New Marines Growler - Average Cost $209,000

M151 General Discussion and Chat Board
User avatar
NavSecGru Joe
G-Sergeant Major
G-Sergeant Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:18 pm
Location: Ocean View, DE

New Marines Growler - Average Cost $209,000

Post by NavSecGru Joe » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:36 am

As reported in The Washington Post newspaper today....

Image

Marines' New Ride Rolls Out Years Late

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 3, 2009; Page A04

The Marine Corps is starting to deploy a jeeplike vehicle called the Growler, 10 years after conception and at twice the contract price, after delays that were caused by changing concepts and problems in contracting, development and testing, according to two reports.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sought investigations by the Government Accountability Office and the Defense Department inspector general in light of complaints by the unsuccessful bidder on the project.

But a spokesman for Levin said the inspector general's report, released last month, showed that cost increases and delays are so normal in defense contracting, particularly in contracts involving hundreds of millions of dollars, that they don't raise great concerns.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, however, stressed the importance of reforming procurement in remarks before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, saying that all services are feeling the effects of weapons programs that have "had repeated -- and unacceptable -- problems with requirements, schedule, cost and performance."

The idea for such a vehicle was developed in 1999 by the Marine Corps, which wanted a vehicle that could be carried in the V-22 Osprey aircraft to support assault operations and that would tow a 120mm mortar and an ammunition trailer.

Today, instead of one vehicle that could serve both functions, there are two -- one for reconnaissance and a shorter version that tows the mortar and ammunition trailer -- built by the same company.

The first Growlers in the mortar program -- officially called internally transportable vehicles, or ITVs -- have been deployed to Marine units, but with limited combat capabilities. Because of their light armor and ammunition safety problems, "you can't run it up the highway in an urban area such as Iraq," said John Garner, the Marines' program manager for the vehicle. "But it could accompany foot-mobile Marine infantry in a not-built-up area such as Afghanistan," he added.

The inspector general report said that the average cost of a single Growler has risen 120 percent, from about $94,000 when the contract was awarded in 2004 to $209,000 in 2008. The unit cost for the vehicle with mortar and ammunition trailer has grown 86 percent, from $579,000 to $1,078,000.

The first six mortar and ammunition systems have been sent to Marine units, as have about 20 ITVs. "It is up to unit commanders who receive them as to whether they will take them when deployed abroad," Garner said.

The Army has 81 ITVs under contract and is awaiting bids on 70 more; there are 12 mortar and ammunition trailer systems under contract and 20 more out for bids, according to Garner.

Troubles with the two systems started in 2004 during the final competition between two bidders for the vehicle contract. One bidder was a team of the giant defense contractor General Dynamics Corp. and a small company called American Growler Inc. of Ocala, Fla., known primarily for building a successful dune buggy using surplus, customized Army M151A2s, a popular version of the military jeep. The other was a contractor in Michigan called Rae-Beck Automotive LLC, which built a popular neighborhood electric car.

By choosing General Dynamics and American Growler, the Marines were able to procure an existing vehicle that was equipped with components that could be purchased "off the shelf," avoiding costs of research and developing an entirely new vehicle. While the Rae-Beck entry was found to be superior in some tests, the Growler, according to Garner, was better "in the most important ones."

But after the contract was awarded, Garner said, "there were significant additions made for capability." For example, an air suspension had to be added to allow the Growler to get on and off the Osprey because it could raise and lower its height. The makers added a new cooling system, power steering and power brakes, along with a beefed-up General Motors engine similar to the one used in the GMC Yukon. Altogether, Garner said, about $50,000 of the cost growth was in additional off-the-shelf items that now permit the Growler to travel up to 45 mph on a highway.
Testing from 2005 to 2007 continued to find problems, and it was not until 2008 that the Growler met all requirements. Because the Osprey itself had developmental problems, delays did not harm Marine operational plans, according to the GAO report.

The Pentagon inspector general's report said that awarding the contract in November 2004 to Growler was not "in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation." At issue, however, were technical details about what the important criteria were.

The history of the Growler problems are public because Rae-Beck complained to Levin, prompting the investigations. Another investigation, by the Marine Corps inspector general in 2005, looked into an anonymous complaint of a conflict of interest in the contract award because one of the principals in the Growler company, Curtis "Terry" Crews, was a retired Marine Corps colonel. The investigation concluded there was no evidence that anything improper occurred.


User avatar
cstaup
G-Sergeant Major
G-Sergeant Major
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:15 am
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Post by cstaup » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:25 am

I'm thinking rebirth of the Mighty Mite. :D





On steroids :twisted:

User avatar
NavSecGru Joe
G-Sergeant Major
G-Sergeant Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:18 pm
Location: Ocean View, DE

Post by NavSecGru Joe » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:44 am

Looks like a cross between a Mighty Mite and a Mutt but I do see the Lighting Kit - Upgraded for the M151A2 & M825 (side marker lights).

Rickf
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5918
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Pemberton, New Jersey

Post by Rickf » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:01 am

Looks like no fording kit. I'll bet that riding in it on a muddy road is real pleasant! :roll:


Rick
1964 M151A1
1984 M1008
1967 M416
04/1952 M100
12/1952 M100- Departed
AN/TSQ-114A Trailblazer- Gone

Rickf
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5918
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Pemberton, New Jersey

Post by Rickf » Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:20 am

I don't usually cut and paste between the two boards but I think this one is worth it.




