Sole provider could boost Humvee Armor output 22% if ordered

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-10 08:49pm

It's really sad that we're backsliding to the point where combat troops need to privately equipped by themselves, friends, and families. Remember when Something Awful.com raised money and bought body armor for a platoon of soldiers?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-12-10 09:31pm

Incidentally, the Army has asked them to up production. Better late than never. I guess.

CNN wrote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Florida company that retrofits U.S. Army Humvees with additional armor will increase production from 450 units a month to 550 by early 2005, the company said Friday night.

The question of whether wheeled vehicles in Iraq are properly armored surfaced Wednesday when a soldier asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about it during a town hall meeting at a staging area in Kuwait.

Armor Holdings Inc. said in a news release it can produce another 100 Humvees per month by next March and is currently 330 vehicles ahead of schedule.

The Army said that until news reports this week it was unaware Armor Holdings, based in Jacksonville, could retrofit more vehicles and so it approached the company. The Army said it thought the company had commitments to other customers, including the Marine Corps.

Francis Harvey, the new secretary of the army, talked with the company's CEO to discuss a deal Friday, a senior Pentagon official said.

Harvey set up a task force to look at other military vehicle contracts to see if more can be made or production increased.

CNN also learned that the U.S. Army Arsenal in Rock Island, Illinois, has been ordered to resume an around the clock schedule to make cab armor kits for 5-ton trucks and fuel tankers.

During the meeting with troops Wednesday at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, a soldier about to deploy to Iraq asked Rumsfeld why more vehicles were not reinforced for battle conditions. (Full story)

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" asked Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a Tennessee National Guard outfit.

"It's essentially a matter of physics, not a matter of money," Rumsfeld responded. "It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

The question was planted by a newspaper reporter from the Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee who is embedded with Wilson's unit. (Full story)

Some Democrats charged that Congress has repeatedly gone to the Pentagon about the need to beef up Humvees and had received assurances that the problem had been addressed.

A member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi, called the situation "ridiculous."

"I don't want to go to a single funeral and have to look a mom or dad or spouse in the eye, and knowing that this Congress has gone to Secretary Rumsfeld, for over a year now, saying, 'Fix the problem. Send us the bill.' "

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey sent a letter to President Bush on Friday urging for Rumsfeld's resignation.

"As a former soldier, I can't believe that a secretary of defense would be so dismissive of requests for protective gear by our people in uniform," Lautenberg wrote.

Republican John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his panel would hold more hearings on armoring vehicles and that Congress has provided more than $1 billion to correct the problem.

"Since the first day that the Defense Department identified a shortage of vehicle armor, Congress not only has provided the full armor funding requested by the [Defense] Department, it has gone beyond that, by providing $1.3 billion more for additional armor and armored vehicles in 2003-2004," Warner said in a news release.

Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb, commander of the 3rd Army who is responsible for ground operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, briefed reporters Thursday on the military's efforts to get more Humvees and transport trucks retrofitted with armor.

Whitcomb said 22,000 of 30,000 vehicles in Iraq, Afghanistan and other Central Command bases have additional armor.

Of those vehicles, 6,000 are factory retrofitted Humvees -- 2,100 short of the military's goal. About another 10,000 Humvees have been outfitted with add-on kits.

About 120 armored Humvees have been destroyed in combat, Whitcomb said.

He said transport trucks were usually retrofitted with "locally fabricated" armor. According to a House Armed Services Committee report, however, only 1,100 of 9,100 haulers in the war zones have added protection, the Associated Press reported.

Matt Salmon, president of ArmorWorks of Tempe, Arizona, told CNN his company, which designs and manufactures high-tech vehicle armor, could double its production from 300 to 600 kits per month.

The Army, however, said that it already has a backlog of kits.

CNN's Jamie McIntyre contributed to this report.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-10 09:34pm

How much do you want to bet that that quick turnaround was due to the embarassment Rumsfeld faced in front of the troops? Journalists need to be able to do this more often.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-12-10 09:37pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Incidentally, the Army has asked them to up production. Better late than never. I guess.

Yes, because the perfectly reasonable explanation they offered for the situation must just be a bag of lies meant to hide the fact that the Pentagon wants to keep US body counts high least the US population forget about the war.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-11 12:09am

I'm torn on this whole issue. On one hand, I want the troops to have what ever they need/want for this mission.

On the other hand, I know that the HMMWV isn't really suppost to be a LAV. The M998 is a utility vehicle and while there is the turreted version, it really isn't meant to be a armored vehicle which is why the army and the Marines are having a hard time getting a armored vehicle out of their Hummers.

