Com-Central.net

Hi Folks!

I was lurking around the 'Defenselink.mil' web site and visted two FY2007 funding reports. Following should interest a few of you all.

V-22 Osprey (the aircraft that just keeps draging along).
14 MV-22s (the USMC version) and 2 CV-22s (the USSOCOM version)

USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (Man do I miss the old LVT label)
15 Low rate initial production EFVs.

Stryker (the turck that many still can not stand)
Per the DOD document - procure vehicles and associated support and equipment for the 7th Stryker Brigade in addition to replacing battle losses.
Per the Army document - 100 vehicles = 65 Mobile Gun Systems, 13 NBC Recon vehicles, and 22 Commander Vehicles. (I confuzed, are they going to put all of those vehicles in the 7th brigade?).

Abrams
Per the DOD document - Field M1A2SEP for the 1st Armored Division at Ft. Bliss. (? when did the 1st AD get on the list to receive A2SEPs?) Completes fielding M1A2SEPs to the 3rd ACR
Per the Army document - 23 SEP tanks, 320 'Tiger' engines for the fleet.

FCS
Complete fabrication of the automotive test rig....for the 8 manned ground systems.
Complete the Non-Line of Sight - Cannon platform module for firing.

Three things stood out to me.
1. no funds listed for the Bradley fleet.
2. no funds listed for the M1117 program.
3. no funds listed for the M113 fleet. (O-well, I am not surpised)

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts out!

- Roy_A_Lingle

Stryker (the turck that many still can not stand)
Per the DOD document - procure vehicles and associated support and equipment for the 7th Stryker Brigade in addition to replacing battle losses.
Per the Army document - 100 vehicles = 65 Mobile Gun Systems, 13 NBC Recon vehicles, and 22 Commander Vehicles. (I confuzed, are they going to put all of those vehicles in the 7th brigade?).

Consider the DoD statement to be more fluf than substance. I'm sure some of the vehicles will go to standing up the 7th BCT, but will also go to the other SBCTs as well. Each SBCT has only 27 MGS, 6 C2Vs, and 3 NBCRVs - so its pretty safe to assume these arent all going to one BCT.

Also, since the MGS & NBCRV are just now entering LRIP, I think the battle losses must be elsewhere. I doubt they've lost that many C2Vs. Again, only 3 SBCTs have been through Iraq - that means no more than 18 C2Vs... Some of those could be battle loss replacements & some new builds, but I doubt it...

Neil

What do you mean by Tiger Engines for the M1? New Turbines?

- GT98

What do you mean by Tiger Engines for the M1? New Turbines?

Its the Total Integrated EnGine Revitalization (TIGER), a rebuild of the AGT-1500...

Neil

- GT98

What do you mean by Tiger Engines for the M1? New Turbines?

Hi GT98! Hi Folks!

That is an interesting question. For the passed few months we have been seeing reports of contracts to service the current engines with repairs and possible upgrades.

In the FY 2007 funding report, it names the engines "Tiger". My guess is someone has assigned a name to the rebuild/repaired/upgraded engines. As far as I know, no one has heard any reports of a NEW engine. The passed two or three new engine programs have been shut down.

This is a case of 'All Scouts Out and report all findings'!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

- Roy_A_Lingle

3. no funds listed for the M113 fleet. (O-well, I am not surpised)

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts out!

Nothing?! Not even for the "greatest armored combat vehicle ever"?!


I predict a very small fleet for the V-22. Maybe for SAR and stuff. SOCOM version or not, I bet we won't see a combat assault or insertion manuver for at least 10 years, if then. I have a hard time imagining a small unit cmdr. who wouldn't prefer an MH-53 with refueling and other support when he really has to go into injun' country.

- Doug_Kibbey

I predict a very small fleet for the V-22.

I don't see how the Marines are going to do a lot with. They are schadule to get the largest number, but it is to small for today's forces. Maybe we will see a V-22B model coming along which will be wider and taller than the current version.

I wonder if the Marines would not be better off, just restarting the CH-53 production line and buying more of them with all the current upgrades.

My guess is the V-22 is going to be a bit like the F-111. A bird that was going to be the best Air Force/Navy all purpose fighter plane. It ended up not being able to do any of the missions it was build for. In the end the Air Force did find missions it was good at. After all, the money had been spent, had to find a way to use it.

As a test program, hopefully we have learned a lot. As for the new technology airframe, only time will tell now. I wonder if any civilian airlines are looking at it yet. That was one of the major reasons Congress kept funding it. The possible of civilian use spin off.


Sgt, Scouts out!

Hi,

Do these buy totals include the buy from earlier budgets, or is it a rollup? Seems to me that a number of the issues you raise were included in earlier budgets, but I may be mistaken. If this budget is on top of previous aquisition totals, it would be sort of hard to tell exactly where the vehicles are headed.

I wonder...

C

Hi Chuck! Hi Folks!

The reports also listed items for 2005, 2006, and 2007. The way I read them was these are buys that are being funded during 2007.

Sgt, Scouts Out!