Army Carbine Program
#1
Bloomberg.com
March 19, 2013

Army Carbine Program May Waste $1.8 Billion, Report Finds
By Tony Capaccio and Danielle Ivory, Bloomberg News

The Army risks wasting as much as $1.8 billion developing a replacement for the M4 carbine that it may not need, according to the Pentagon’s inspector general.

The carbine replacement program is one the Army and Pentagon “may want to re-evaluate,” as the service is “seeking to acquire more rifles during a time when their total force structure will be reduced,” Lynne Halbrooks, principal deputy inspector general, said in a statement provided today to a House committee. The Pentagon plans to reduce Army ground forces to 490,000 by 2017 from about 560,000 in 2011.

Halbrooks’s office is auditing the program and “we expect to report concerns that” the Army “may not have an established need for this weapon nor developed performance requirements for the $1.8 billion acquisition,” she said. A draft of the audit is due to Army and Pentagon officials in about two months, she said.

Colt Defense LLC, based in West Hartford, Connecticut, is the primary supplier of the U.S. Army’s M4 rifle and would face competition under the replacement program.

The carbine replacement is among programs Halbrooks highlighted as having questionable value in the statement to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The panel is reviewing opportunities to reduce waste and improve efficiency at the Pentagon as most of as its 800,000-person civilian workforce faces one unpaid furlough day per week, from late April through Sept. 30. The department is in line for $500 billion in spending cuts over a decade on top of $487 billion that was already planned.

The inspector general’s efforts are focused on deficiencies in financial management, acquisition processes, contract management, readiness, information technology security and equipping and training Iraq and Afghan security forces, according to a staff memo prepared for lawmakers.

Halbrooks said the Pentagon and the Army need to re-evaluate the carbine replacement program because they’re seeking to develop the new rifle at the same time as the service is modifying the current M4 weapon.

“It’s unclear what additional capability this new rifle will have over the modified M4,” according to the report. “Key performance parameters such as accuracy, reliability and lethality have not been established.”

The Army is in the second phase of the rifle competition to determine “if there’s a carbine that can provide significant value over the M4,” Matthew Bourke, a spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. “The greatest care and consideration is being placed in this process as we determine the next individual weapon system for the soldier.”

The Army carbine program is an example of decisions the Pentagon and military services face in culling savings from the projected $27 billion expected to be spent in fiscal 2012 on major acquisition programs.

“Challenges include obtaining adequate competition in contracts, defining contract requirements, obtaining fair and reasonable prices, oversight of contractor performance and maintaining contract documentation for payments,” Halbrooks said in the statement.

“As budgets continue to come under increasing scrutiny, the department must continue to evaluate the merits, additional capabilities and cost” of major acquisition programs, she wrote.

Halbrooks’s statement summarized areas of potential savings in financial and contract management completed by her agency such as the finding in 2011 of spare parts overpricing by Boeing Co. and United Technologies Corp.’s Sikorsky Aircraft unit to support the helicopter maintenance at the Army’s Corpus Christi depot in Texas.

Those overcharges, which were previously disclosed, are cases in which the Army “did not effectively use” existing inventory before buying overpriced parts from the contractors, Halbrooks wrote.

Boeing refunded $76,849 after the inspector general determined it sold the Army a dime-sized, plastic ramp gate roller assembly used on the CH-47 helicopter for $1,678.61 apiece when the Pentagon Defense Logistic Agency had them in stock for $7.71 each.

The Army issued new guidance as a result of the report requiring the use of exiting inventory before buying the same parts from companies, Halbrooks wrote.

Halbrooks today disclosed findings of an unreleased September 2012 audit that identified more than $2.5 billion in potential savings in a Raytheon Co. “joint land attack cruise missile defense” program that lofts sensors on board aerostats to detect incoming missiles.

The Army-managed program remains in development testing. The program manager “agreed with our report and recommendations stating ‘the impact of the current fiscally constrained environment compels redirection of funding to other systems,’” according to the statement.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
- Voltaire
Reply
#2
That's a waste, but foreign aid isn't. WTH!

Granted clear requirements should have and need to be established.
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin
Reply
#3
The sooner the IC competition dies, the better it will be for the warfighter. Hopefully, stopping it will pave the way for a new weapon based on the 6.5 mm Grendel or something similar. My ideal weapon would be a 6.5 mm Heckler & Koch G36 but with an aluminium and steel receiver instead of polymer.
Reply
#4
G36 sight above bore height is a deal-breaker for me. Ergo's suck a la HK, who refuses to listen to guys who have decades of high quality saturation experience as subject matter experts on infantry small arms. HK can't be told, put simply. Their designs are uberperfekt in their minds, and they don't really have many original designs to speak of, considering that their most popular lines are from pre-War and WWII German companies that had a few engineers escape to Spain (CETME), and Eugene Stoner.