They should have had the kits from the git go, but then again, if they need armor, they should have more LAV's and Bradley's. The HMMWV is for tactical mobility, which doesn't mean it should be a deathtrap, but then again, there was a reason why I got all those 'improvised hardening' classes for trucks and Hummers in the Corps.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-12-11 12:19am

Knife wrote:I'm torn on this whole issue. On one hand, I want the troops to have what ever they need/want for this mission.

On the other hand, I know that the HMMWV isn't really suppost to be a LAV. The M998 is a utility vehicle and while there is the turreted version, it really isn't meant to be a armored vehicle which is why the army and the Marines are having a hard time getting a armored vehicle out of their Hummers.

They should have had the kits from the git go, but then again, if they need armor, they should have more LAV's and Bradley's. The HMMWV is for tactical mobility, which doesn't mean it should be a deathtrap, but then again, there was a reason why I got all those 'improvised hardening' classes for trucks and Hummers in the Corps.

I believe the quote is: "The military is always ready to fight the last war," isn't it?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-11 12:24am

Beowulf wrote:
I believe the quote is: "The military is always ready to fight the last war," isn't it?

Really and truely, if they need IFV to drive around in, give em some IFV. To upgrade a utility truck to be an armored vehicle is not the solution I'd prefer.

The LAV was really designed for protecting the squad while they moved into position, as was various other vehicles. I know they don't have too much of these, but, and I do know how the troops feel, you do have impromtu hardening classes for a reason. Scrap metal and sand bags were taught to me a decade ago.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2004-12-11 01:21am

Darth Wong wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Meanwhile however, the fact that O'Gara-Hess, the company which makes the M1114, a purpose built armored hummve, and has built a completely new factory to ramp up production of the vehicle (currently something like 6,000 delivered) since the war began is ignored. Ten to one the reason why the far inferior bolt on armor kits haven't been produced at the maximum possibul rate is either because the company decided to built them slower and thus keep its self working for longer (since once enough M1114's are produced its product will no longer be needed) or its because the existing orders which have been placed with both companies already meet the projected demand for this budget. And they aren't being stingy on what demand is expected to be, we now probably have more armored vehicles in Iraq for 140,000 or so men then we had for the Gulf War invasion with 500,000
In other words, there's a better solution coming down the pipe so they don't want to spend the (relatively insignificant money) for a stopgap solution to get us from here to there, even though the penalty for this omission will be paid in lives while the cost is only money. Yup- typical businessmen.

Well lets go with the...you got this one wrong answer. Now that being the opening statement let me give you my explanation why. Oh yes and it might be a while.

What is the hummer's mission? It is a multipurpose (the second M in HMMWV) cargo and troop carrier which can be modified for combat purposes in a scouting role. In other words the primary job of a humvee is to safely transport the people and cargo inside it to the needed desitination. Since this cargo and personnel aacount for all range of activities there are currently (between 998 series, 1038 series, and 1123 series) about 25-30 variants on the basic design to accomplish these missions. Included here is everything including Ambulance, Mechanic, C2, GPMG platform, TOW platform, Cargo carrier, Troop carrier, and others.

Well as one can see this creates a problem for someone trying to utilize the bolt on kits because with the possible exception of the front two doors each configuration needs a different armor kit. So if you are Army Material Command you can't just say "get me 500 kits instead of 400," you need to figure out which vehicles need which kits and how many of each vehicle is over there. Furthermore not every vehicle needs a kit sent to it (those used exclusively on base in a non-patroling status would come to mind, like those used to shuttle AF personnel about). The problem is far from a simple matter of sending the same stuff to everyone and saying the job is done.

That's problem one.

Problem two: Ask anyone who has drive in a moded-armor hummer what their visibility was like. The downside of the current kit is that it almost completely blocks your peripheral and rear vision. One might say this is a small price to pay for added securitybut then that perosn likely hasn't been on a convoy...YES those doors are pretty good blast protection but against any threat other than an IED (say RPGs, mortars, and small-arms) the lack of sight lines is worse than hinderance, its an outright endangerment. So using bolt on instead of the purpose built vehicles (which have better sight lines) presents a very unwelcome compromise between security against one threat and vulnerability to another.

