MRAP Delight

The details on how the U.S. military is procuring and delivering their Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles just keeps better and better. The White House is pushing for the addition of $5.3 billion in the defense supplemental on top of the $4 billion plus for MRAPs in the initial defense bill. The details are interesting. From DefenseNews (subscription required):

The proposed $5.3 billion would go to the four services, defensewide accounts and Special Operations Command (SOCOM), including:

• $1.4 billion for Army procurement, which would be used to purchase 627 MRAPs.
• $2.4 billion for the Marine Corps, which would go for 632 trucks.
• $568 million for Air Force accounts that would be tapped for 261 MRAPs.

If Congress approves, SOCOM would get $131 million and the Navy would receive $55 million, but those funds apparently would not be used to buy any actual vehicles.

The money would also be used to buy related items such as equipment, upgrades, logistical support, “battle damage assessment” and repairs, according to the request documents.

The funds would also be used to “maximize production capacity and accelerate fielding” of the heavily armored vehicles, according to the request.

This comes to $3.4 million per MRAP, which could jolt lawmakers expecting to pay around $1 million apiece, according to James McAleese, who monitors defense programs for McAleese and Associates, McLean, Va.

Moreover, he said, “There could be some congressional surprise that the $5.3 billion amendment only funds an additional 1,520 vehicles, instead of approximately 4,600 additional vehicles.”

So much for the $1 mil/vehicle estimate, and none of you should be surprised by the inflation. Yes, the bucket seats, air conditioning, and radios weren't included in the original sticker price. Now, the surprise isn't just that the Army and Air Force are getting MRAPs at $2 million a pop (and why is the AF getting so many vehicles? Do they go off-base?) and the Marines are getting a larger one at nearly twice the cost (Marines have bigger... needs?). It's not that the SOCOM and Navy are getting what appears to be pork on top of an MRAP procurement to keep them happy. It's that we're going to fly these multi-ton vehicles into theater at a cost of nearly $750 million.

The emergency funding request would allow the military to fly many of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to troops rather than send them by ship, which takes weeks. The flight takes 13 hours, allowing for same-day delivery, said Lt. Col. Ed Thomas, an Air Force spokesman.
----------
The military's Transportation Command estimates that it costs $135,000 to send an MRAP by plane compared with $18,000 by ship. An Air Force C-17 can carry as many as three MRAP vehicles.

Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said eventually more MRAPs will be sent by ship when production of them increases. Some MRAPs are already being flown to Iraq. The emergency request would fund the delivery of the vehicles as quickly as they are produced. They are flown from Charleston (S.C.) Air Force Base after being outfitted with electronics.

Michael O'Hanlon, being the hack that he's turned into, makes a snarky comment in the USA Today article on how this airlift is the DoD's way of making up for dragging its collective feet in making the decision to procure MRAPs in the first place. No, Michael, they're airlifting the vehicles because they know that political support for this system will allow them to get away with airlift costs. No politician will dare complain about 3/4's of a billion dollars when it might save the life of one of their constituents' kids. It has nothing to do with the speed of the requirements process.

Again, I will point out that the reason the military was reluctant to jump into this morass of replacing efficient, multi-purpose HMMWVs with these single-purpose, mobile tanks was reasons such as these. The logistics and sustaintment costs are what kill you, not the up-front R&D and procurement costs. MRAPs are a good idea for special purpose EOD and convoy protection, but we ought not have the goal of replacing 17,000 HMMWVs in Iraq with these gold-plated monstrosities. We ought to focus on executing a good military strategy and getting the hell out of that civil war.

Comments

[NVH]

Ok, I can't resist J. I'm commenting here but this applies to the other post about focusing on threats too. You talk about executing a good military strategy. I argue the one Petraeus is employing is good and we need to give it time. You disagree. Fine. Give it time, lets call it late Fall, and depending on results we keep at it or re-gear. The trend is heading towards the strategy working, do you agree with that?

As for the IED thing on the other post, all I can say is that the IED stuff we're doing is focusing on that side of things, and that takes TIME as well. Which apparently most politicos don't consider or just think we can turn on a dime the second they decide to get behind something or change their minds. eff 'em.

As for the MRAPs thing, you're right, it's going to kill us on the back end. NBC buddy, NBC, it's only money, and a lucrative PBL contract away...

[J.]

I like Petreaus, and maybe he has the right strategy. If it had started in 2004, maybe we'd have been done by now. Didn't Napoleon say, You can ask me for anything you like, except time. We don't have public support to continue this war for years, we don't have a sound political strategy to fix the Middle East, and - in a year or two - we may not have a military capable of sustaining the fight. Clausewitz would say that we're three for three in not having a good plan here.

MRAPs - yeah, it's only money - that could be better placed elsewhere in the military. More the shame.

[Grandjester]

Where is JB? Thought the deal was half mil, out the door? Zero down, E-Z payments? WTF?

J makes a good point, we are not replacing 17K Hummers so beyond convoy and EOD what is the tactical application of these fuckers?

Don't recall if it was Sun Tzu, Clausewitz or whoever, but isn't there a military axiom "Never reinforce failure"? Jest askin'.

[Mr. Zippy]

I think you are misleading folks on your costs. The average CAT I and CAT II vehicle is about $550,000 from the manufactures. The added costs are GFE and freight. These added expenses are not going to the vehicle manufactures.

I notice when people talk about the Humvee or even the quote "up-armored" Humvee they only site the cost of the vehicle, they don't include GFE or transportation, so why do it with MRAP? Are you trying to "inflate" the numbers?

