Feds to destroy $1 billion in ammo?
- Thread starter HiBC
- Start date
If it failed to launch there is a usual cause, the batteries fail over time. these aren't normal batteries either and they only last so long in any harsh environment. If these soldiers aren't taking care of them properly or if they are too old then they don't work and must be replaced before the launcher will function. Since the US Army didn't have a great need for Air Defense systems in that conflict I can well understand why they would not be performing proper maintenance checks on that stuff.
Nada, sorry man, but you have not considered what your talking about. The US Army has always run large munitions stockpiles, sooner or later it all get's old and unstable and every year some of it must be destroyed. As stated earlier, this isn't just about bullets, it's about everything that's not Nuclear or "Special Munitions". Some of these things get very unstable after awhile and so every year they buy new stuff and destroy old stuff.
On the one hand you have something like 5.56mm and yes, every year the military services get together and someone says I got extra 5.56mm this year, who needs some? Sometimes someone does, sometimes they have their own excess. That's OK, it can still be used next year and 5.56mm can stay awhile.
But now let's look at something unique to the Army, 165mm M135 Gun on the M729 Combat Engineer Vehicle(CEV).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M728_Combat_Engineer_Vehicle
The M135 fires High Explosive Plastique (HEP) rounds, a projectile that consists of a propellent charge and a 65LB Plastic Explosive warhead.
http://uxoinfo.com/blogcfc/client/includes/uxopages/Mulvaney_Details.cfm?Ord_Id=P160
Today, the M135 gun and the projectiles for them are no longer in service. No other branch of the DoD uses this gun or munition. A few of these vehicles were sold to foreign countries, and stocks of the Munitions for them may have been sold as well. But in short, unless someone bought the war stocks of these munitions then they would have been scheduled for destruction.
Nada, sorry man, but you have not considered what your talking about. The US Army has always run large munitions stockpiles, sooner or later it all get's old and unstable and every year some of it must be destroyed. As stated earlier, this isn't just about bullets, it's about everything that's not Nuclear or "Special Munitions". Some of these things get very unstable after awhile and so every year they buy new stuff and destroy old stuff.
On the one hand you have something like 5.56mm and yes, every year the military services get together and someone says I got extra 5.56mm this year, who needs some? Sometimes someone does, sometimes they have their own excess. That's OK, it can still be used next year and 5.56mm can stay awhile.
But now let's look at something unique to the Army, 165mm M135 Gun on the M729 Combat Engineer Vehicle(CEV).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M728_Combat_Engineer_Vehicle
The M135 fires High Explosive Plastique (HEP) rounds, a projectile that consists of a propellent charge and a 65LB Plastic Explosive warhead.
http://uxoinfo.com/blogcfc/client/includes/uxopages/Mulvaney_Details.cfm?Ord_Id=P160
Today, the M135 gun and the projectiles for them are no longer in service. No other branch of the DoD uses this gun or munition. A few of these vehicles were sold to foreign countries, and stocks of the Munitions for them may have been sold as well. But in short, unless someone bought the war stocks of these munitions then they would have been scheduled for destruction.
I didn't want to post a bunch of pictures, but here are the most relevant candidates. They all have a somewhat distinctive look to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/predator_kestrel/
The Stinger is an Anti Air weapon, the Carl Gustav is a recoiless rifle and not actually a missile system, but would look like one to someone who didn't know better. The AT-4 is older and was replaced by the Javelin and the Predator is possibly replacing Javelin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/predator_kestrel/
The Stinger is an Anti Air weapon, the Carl Gustav is a recoiless rifle and not actually a missile system, but would look like one to someone who didn't know better. The AT-4 is older and was replaced by the Javelin and the Predator is possibly replacing Javelin.