As an example I used two different types of up-armor doors over there. The first looked essentially like a modern car door with the window rolled partially down, all solid steel. Sight line were excellent but blast protection against my face from most angles was non-existant....I loved it compared against the more common up-armor kit sent over there which has a tiny viewing area and which, moreover still wasn't enough to save John, Pat, and Al. That's right folks the up-armor kits don't stop blasts if you are right next door, you need distance even WITH the kits. So it becomes a question of better (though not full) protection against IEDs inexchange for vulnerability being increased against small arms and RPGs. The only way around it is more of the purpose built ones but that's still upcoming and not fully available. Suprise suprise there isn't enough money to get purpose built armored vehicles for every roles they need to fill.

Now onto reason 3: Both the kit and the purpose built ones require some scavenging anyway, you want to know why? Because As of the day I left (and to my knowledge still today) the humvee still has NO purpose built or officially approved means of guarding the gunner on the roof. Those of you who have seen Black Hawk Down and watched the 50cal gunners get shot? There is still NO purpose built protection for them, every bit of armor on the roof of Humvees is stuff scavenged and scrapped together. That's a failure on many levels so it would be unfair to level it on Rummsfeld alone (though I will keep my opinion private there).

If you'd like I could keep going but the point is, and will remain, that this situation is not some callous waste of lives over money, its an acknowledgement that the problem and solution are both products of an imperfect and extremely complex world that is modern military apparatus.

As an aside almost no mention is made of armor for the thousands of 5-ton, 7-ton, PLS, LVS, and HEMTT trucks which far outnumber Humvees on the roads of Iraq.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-12-11 07:13am

Darth Wong wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Meanwhile however, the fact that O'Gara-Hess, the company which makes the M1114, a purpose built armored hummve, and has built a completely new factory to ramp up production of the vehicle (currently something like 6,000 delivered) since the war began is ignored. Ten to one the reason why the far inferior bolt on armor kits haven't been produced at the maximum possibul rate is either because the company decided to built them slower and thus keep its self working for longer (since once enough M1114's are produced its product will no longer be needed) or its because the existing orders which have been placed with both companies already meet the projected demand for this budget. And they aren't being stingy on what demand is expected to be, we now probably have more armored vehicles in Iraq for 140,000 or so men then we had for the Gulf War invasion with 500,000
In other words, there's a better solution coming down the pipe so they don't want to spend the (relatively insignificant money) for a stopgap solution to get us from here to there, even though the penalty for this omission will be paid in lives while the cost is only money. Yup- typical businessmen.

When Bush was first campaigning in 1999 for the job of CEO of the US there was a big hoo-ha made about him being the first Presidential candidate with an MBA and how, if he were elected, he'd run the government like a real business.

My thought was that government and business aren't necessarially the same thing, but oh well...

Anyhow, now he's trying to run the government - and a war - as a business. And people are unhappy that he's running it as if it were part of corporate Amercia where the Bill of Rights is an inconvenience and machinery is cared for better than people.

Go figger....

Gotta love those quick-response Republican spin-doctors. They're already going to all the news outlets and explaining that the question was planted by a reporter, as if this somehow negates the fact that the military audience loudly cheered it or the fact that Rumsfeld had no good answers.

Yes - and yesterday the New York Times reported that the Pentagon is sending someone over to Kuwait to "have a talk" with the young man who questioned Rummy. I hope the man doesn't suffer too much for having dared to take Rummy's request for questions at face value.

Of course, one of the ironies of all this, is when Rummy left, after dissing the lack of armor comment, he left in an armored car....

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-11 07:30am

When Bush was first campaigning in 1999 for the job of CEO of the US there was a big hoo-ha made about him being the first Presidential candidate with an MBA and how, if he were elected, he'd run the government like a real business.

Given his business credentials, I'm not sure why anyone thought that was a good thing.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-12-11 08:33am

Yeah, well, a bunch of people mentioned that, too in 1999 but no one listened to that, either.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-11 02:13pm

Durandal wrote:Well duh, Coyote. You weren't the Army that Rummy wanted to go to war with. You were what he settled for.

Fuck, I'm second-string! Next war I'm going Free Agent!

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-11 02:21pm

Broomstick wrote: Yes - and yesterday the New York Times reported that the Pentagon is sending someone over to Kuwait to "have a talk" with the young man who questioned Rummy. I hope the man doesn't suffer too much for having dared to take Rummy's request for questions at face value.

You can bet that that boy has already had an ass-chewing by his CO. Despite the claims to the contrary, the military doesn't want it's soldiers to speak their minds. Especially when their opnions run counter to that of the current leadership.