MrZ

[Robot Economist]

Mr. Zippy - True, a goodly portion of the cost of operating up-armored HMMWVs in Iraq is already sunk -- but I think that is part of J's point.

MRAP skeptics, myself and J included, suspect that the MRAP's marginal defensive advantages will be far outweighed by the cost of buying and fielding them.

I'm willing to take this argument even further and argue that changes in strategy, doctrine, organization, or training could solve the IED problem more completely and cheaply.

J - If we ever meet, I will owe you a beer for this post. It was pretty flippin' sweet.

[J.]

I'll take you up on that, RE. Mr. Z, these are not MY numbers. My point (oblique that it might be) is that we came into this situation with the rightous indignation of "how dare we not give the warfighter this protection" - if you look at the early news articles on this issue, everyone used the $500K - $1M number to estimate their buys - thus, 17,000 MRAPs became $20 billion in defense funds.

Then the real acquisition professionals moved in. Oh, you need to test and evaluate the dozen industry candidates. That cost money. Oh, you wanted radios and generators with the vehicles. Mo' money. Oh, you want contractor logistics support because there is no military logistics for this commercial vehicle. Mo' Mo' money. Now we get half the vehicles for the same cost, IF we're lucky.

It's disengenous to wave the flag and demand we give everything to our warfighters that they ask for without 1) recognizing the true cost and 2) recognizing the consequences of those costs. Now we're going to spend billions for a fraction of the real requirement, imperil several ongoing acquistion projects for new vehicles, take steel from ship-building programs, and still not get enough vehicles into theater in time before the conflict's over.

Is it still worth it? It is, if you're a Marine - because they're going to get their small quantity since they were in front of the line. And that's all they care about. Screw the impact on the rest of defense acquisition and policy.

[Maxtrue]

If we look at Afghanistan (or Obama's thinking on Pakistan ---just kiddin guys) and other places we might have to go, I suspect IEDs will be a problem there too. If this IS going to be a persistent problem, then why are these carriers such a bad idea. Darfur, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, all the places we MIGHT need troops (or peace keeping forces) will certainly be plagued by IEDs (and increasing missile and mortar attacks). Won't certain other allies need them as well. What am I missing?

[NVH]

MAX Your missing the fact that these vehicles will have been fielded too soon to establish any chain of support for them against a threat (EFPs) that will surely disable them and they will be left as flaming hulks on the streets of Baghdad unable to fight other wars. And we'll just have to buy more and more and perpetuate the fucked uppedness with which this program is getting started. If you have any inkling of Defense Acquisition you would know that J. speaks the truth on this and that they, Congress, are jumping on the feel good for m y constituents bandwagon, at the same time complaining about why Armor and other things weren't available in the first place.

[Lurch]

When I looked at the original suggestions of MRAPs and associated procurement costs they seemed quite reasonable for the benefit delivered - fewer smoking hulks on the road and fewer dead and maimed GIs. Of course the associated procurement costs are inflated with testing and necessary militarization add-ons, including non-DOD support.

And, yes, yes, yes, fly some of them in there. But don't some of these program figures submitted by the services seem very redolent of the $600 toilet seat, which we know was really bout hiding funding for black programs rather than Defense Industry raping the taxpayer?

Can't anyone in the Pentagon submit and justify an honest budget?

[NVH]

Uhh, no, b/c if they were honest they would get what they asked for and then they wouldn't be able to execute b/c they don't have the leadership, moxy, expertise to really do what they said they would do at that price. They could do it for less and then they woudn't get as much the next year b/c they would have performed so well at saving the gov't money that Congress would say, great, here's your award, now do it for less this time, thanks. It's a big circle jerk, but then what would they do with all that extra money anyway? Spend it I say, you can't take it with you.

[Retired Army Guy]

NVH, I don't want you to get all excited or anything, but I I agree with everything you say about this MRAP boondoggle. Good analysis.

Unfortunately, I have to temper my praise by disagreeing with you about the so-called surge. The unfortunate reality is that, even if Petraeus were Grant, Pershing and MacArthur all wrapped in one, there would be little he could do to solve the inherent strains in the Iraqi government and populace. In this type of conflict, military advances are ephemeral, where political and ethnic realities are forever.

[NVH]

I don't disagree with that RAG, and I guess the only thing to hope for on that end is someone in the Admin applying the right pressure, and so far I've got nothing bad to say about Crocker, so, we'll just have to wait and see, that's a much longer process than this whole surge strategy Petraeus is employing. That being said, I expect the churn to increase now, revealing the further faith I have in the team there now, but what else have I got to look forward too? Obama inviting the entire Iraqi political team to the White House to talk about the "real issues" with no conditions? I mean, the real problem I had with Kerry in '04 ( despite the rumors I heard of the antics of the Clinton transition team in '00) was I didn't want a NEW team to have to spin up on everything that was going on. Now I don't argue mistakes have been made, and the collective pound of flesh may still yet need to be paid, but I can't imagine we'd be any better off right now if the DEMS had gotten '04, and we aren't since they got it in '06 so far, just churning away. So, I guess I'll go back to my typical argument, until a repub gets caught and then lies about the BJ under the desk, I'm sticking to the center right. Anyway thanks, see you on the other side of the next issue, then. We were bound to find common ground somewhere, hell even Bush and Pelosi are holding out...

[Grandjester]

NVH,

You really need to pay attention then, we have had TWO repubs with zipper problems just last week...

[NVH]

In the oval office, under the oval office desk? Seriously, if not there, the guys like the rest of just a squirrel trying to bust a nut man.