Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor

[piasabird]

I dont think any company had a stockpile of 500,000 sets of body armor that was up to the task. So if demand was up then it makes sense that there would be some body armor price gouging.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: palehorse74


This is what happens when clueless civilians try to understand what the military does

Clueless???

Did you even read the article?

"the Army has been unable to determine the veracity of these claims."

then in the next paragraph..

"In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements," the Army order says, and it "has not been certified to protect against several small arms threats that the military is encountering in Iraq and Afghanistan."

It seems like to me the Army is the clueless one here.

you managed to miss the entire f'n point. the point was that those who are buying and using 3rd-party armor, such as DragonSkin, are only doing so for reasons of comfort and convenience. They ARE being issued fully tested sets of armor! They're only choosing not to wear them because it's "too hot" or "too heavy"... that is unacceptable. There is no excuse for not wearing the issued armor unless you don't get a set issued. And as for that, I dont know a single soldier who has deployed without armor since 2004; and you can easily get replacement sets in-country at RFI.

this order was given because of soldiers who read Soldier of Fortune magazine and think they can ditch their perfectly good armor for lighter stuff that may or may not be as effective. That is what has been banned, as the 3rd-party gear has not been thoroughly tested and approved by the Army.

Be carefull who you argue with here. some of us actually know what we're talking about.

You did not prove any of your points just talk.

And you did not give any proof that the Army does know if Dragonskin is better than its approved body armor.

With the advent of the Army deploying Humvees without proper armor during this conflict I am going to have side with the article. Until you can provide me a link from like a *.mil souce then you do not have a point.

Ah, ok, that makes sense. You want evidence provided that you know won't be provided because it is either not published or restricted material. Genius!

What does your last paragraph have to do with it? Humvees all have proper armor now, soldiers all have proper armor. What you really want is for them to change the armor the soldiers are using. Got it.

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

Wow you could be next WH press secetary.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

Wow you could be next WH press secetary.

Wow, maybe he is telling the truth.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

Wow you could be next WH press secetary.

Wow, maybe he is telling the truth.

That would be a welcome change as far as WH press secetarys go.

 

[Gaard]

I wouldn't think twice about this if they only allowed armor that's 'approved' by the military. But when only that which is 'issued' by the military is allowed, it smells like politics and greed, and that's not acceptable when talking about soldiers' lives.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Wow you could be next WH press secetary.

Given that you offered no counter-argument, I assume you don't have one.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why isn't better technology available? I know that ligher weight and more mobile forms of armor exist, why isn't that the army and marine corps standard? I assume it costs more, but body armor seems like an area where you don't want to do things on the cheap.

An Israeli company just demonstrated a prototype of composite armor that uses nanotubes to give it unparalleled strength... apparently enough to stop even high-powered rifle rounds... all in a very light and compact package. They expect to have manufacturing prototypes by the end of the year, and begin mass production by late 2007/2008. Estimated cost per set: $40-50k. Guess who's not going to be getting the uber armor - our troops. Pentagon announced that they have no interest of dealing with the company. IDF, on the other hand, has already invested heavily into getting this new technology up and running.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why isn't better technology available? I know that ligher weight and more mobile forms of armor exist, why isn't that the army and marine corps standard? I assume it costs more, but body armor seems like an area where you don't want to do things on the cheap.

An Israeli company just demonstrated a prototype of composite armor that uses nanotubes to give it unparalleled strength... apparently enough to stop even high-powered rifle rounds... all in a very light and compact package. They expect to have manufacturing prototypes by the end of the year, and begin mass production by late 2007/2008. Estimated cost per set: $40-50k. Guess who's not going to be getting the uber armor - our troops. Pentagon announced that they have no interest of dealing with the company. IDF, on the other hand, has already invested heavily into getting this new technology up and running.

What, you expect them to jump on that immediately? Figure they will give it a couple years for testing, also consider that "mass production" likely means 500 sets/month in this case. We need 500,000 sets.

$40,000 x 500,000 = $20,000,000,000. Let's say the company is producing 1000 sets/month. That's only a decade or so to get them issued. The US DOES NOT USE BLEEDING EDGE TECHNOLOGY FOR A REASON. Jeez, apparently that is hard to understand.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

IMO, that shows even more plainly how incompetent and negligent the chickenhawk war-mongers were in sending our troops into battle. They'd been told to expect a strong insurgency but instead stuck to their ideological fantasies of flowers and kisses.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why isn't better technology available? I know that ligher weight and more mobile forms of armor exist, why isn't that the army and marine corps standard? I assume it costs more, but body armor seems like an area where you don't want to do things on the cheap.