I think it's just a guessing game now. But I will explain why there is a big difference. If for say it was a Stinger, then the reasons I gave above would make it somewhat understandable for their to be a failure. An Air Defense unit in Iraq would have been "re-purposed" to whatever Security role their Commander deemed a requirement because of the low risk of air attack, and for all the same reasons, I can easily imagine soldiers neglecting maintenance on equipment they didn't expect to need. Of course that "need" changes quickly when someone starts shooting at you and the weapons you neglected are now the heaviest hitter you have at hand.
Now if the weapons you saw were more like a Javelin, well that is somewhat different, now you have a weapon that is far more commonly obtained, widely and frequently used. I wouldn't see these as "falling into disrepair" because they are not that complex a piece of equipment and you just pull them and use them. They would be more robust then something like the much more complex Stinger system.
I wonder what the failure rate of the M72 LAW Rockets were in Vietnam as a comparison?
Although I didn't find anything on failure rates for the M72 LAW, I did find a comment that they were all recalled shortly after delivery to correct a problem that could cause the rocket to detonate in flight and possibly injure the soldier who fired it. And it seems the M72 LAW made a big comeback in Afghanistan and Iraq wit the Marines who liked is compact and light weight design and the punch it gave soldiers in urban environments.
Now if the weapons you saw were more like a Javelin, well that is somewhat different, now you have a weapon that is far more commonly obtained, widely and frequently used. I wouldn't see these as "falling into disrepair" because they are not that complex a piece of equipment and you just pull them and use them. They would be more robust then something like the much more complex Stinger system.
I wonder what the failure rate of the M72 LAW Rockets were in Vietnam as a comparison?
Although I didn't find anything on failure rates for the M72 LAW, I did find a comment that they were all recalled shortly after delivery to correct a problem that could cause the rocket to detonate in flight and possibly injure the soldier who fired it. And it seems the M72 LAW made a big comeback in Afghanistan and Iraq wit the Marines who liked is compact and light weight design and the punch it gave soldiers in urban environments.
Dunno about Vietnam, but in the 80's and 90's, the Army's common task manual and all of our trainers stressed misfire procedures pretty hard ..... I saw only a couple dozen fired in my 10 years of service, and none failed to work .... I just thought it odd that we spent more time (like 10:1) on misfire procedures than on marksmanship and tactics to use with these .....
Jimbob86, now that you mention it, you're right. Firing the M72 was part of our Common Tasks Training if I remember correctly and the misfire procedure was an embedded part of the firing procedure. I actually only saw the LAW fired a couple of times, basic was the first and it was a surprise. After movies like Magnum Force showing the LAW firing like a bazooka, a "whoosh" and a rocket trail to the big finale, it was an eye opener to see that it actually is more like a big gun firing, a sharp "bang" followed a moment later by the warhead "boom!". Impressive doesn't do it justice.
Still, to get things back on topic. What I see here is the Good Senator from Delaware taking advantage of the situation to make a headline and grab some points by misrepresenting things so it looks like the problem is bigger then it really is.
He claims there is a huge opportunity to save a bunch of money and says that there is 1.2 Billion in munitions that is going to be destroyed and that the DoD can't show that there isn't any waste going on because their logistics system's are not on the same page.
The Military is in the middle of a big draw-down of units and personnel, small bases overseas in the war zones are being closed and some of the munitions there will end up being destroyed because of the cost of shipping it back is frequently not worth it. Some of the munitions could be sold to the local governments but in the end, do we really want to just sell that stuff off to whoever? These are the same people who like to fill cars with explosives and drive them into open markets and police stations. Maybe it's best to just blow some of it in place and call it a day.
The Senator thinks he can sound reasonable and push us stupid hillbilly gun owner's buttons, "They're going to destroy all them good bullets". But neither you or I, or our local cops, or even the Department of Homeland Security, nor the Army, the Air Force or the US Marine Corps has much need for old Torpedoes that are being replaced with new Torpedoes. Tanks don't shoot'em and they're not much fun to ride
He claims there is a huge opportunity to save a bunch of money and says that there is 1.2 Billion in munitions that is going to be destroyed and that the DoD can't show that there isn't any waste going on because their logistics system's are not on the same page.
