Washington Post: Problems Stall Pentagon's New Fighting Vehicle - No Iran Landing?

[CorpGovActivist]

"Costly Amphibious System Not Meeting Expectations" (and yet the contractor gets performance bonuses)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020601997.html

This weapons system was shown on Future Weapons (Discovery Channel), and showcased as if it is a working system: http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/future-weapons/episodes/episode-guides-2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFV

If the gathering naval forces in the Persian Gulf unleash an amphibious landing, will the EFV get its first battle test?

- Dave

[MADem]

1. Where would they land in Iran? That's suicide. They'd be beaten back by the population, from

toddlers to the elderly, before the military could even be mustered. One should never underestimate the profound nationalism of the average Iranian, even those who despise the current government. There's enormous pride in the nation, it's history, and culture.

If anything happens in or around Iran, it will be in the nature of aircraft from on high, missiles from afar, and blockades round about Hormuz. There will be no 'invading.' We don't have the personnel for that kind of thing.

That said, the fact that they couldn't get this damned next generation amphib right is disgraceful. It's a floating "Pentagon Wars"...when will we ever learn???

[CorpGovActivist]

2. Limited Landings in SW Iran...

... to secure Iraq seaport and Kuwait: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=iran&ie=UTF8&om=1&oe=UTF-8&z=7&ll=29.916852,45.615234&spn=3.484839,10.777588&t=h

- Dave

[jody]

3. First battle test in Iran? Not likely since it's to be deployed in 2010. n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

4. Limited Battle Tests Often Take Place...

... on new systems such as this one, before their slated official deployment.

See this article, for example: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-10.htm

- Dave

[jody]

5. I understand but that's very unlikely per the WP article you cited.

The amphibious vehicle, which can be launched from a ship and then driven on land, is so unreliable that the Pentagon is ditching plans to begin building the first of more than 1,000 and wants to start over with seven new prototypes, which will take nearly two years to deliver, at a cost of $22 million each.

[papau]

6. "operational mission failure" on average every 4.5 hours - may need more than duck tape to fix

2 to 3 years behind schedule of 2010 deployment - Original goal of 70 hours between major breakdowns is impossible - so new goal - not yet met obviously since they are at 4.5 hours now - of 43.5 hours.

In the tests there were 645 failures within the subsystems, overwhelming the three-man maintenance crew, according to a report by the service's testing agency. "It's a very complex vehicle; when it breaks, it's difficult to repair,"

[CorpGovActivist]

7. What Intrigued Me: The Incongruity between the Discovery Channel Footage and Post Article...

... either the military was blowing smoke about the operational capacity of the system for the Discovery Channel special (showing the one and only working model), or someone screwed up by allowing it to be shown.

It wouldn't be the first time the military claimed a system didn't work, when in fact it was ready for field testing.

- Dave

[mikehiggins]

8. Its DUCT tape, not duck tape, and I'd bet the Pentagon would

end up using it shiny side down.

Billions of dollars for a piece of crap war machine and kids living in filth and garbage here in the US. How screwed up is that?

[papau]

9. LOL - I can't spell worth a damn! n/t

n/t

[bananarepublican]

10. I bet 'Amphibious 1' works just fine! Bush might want to stage a Macarthuresque...

... photo op. I can picture Bush waiding ashore under a 'Landing Accomplished' banner.