An Israeli company just demonstrated a prototype of composite armor that uses nanotubes to give it unparalleled strength... apparently enough to stop even high-powered rifle rounds... all in a very light and compact package. They expect to have manufacturing prototypes by the end of the year, and begin mass production by late 2007/2008. Estimated cost per set: $40-50k. Guess who's not going to be getting the uber armor - our troops. Pentagon announced that they have no interest of dealing with the company. IDF, on the other hand, has already invested heavily into getting this new technology up and running.

What, you expect them to jump on that immediately? Figure they will give it a couple years for testing, also consider that "mass production" likely means 500 sets/month in this case. We need 500,000 sets.

$40,000 x 500,000 = $20,000,000,000. Let's say the company is producing 1000 sets/month. That's only a decade or so to get them issued. The US DOES NOT USE BLEEDING EDGE TECHNOLOGY FOR A REASON. Jeez, apparently that is hard to understand.

someone who actually gets it!

Most people just hear the word "armor" and think they know what they're talking about... they immediately begin whining about our troops not having any 4 years ago, blah blah blah... it's actually funny sometimes to see some of these life-long civilians talk about the military as if they have a clue.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

IMO, that shows even more plainly how incompetent and negligent the chickenhawk war-mongers were in sending our troops into battle. They'd been told to expect a strong insurgency but instead stuck to their ideological fantasies of flowers and kisses.

Conjur, why don't you head thirty miles down the road to Knox and ask the soldiers there about their opinions? I'd LOVE for you to read the comments you post to them. In fact, do it tomorrow while I am there so I can watch.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

Wow you could be next WH press secetary.

Wow, maybe he is telling the truth.

Automatically disqualifying him from the job.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

IMO, that shows even more plainly how incompetent and negligent the chickenhawk war-mongers were in sending our troops into battle. They'd been told to expect a strong insurgency but instead stuck to their ideological fantasies of flowers and kisses.

Conjur, why don't you head thirty miles down the road to Knox and ask the soldiers there about their opinions? I'd LOVE for you to read the comments you post to them. In fact, do it tomorrow while I am there so I can watch.

dont hold your breath.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

IMO, that shows even more plainly how incompetent and negligent the chickenhawk war-mongers were in sending our troops into battle. They'd been told to expect a strong insurgency but instead stuck to their ideological fantasies of flowers and kisses.

Conjur, why don't you head thirty miles down the road to Knox and ask the soldiers there about their opinions? I'd LOVE for you to read the comments you post to them. In fact, do it tomorrow while I am there so I can watch.

Yeah, I'll just take off work to satisfy you.

I never said 100% of the military is against this administration. However, the dissent in the ranks is growing. Articles have been posted before. Here are some letters submitted to Stars and Stripes
Interviews of Iraq War veterans


But, I'll take your diversion from the point I raised as your acquiescence.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

IMO, that shows even more plainly how incompetent and negligent the chickenhawk war-mongers were in sending our troops into battle. They'd been told to expect a strong insurgency but instead stuck to their ideological fantasies of flowers and kisses.

Conjur, why don't you head thirty miles down the road to Knox and ask the soldiers there about their opinions? I'd LOVE for you to read the comments you post to them. In fact, do it tomorrow while I am there so I can watch.

Yeah, I'll just take off work to satisfy you.

I never said 100% of the military is against this administration. However, the dissent in the ranks is growing. Articles have been posted before. Here are some letters submitted to Stars and Stripes
Interviews of Iraq War veterans


But, I'll take your diversion from the point I raised as your acquiescence.

I did not respond to it because there was nothing to respond to. You are saying that because the military was not 100% prepared for that specific type of combat, that everyone involved incompetant.

You also failed to make an important distinction. The support for the administration has little to do with the support for the war. Yeah, I would say that a large percentage of those in the military would prefer someone else (keep in mind how close the election was), but I would also say that almost all support the war.

Citing 50 letters from 50 out of 750,000 people does not mean all that much. Unlike you, I have actually spoken to quite a few people who have been there. Again though, that is not entirely relevant though because I have only spoken to a tiny fraction of those that have been there.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, I'll just take off work to satisfy you.

I never said 100% of the military is against this administration. However, the dissent in the ranks is growing. Articles have been posted before. Here are some letters submitted to Stars and Stripes
Interviews of Iraq War veterans


But, I'll take your diversion from the point I raised as your acquiescence.

I did not respond to it because there was nothing to respond to. You are saying that because the military was not 100% prepared for that specific type of combat, that everyone involved incompetant.

Damn, it's an epidemic. Reading Comprehension Syndrome. Care to point out where I said such?

I never said the military wasn't 100% prepared. I was talking about the "chickenhawk war-mongers". You know, the President, Vice-President, Deputy Sec'y of Defense, National Security Advisor, etc. that sent our troops into battle completely ignoring the warnings of what was going to happen.

