The bottom line is that the US could not sustain ground combat operations anywhere on the planet.
The bottom line is that the DoD has an insatiable thirst for money.
*DoW
The US military and it’s think tank-proxies constantly produces this type of reports to legitimate receiving additional recources. There’s a great Citations Needed episode about it, episode 117: The Always ‘Lagging’ U.S. War Machine https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-117-the-always-lagging-us-war-machine
Critical support to the lazy troops who ensure our combat ineffectiveness through deferred maintenance
Same shit with the FBI and other triple letter agencies.
When I was in university, only the most mediocre or chuddiest losers were pursuing a career at these places. You’re telling me you want to dress up, drive into the city 5 days a week, and not even break six figures? You’re gonna sell your soul and you won’t even get to buy a nice house to show for it.
Oh no, if only living in peace was an option
I think you have to consider the difference between peace time (technically) bureaucratic safety standards vs. I don’t care if your HMMV has a slow leak in the front left tyre, go pump it every 5 miles in a combat scenario
That’s true but if they can’t keep up with routine maintenance they definitely won’t be able to keep up with the increased wear and tear let alone be able to fix the damage sustained during combat operations.
In and out, 20 min adventure turns into a logistical nightmare after the 20 mins is up
That’s true but if they can’t keep up with routine maintenance they definitely won’t be able to keep up with the increased wear and tear let alone be able to fix the damage sustained during combat operations.
I’m inclined to believe it’s much more that burning through 20 HMMMVs a year in peace time is both needless waste and also looks good to nobdy and as soon as you enter some sort of active combat that’s just the cost of doing business.
Ya, a thread the other day reminded me of this
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-iraq-bound-gis-buy-own-armor/
And it wasn’t just the US Troops.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/01/iraq-inquiry-body-armour
fuck yea
greatest country in the world, love it or leave it librulz
What’s the point of being able to redact stuff for national security if you’re just gonna post “all of our equipment is broken, and theres no one around to fix it” for the world to see
they should build combat trains
Single-source suppliers also contributed to shortages. This includes when only a single manufacturer supplies certain parts or materiel for a fleet of vehicles.
For example, Army officials reported that the Bradley program had more than 40 backordered fuel tanks due to long lead times of 7 months to 9 months for new orders.
According to these officials, the Army relies on a single supplier for fuel tanks across multiple fleets of vehicles,putting them in competition with each other for that manufacturer’scapacity to produce parts and materiel.
deleted by creator
Okay, so this is explainable by pointing out that there’s two types of officers in any military. The first one is one that thinks they know what ready looks like, and nothing else. This first one is easy to fool when it comes to equipment checks, but will do stupid shit like wondering why there’s oil stains in the mechanic bay. The second one actually knows what ready means for equipment, is the complete opposite of the first guy, and knows exactly why there’s oil stains in the mechanic bay.
I would say this sort of thing is a little misleading. No army is ever going to need 100% of all their vehicles in the field, they always want reserves for reinforcement and support. This is just more fearmongering about how the US military needs more money to “get up to code”
And they’re going to cut 20% of generals… They trying to get a high score?
Misinformation. The article (which is just an uncited quote from the GAO report) says
selected Army ground support vehicles achieved mission capable goals about 20 percent of the time
That does NOT mean 20% of vehicles are mission capable. It means in the past 10 years, the Army has only acheived their missian capable target twice.
Their mission capable target is 90%. All the article says is the army is usually sitting at <90% mission caapble, which honestly isnt saying much
They ran a sample on the vehicles and out of the vehicles that were sampled the following was found
Five of six selected Army ground combat vehicles did not meet mission capable goals in any fiscal year (FY) during the time frame of GAO’s review. In the same time frame, selected Army ground support vehicles achieved mission capable goals about 20 percent of the time. The Marine Corps does not have a mission capable goal for its ground vehicles, though two of seven selected vehicles achieved positive changes in mission capable rates when comparing fiscal years 2015 and 2024. Sustainment Challenges Affecting Army and Marine Corps Ground Vehicles
but whatever helps you cope there muffin
Okay so my app bugged out while sending my response, so this is a loose reiteration. Apologies if its redundant.
Five of six selected Army ground combat vehicles
This isnt 6 individual vehicles. Its 6 fleets of different vehicle models. 5 of the 6 fleets of army combat vehicles have not held a 90% mission capable rating for a full fiscal year.
That is very different than saying 20% of ground vehicles are mission capable.
Edit: It refers to “types” in the cover letter, not fleets
To address our objectives, we selected 18 types of Army and Marine Corps ground vehicles.