Quote:Halbrooks said the Pentagon and the Army need to re-evaluate the carbine replacement program because they’re seeking to develop the new rifle at the same time as the service is modifying the current M4 weapon.

“It’s unclear what additional capability this new rifle will have over the modified M4,” according to the report. “Key performance parameters such as accuracy, reliability and lethality have not been established.”

This is what stuck out the most for me. There are no key performance parameters established. How do you move forward with that?
Reply
#5
LRRPF52 hit on a couple of things that stuck in my mind. I have no idea what the specs were, or what weaknesses were identified with the current weapons systems. I could hazard a guess, but it would be just that – a guess. I still contended that we are rapidly approaching the technological limits of the metallic case cartridge. The laws of physics – and I am not a physicist – seem to be running against it. Caseless ammo, polymer cartridges or even energy/rail type weapons need to be further developed IMHO if you really want to advance to the next level in small arms. The metallic case cartridge and smokeless powder are both essentially tech well over a hundred years old. The telegraph was the only means of long range, instantaneous communication and the only way to fly was with hot air when both were introduced.

Reality is in peace time the big ticket items are more palatable by congress for funding than the stuff the knuckle dragging mouth breathers need. For the cost of less than ten F-35 JSF (200-600 million each depending on which source you cite) this program could have been funded. Now, would it have been wasted money? From our government? You be the judge.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
- Voltaire
Reply
#6
LRRPF52 Wrote:G36 sight above bore height is a deal-breaker for me. Ergo's suck a la HK, who refuses to listen to guys who have decades of high quality saturation experience as subject matter experts on infantry small arms. HK can't be told, put simply. Their designs are uberperfekt in their minds, and they don't really have many original designs to speak of, considering that their most popular lines are from pre-War and WWII German companies that had a few engineers escape to Spain (CETME), and Eugene Stoner.



This is what stuck out the most for me. There are no key performance parameters established. How do you move forward with that?

The mindset of some German/Swiss/Austrian companies really seems to revert to the whole "Aryan Superiority" thought process.

A very good friend was on the BMW Board of Directors. He had to fly over to Germany several times yearly. They always arranged for his travel far in advance, and they always paid about 3 times what he would have paid if he had purchased the ticket. He pointed that out to them, and asked that he be allowed to buy his own ticket and have it reimbursed. They very gently but firmly told him that his travel arrangements would be done as they were done for all directors. He pointed out that it was costing the company 3 times what it should. They replied that they would re-evaluate when the time came to renew the travel arrangements contract with their travel agency. Nothing ever changed. It drove him nuts, because he is an extremely conservative financial manager, even watching someone else waste other peoples money drives him crazy!

But that seems to be the mind set of many of those otherwise well run companies.
”You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.” - John Galt
Reply
#7
FYI: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/a...ntury.aspx

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/a...rch/Pages/
Reply
#8
The SCAR trashes optics, and most SF units have sent them back-don't want them. It also isn't any more reliable than an M4 according to the guys that use them in high volume.

The HK416 is way front heavy, had a stupid magazine well that prevents use with other mags that are common across the system, and isn't any more reliable.

The ACR is way front heavy.

I like the Colt Monolithic Carbine-just wish it had a longer handguard. There isn't really anything wrong with the M4 as a standard issue service carbine. They need to standardize the Designated Marksman Rifle and work on a new viable, lightweight LMG that doesn't suck like the SAW, that is chambered in something that cuts the mustard. When you see SF guys preferring the M4 over a lot of the new 5.56 systems, but are needing something with more power/energy at distance, but is lightweight without being an optics-destroyer (SCAR-H), there is a void, and that void is the DM Carbine system.
Reply
#9
bwaites Wrote:The mindset of some German/Swiss/Austrian companies really seems to revert to the whole "Aryan Superiority" thought process.

A very good friend was on the BMW Board of Directors. He had to fly over to Germany several times yearly. They always arranged for his travel far in advance, and they always paid about 3 times what he would have paid if he had purchased the ticket. He pointed that out to them, and asked that he be allowed to buy his own ticket and have it reimbursed. They very gently but firmly told him that his travel arrangements would be done as they were done for all directors. He pointed out that it was costing the company 3 times what it should. They replied that they would re-evaluate when the time came to renew the travel arrangements contract with their travel agency. Nothing ever changed. It drove him nuts, because he is an extremely conservative financial manager, even watching someone else waste other peoples money drives him crazy!

But that seems to be the mind set of many of those otherwise well run companies.
Bill I' come from German decent and worked with my family of Deutschman for many years, and to call Germans stubborn, head strong and difficult to work with is a complete unabashed truth. I have to laugh at your comments because of all the memory's of my father and 2 brothers trying to accomplish the most mundane project which took longer to argue over than to accomplish.I have to agree with your assessment. :]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)