You also failed to make an important distinction. The support for the administration has little to do with the support for the war. Yeah, I would say that a large percentage of those in the military would prefer someone else (keep in mind how close the election was), but I would also say that almost all support the war.

Citing 50 letters from 50 out of 750,000 people does not mean all that much. Unlike you, I have actually spoken to quite a few people who have been there. Again though, that is not entirely relevant though because I have only spoken to a tiny fraction of those that have been there.

I know and have spoken to people who have served in Afghanistan and in Iraq and also know people soon to be going to Iraq. The opinions are mixed but no one, save one, was gung-ho about what was going in Iraq. Even the guy in Afghanistan didn't want to talk much about what he'd seen and done over there.

Watch that video. If the media and keyboard commandos and the radical far-right chickenhawks weren't so easy to vilify anyone who criticizes the war and/or the administration then we would most likely be hearing from many more Iraq vets that are against the war and the reasons being spouted for being over there.

As for your claim that "that almost all support the war":


Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006



* Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay ?as long as they are needed?

*While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy

*Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown

* Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam?s role in 9/11, most don?t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks

* Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation

* Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College?s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq ?immediately,? while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay ?as long as they are needed.?

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Fair enough. At least those that I have talked to have been positive about it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: outriding

"In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements," the Army order says, and it "has not been certified to protect against several small arms threats that the military is encountering in Iraq and Afghanistan."

It seems like to me the Army is the clueless one here.

No, it looks like the army knows exactly what it's talking about. If any equipment/material hasn't passed the relevant specification, troops cannot use it. I already stated why previously in this thread.

Originally posted by: Gaard
I wouldn't think twice about this if they only allowed armor that's 'approved' by the military. But when only that which is 'issued' by the military is allowed, it smells like politics and greed, and that's not acceptable when talking about soldiers' lives.

The way the military works is the following:

1. Any company submits a material/piece of equipment for testing.
2. The military runs an extensive battery of tests on said material/equipment.
3. If the material/equipment meets all specifications, then that company is added to the supplier list for the relevant specification. If it does not meet the specification, then it is left off the list. The company may resubmit for another test at any time.

Thus, any company in the business stands to make big bucks if they make a product that passes muster. Accordingly, companies do many shady things to try to get around the specifications. If they get caught, they also get blacklisted and all of their products are removed from the purchasing list. Of course there is profit involved, but it's not limited to one company, and it's in each company's best interest to put forth the best product they can, since the specs are regularly revised to the point where only the best available technology will qualify. This is one area where I think the tediousness of government is actually worthwhile, as it guarantees a good product, yet is fair to all companies.

Originally posted by: Meuge
An Israeli company just demonstrated a prototype of composite armor that uses nanotubes to give it unparalleled strength... apparently enough to stop even high-powered rifle rounds... all in a very light and compact package. They expect to have manufacturing prototypes by the end of the year, and begin mass production by late 2007/2008. Estimated cost per set: $40-50k. Guess who's not going to be getting the uber armor - our troops. Pentagon announced that they have no interest of dealing with the company. IDF, on the other hand, has already invested heavily into getting this new technology up and running.

I'm not sure why carbon nanotubes would be useful for this application unless a novel interfacial material has been developed, since you don't really want 'strength' in armor - you want toughness, impact resistance, and high energy dissipation. Nanotubes add rigidity, which is related to toughness, but fracture strain is where the real energy dissipation appears in kevlar and similar materials. This would probably be a bad thing for armor for the same reason cars aren't made entirely from carbon fiber/polymer composites. If such a car were in an accident, everyone inside would have their necks broken on impact, since the material is so stiff that it does not absorb any energy from the impact. Thus, the energy is all transferred to the passengers, which is bad. This was experimentally demonstrated with a school bus (and crash test dummies instead of kids, thankfully ). You have a link to anything about this?

 

[fitzov]

1. Any company submits a material/piece of equipment for testing.
2. The military runs an extensive battery of tests on said material/equipment.
3. If the material/equipment meets all specifications, then that company is added to the supplier list for the relevant specification. If it does not meet the specification, then it is left off the list. The company may resubmit for another test at any time.

You left out this step:

4. If the bid would go to some company other than Bechtel, return to step 1.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Key word is bolded. Why didn't they have it to begin with?

They didnt have it to begin with largely because the threat matrix never required it.

Our military is very much anchored on a conventional warfare force structure...heavily armored units designed to close with and destroy enemy mechanized forces...with the capability to dismount infantry when necessary.

Abrams tanks and Bradleys provide more then adequate surviveability, but they were not designed for urban police action and stability operations.

The HMMWV emerged as the preferred platform for such missions, finding widespread application in the Balkans and even Somalia. The problem is that the HMMWV was not designed to withstand IEDs, RPGs or other improvised explosives that an Abrams or Bradley could probably survive.

