rotation of the parts or consumables that shit the bed. Sounds counterintuitive but that's what we dealt with. My unit touched & shipped every MRAP that came through western iraq at one point. There is some merit to this IG invest IMO and from my experience. Some of our flag grade elephants even got involved with complaining to Logcom and the others up in the ether about the lack of velocity in the MRAP fielding.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2008-02-26 17:12  

#5  point taken...

MRAPs sure are impressive,

2 1/2 or 3 years ago I'd sure rather have been on route Irish in a MRAP instead of a Hummer.

In future conflicts the MRAP will make one impressive movable bunker!

>:")
.
Posted by: RD   2008-02-26 15:46  

#4  That the procurement process can be F'd-up is no secret. Of course it would have been better to move more rapidly and get MRAPS to theater faster. But many here know it is just not as easy as someone issueing a PO, which is what the idiotic MSM and their butt-buddies in Congress always make you want to think. These are expensive, complicated systems that need a whole lot of support once they are in theater. You can't turn on that whole system with the flip of a switch. Should it have been done faster? Sure. So should have the surge and true COIN. But as in all wars, we learn as we go for that particular event.
Posted by: remoteman   2008-02-26 15:35  

#3  The IG investigation is welcomed, but this isn't the first time Gayl has pushed one of his agendas.

The question then becomes, gromky - the MRAP may be fine for "this war", but what about the next operation? Will there be reports that marines died because there weren't enough vehicles because the MRAPs were too heavy and large to transport, or were unsuitable for the terrain? Or being accused of 'waste' because the MRAPs are sitting on blocks, because they are unsuitable for ops?

It's not like the Misguided Children are going to be able to ask for money from Congress for new vehicles for the next war, because the MRAPs were too heavy and large to transport, or were unsuitable for the terrain. Especially if Congress stays Democrat.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-02-26 13:43  

#2  Start by looking hard at the Democrats in congress.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-02-26 12:53  

#1  "Give Marines the vehicles they need to win the war? But that would come at the cost of cutting MY program! Over their dead bodies!"
Posted by: gromky   2008-02-26 02:29  

00:00