The Military is in the middle of a big draw-down of units and personnel, small bases overseas in the war zones are being closed and some of the munitions there will end up being destroyed because of the cost of shipping it back is frequently not worth it. Some of the munitions could be sold to the local governments but in the end, do we really want to just sell that stuff off to whoever? These are the same people who like to fill cars with explosives and drive them into open markets and police stations. Maybe it's best to just blow some of it in place and call it a day.
The Senator thinks he can sound reasonable and push us stupid hillbilly gun owner's buttons, "They're going to destroy all them good bullets". But neither you or I, or our local cops, or even the Department of Homeland Security, nor the Army, the Air Force or the US Marine Corps has much need for old Torpedoes that are being replaced with new Torpedoes. Tanks don't shoot'em and they're not much fun to ride
Compared to the AT-4, the law was pretty unimpressive ..... and even the AT-4 was not that impressive in the "Boom!" department .... then again, I was in an 8" M110a2 Battalion, and we did DIVARTY ToT's more than twice a year ...... an 80mm rocket is pretty insignificant next to massed general support artillery ....
I know what you mean, I wound up doing four years of my career as a 12F, Engineer tracked Vehicle Crewman, the M728 CEV(Combat Engineer Vehicle). Yes, the one I talked about earlier, 65LBs of HEP out of that guy did some amazing things to the targets on the tank gunnery range. We tore up their targets so bad they wouldn't let us use live rounds anymore and restricted our future gunnery drills to inert training rounds.
Hey Jimbob86, you could change your username to GunBunny86
I wasn't a real DAT but I bet we have some in here as well.
Hey Jimbob86, you could change your username to GunBunny86
I wasn't a real DAT but I bet we have some in here as well.
Actually, the screen name comes from my time in the Army- in my first unit, there were 4 of us from Nebraska ..... and though I was the only one from a small town (the others were from Lincoln and Omaha), most of the big city guys assumed we lived like The Waltons back home ..... and the oldest of the Nebraska guys was named "John" ..... that made him "John-boy" .... I was tagged "Jimbob" ..... and it stuck ......
Later on in my career, I aquired a reputation for "improvisation" ..... making do with what was at hand to accomplish the task, without resorting to getting the assistance/resources the book solution required ..... so much so that "jimbob" became a verb .....
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
It sure may have. but your link is broken.... Couldn't read it! Get me that if you can I would like to read it. You can post or PM either one, no big deal.
Things have changed. But I expect it to happen. The military of today is very different. What was SOP even 20 years ago is long gone. Some good, but mostly BS hogwash.
Now let me take a guess as to how many missiles at what cost are part of that 1 billion dollars: answer= Classified.
Well at least that hasn't changed.
No Wreck-n-Crew that link wasn't broken, it was just wrong. I'm sorry, I should have tested it. This one should work better.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-182
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-182
I just read some more of that report that I had just glanced at earlier and as I did I had another thought entirely. If the focus is on managing materials inventory in order to reduce waste, is there a big difference between bullets and ball point pens? I think they cost almost the same but I don't believe any great effort is being made to track, report, and manage office supply materials. Just sayin' a box of 20 SkillCraft pens vs a box of 20 5.56mm cartridges, what's the diff?
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
I can't tell you how angry this makes me. Why not just give it to people (except for explosive/incendiary, etc)?
What a waste. We certainly do not need to spend as much as the next twelve biggest military spending countries in the world, combined, on defense (defense of the entire world), but *if* we do, then at least when there is excess "product", sell it to make money for the taxpayers, or give it to the citizens who paid for it.
Waste and anger don't begin to describe this.
What a waste. We certainly do not need to spend as much as the next twelve biggest military spending countries in the world, combined, on defense (defense of the entire world), but *if* we do, then at least when there is excess "product", sell it to make money for the taxpayers, or give it to the citizens who paid for it.
Waste and anger don't begin to describe this.