We are facing a cunning enemy in Iraq that has managed to exploit the weaknesses in our otherwise technologically superior force. And as Iraq has proven, all of the protective gear and weapon systems in the world will not help our soldiers win a war that was ill conceived and a strategic blunder from Day 1.

IMO, that shows even more plainly how incompetent and negligent the chickenhawk war-mongers were in sending our troops into battle. They'd been told to expect a strong insurgency but instead stuck to their ideological fantasies of flowers and kisses.

Conjur, why don't you head thirty miles down the road to Knox and ask the soldiers there about their opinions? I'd LOVE for you to read the comments you post to them. In fact, do it tomorrow while I am there so I can watch.

Yeah, I'll just take off work to satisfy you.

I never said 100% of the military is against this administration. However, the dissent in the ranks is growing. Articles have been posted before. Here are some letters submitted to Stars and Stripes
Interviews of Iraq War veterans


But, I'll take your diversion from the point I raised as your acquiescence.

How'd you manage to find a job in such a bad economy? Must've been tough with our high unemployment and outsourcing.

If you went to a military base, you'd be hardpressed to find one soldier who would be critical of Bush in the open. That's pretty much treason to question your commander in chief. The military is trained to follow orders, not to think about them.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, I'll just take off work to satisfy you.

I never said 100% of the military is against this administration. However, the dissent in the ranks is growing. Articles have been posted before. Here are some letters submitted to Stars and Stripes
Interviews of Iraq War veterans


But, I'll take your diversion from the point I raised as your acquiescence.

How'd you manage to find a job in such a bad economy? Must've been tough with our high unemployment and outsourcing.

What's that have to do with this thread? Oh yeah, nothing. Just more of your incessant trolling.

If you went to a military base, you'd be hardpressed to find one soldier who would be critical of Bush in the open. That's pretty much treason to question your commander in chief. The military is trained to follow orders, not to think about them.

As I wrote above to SarcasticDwarf:

Watch that video. If the media and keyboard commandos and the radical far-right chickenhawks weren't so easy to vilify anyone who criticizes the war and/or the administration then we would most likely be hearing from many more Iraq vets that are against the war and the reasons being spouted for being over there.

And, I never said you'd hear active-duty soldiers on a base openly criticizing the President, did I?

And, again, for your edification:
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: fitzov
You left out this step:

4. If the bid would go to some company other than Bechtel, return to step 1.

Are all of the following Bechtel subsidiaries? I don't think so... nice try though!

In FY04, DSCP competitively awarded new contracts for completion of acquisition objectives and on-going sustainment. Bids were solicited on the web on May 19, 2004 and 16 bids were received. The US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. is the contracting activity.

* Armor Works LLC, was awarded on, Aug. 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $10,624,028 as part of a $276,796,511 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0040) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Tempe, Ariz., and is expected to be completed by August 19, 2007.
* Ceradyne, Inc, was awarded on, August 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $28,130,882 as part of a $461,000,000 firm fixed price fee contract for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Costa Mesa, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.
* Cercom Inc, was awarded on, August 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $5,936,592 as part of a $424,465,470 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0043) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Vista, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.
* Composix Co., was awarded on, August 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $5,064,660 as part of a $362,123,190 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0044) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Newark, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.
* ForceOne LLC, was awarded on, Aug. 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $5,135,979 as part of a $461,000,000 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0041) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Spruce Pine, N.C., and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.
* Simula, Inc, was awarded on, Aug. 19, 2004, a delivery order amount of $5,322,828 as part of a $461,000,000 firm fixed price fee contract (W91CRB-04-D-0042) for interceptor body armor inserts. Work will be performed in Phoenix, Ariz., and is expected to be completed by Aug. 19, 2007.

Point Blank Body Armor Inc.*, Oakland Park, Fla., was awarded on June 7, 2004, a delivery order amount of $11,897,120 as part of a $239,400,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the Interceptor Body Armor Extremity Protection Deltoid and Axillary Protectors. Work will be performed in Oakland, Park, Fla., and is expected to be completed by June 6, 2007. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on May 4, 2004, and three bids were received. The U.S. Army Robert Morris Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., is the contracting activity (W91CRB-04-D-0014).

Point Blank Body Armor Inc., Oakland Park, Fla., was awarded on July 9, 2004, a $24,756,750 firm-fixed-price contract for 50,000 sets of the outer tactical vests which are a component of the Interceptor Body Armor. Work will be performed in Oakland Park, Fla., and is expected to be completed by Feb. 28, 2005. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on July 7, 2004. The U.S. Army Robert Morris Acquisition Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., is the contracting activity (W91CRB-04-F-0126).

 

[Colonel C]

Originally posted by: Apocalypse
OMG--- you guys have no reason even commenting on body armor until you have been there and done that.

That argument is just a stupid copout.