That boy's career is over. He'll never make it past Spc now.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-11 02:25pm

So far I've used two different types of armored Humvees in the field: the mission at Taji, where we used stock M998 that had "ghetto armor" bolted to them: just plain ol' sheet steel, sometimes reinforced with sandbags on the floor.

The vehicles were not equipped to handle theload, the suspension was not meant for it-- the 988 is really just a street car with a more robust body and that's about it.

Now, I'm using the M-1114, which Sea Skimmer said had been available but not ordered in large number (I was actually of theopinion that it had been developed in reaction to events here). It's a Humvee with heavy suspension, increased radiator capacity, armored body and bulletproof glass. The doors lock from the inside-- it's nice (when you can get parts for them, that's another story alltogether)

The home-made armor Humvees are crap. That sheet still is probably worse for you then going soft-skin in case of direct fire-- it'll just add spall. It is mostly for psychological proitection and maybe some shrapnel protection. And as has been mentioned, frequently you can't see diddley.

There is a proper factory kit for the 998-- we just got ours today (we are due to rotate out in two months-- great!) but now we leave the 998s behind at the camp and go out in sector in the 1114s.

The M1114 is a fine machine but I still say we need purpose-bui9lt armored cars. The Army has a phobia about armored cars (too "European", I guess) but we are fighting armored-car battles here. Strykers are not armored cars, they are troop carriers and too big for the narrow streets.

We should learn from the Europeans-- the British and French make some excellent armored cars, and some German models would be suitable as well.

I hope this public embarrasment for the Admin hurries things up, but...

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-12-11 02:26pm

The tone of your post provides an interesting contrast to your sig line, did you know that?

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-11 03:03pm

Keeps people on their toes.

It's just that today... well, the armor thing is becoming sort of a sore spot with me. Today we did inventory of the personal effects of guys that have been lost. Mostly wounded, but two of them were not.

So I'm standing there holding two Kevlar helmets with holes punched through them... it's kind of a wake-up call. I didn't know the guys, I mean, I'd seen them before but never really talked to them, they were killed before I was integrated into the unit.

Now, they were in armored vehicles, it was dumb luck, but I'm just of the mindset that no matter what, more can be done.

That kid that asked the question of Rummy..? The platoon's imbedded reporter coached him on the question. I doubt he can be punished because everyone in the damn Army considers him a hero now and any adverse action would be a PR nightmare.

But given the way things go sometimes.... I'm being cynical now I guess.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2004-12-11 03:17pm

Hey Coyote on the 998s were you using the tan purpose built doors with the tiny little peephole window or the green steel doors? If its the former have you yet run into their loving tendency to have the latch jam up so you can't get into or out of the vehicle without a three minute struggle?

Anyway sorry to hear about those two guys but its good to know you're still doing all right over there.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-12-12 02:13am

AP wrote: Still, company officials said the Armor Holdings plant was not immediately capable of boosting output. Armor Holdings said in a statement issued Friday that it could increase its rate of production by February or March.

What's that? They don't have the capacity to make more armor kits immediately?

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-12 11:44am

CmdrWilkens wrote:Hey Coyote on the 998s were you using the tan purpose built doors with the tiny little peephole window or the green steel doors?

The tan ones. They're shit. We do have the thing green ones too, but they are for the cargoes we use in the camp. Those things won't stay closed...

Anyway sorry to hear about those two guys but its good to know you're still doing all right over there.

Thanks.

Soulman · Post by **Soulman** » 2004-12-12 12:09pm

Beowulf wrote:
AP wrote: Still, company officials said the Armor Holdings plant was not immediately capable of boosting output. Armor Holdings said in a statement issued Friday that it could increase its rate of production by February or March.
What's that? They don't have the capacity to make more armor kits immediately?

They'll need to get more materials in from their suppliers and probably employ and train more staff. You can't just start production immediately like that, there is a whole supply chain that has to get goind.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-12 04:50pm

Beowulf wrote:
AP wrote: Still, company officials said the Armor Holdings plant was not immediately capable of boosting output. Armor Holdings said in a statement issued Friday that it could increase its rate of production by February or March.
What's that? They don't have the capacity to make more armor kits immediately?

What's that? A bullshit red herring to the fact they knew they could expand and offered to the Army to do it? And the Army said no, until shamed into it by someone actually saying 'Hey, we're fucking around in garbage piles because of you'? How surprising...

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-12 08:52pm

Good job World War II wasn't run this way. Who'd ever have thought that a bunch of "socialist" New Dealers would continue to prove more competent decades after-the-fact than the Bush maladministration's bidness-oriented CEOs?