As much as I hate to admit it, doesn't this look and sound like a project that someone we all know well was working on? I am guessing that the new version uses parts that are readily available over the counter. At least that is what is implied and would make perfect sense.
1964 M151A1
1984 M1008
1967 M416
04/1952 M100
12/1952 M100- Departed
AN/TSQ-114A Trailblazer- Gone

User avatar
Airborne Bob
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Airborne Bob » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:32 am

Heck, Uncle Sam could have saved himself a lot of money. I would have sold him my A2 for half that price!

Very interesting article, Joe. Hope all is well with you and your family and looking forward to warmer weather and Aberdeen again!
Army Basic, AIT and OCS: Ft. Knox, KY (1967)
82nd Airborne Division: Ft. Bragg, NC (1968)
South Vietnamese Combat Advisor RVN (1969)
Owner: 1972 M151A2

User avatar
breven52
G-Major
G-Major
Posts: 971
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: Kingsport,Tennessee
Contact:

Post by breven52 » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:14 pm

truely though what can this thing do an m151A2 cant?
'42 Script GPW GPW6434
'41/2 Slat Grill Willys MB
'43 Bantam T-3 trailer
'62 Ford M151
MVPA#30758

User avatar
Airborne Bob
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Airborne Bob » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:11 am

breven52 wrote:truely though what can this thing do an m151A2 cant?
Yeah, I'm with you on that.

It's a pretty cool dune buggy or off-road woods machine, but the more I'm looking at it, I don't know what purpose it would really serve, especially at $200,000.

Is it my imagination or does the wheelbase look shorter? Where are you going to mount a machine gun and man it effectively? And if you don't have a trailer attached, how much stuff can you really carry around with this thing? There are rings all over the place (which look pretty cool), but what are you going to do, wrap up your gear in canvas bags and strap it to the hood and everywhere else? And then if you do that, you can't get to very much if you need it quickly. The only other way to use all those rings is to have stuff clipped to them and have gear swinging and dangling all over the place.

Strictly for recon in a non-urban setting, as far as I can see.... the only purpose. In this age of up-armor and so forth, this thing has zero RPG protection on a city street in Mozul, for example, so you've got to be out in the bush with it, tooling around looking for the enemy. And don't we have unmanned drone aircraft for that now? These are a hell of a lot more effective, see more, cover a lot more ground and with zero risk to our guys. So for me, even as a recon vehicle, this thing has some severe limitations. And again, if you do have to return fire while di-di mau-ing in the other direction, where does the gunner work from without falling out of the vehicle because of such a short wheelbase. The thing will be hopping all over the place like an ATV.

Like I say, it looks really cool and I'd love to have something like that for the beach.... mount some surf pole holders on the front and you've got some room in the back for your fishing gear, bait and a cooler full of Coronas. But otherwise, it looks like UIncle Sam is back to spending more of our tax dollars on something that doesn't really look like it's worth all that much in today's military. Just my opinion.
Army Basic, AIT and OCS: Ft. Knox, KY (1967)
82nd Airborne Division: Ft. Bragg, NC (1968)
South Vietnamese Combat Advisor RVN (1969)
Owner: 1972 M151A2

Rickf
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5918
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Pemberton, New Jersey

Post by Rickf » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:19 am

Rear steering, Talk about rollover potential!



Rick
1964 M151A1
1984 M1008
1967 M416
04/1952 M100
12/1952 M100- Departed
AN/TSQ-114A Trailblazer- Gone

User avatar
Airborne Bob
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Airborne Bob » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:32 am

"Up to 45 MPH on a highway?"

With Rick behind me, I peg 63 MPH all day long on I-95!
Army Basic, AIT and OCS: Ft. Knox, KY (1967)
82nd Airborne Division: Ft. Bragg, NC (1968)
South Vietnamese Combat Advisor RVN (1969)
Owner: 1972 M151A2

Buggy Man
G-Major General
G-Major General
Posts: 2668
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:29 am
Location: H'burg VA

Post by Buggy Man » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:29 pm

Bob
I would assume if that thing carried a machine gun, it would be mounted next to the driver and used by the front passenger (limited traverse I know, but they do mount them there).

As for the loops, all I can ask is why would anyone want to hang any kind of gear right over and next to your tires? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

I would also have to agree about the wheel base in that it does look a lot shorter to me, as well.

What can this vehicle do that a mutt can't?.... make a bunch of M151 guys talk about it and bilk the US tax payer out of large sums of money... I think I would call this vehicle the "Mighty fright." before I'd call it anything else...
Matt

User avatar
muttguru
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Lil' ol' England
Contact:

Post by muttguru » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:01 pm

Matt, I think the loops are for tying down the vehicle in the Osprey.

It looks like it has CTIS (Central Tire Inflation System)....more complications, more cost, more weight.

They should have gotten hold of the Mity Mite drawings and updated them. From what I am told, the MM was a very good little vehicle.
Contact address - muttguru@aol.com
Always wanted - Details and pictures of M416 Trailer data plates & M151 data plates & body-tags for my research. Thanks!

Buggy Man
G-Major General
G-Major General
Posts: 2668
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:29 am
Location: H'burg VA

Post by Buggy Man » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:12 pm

Muttguru
It's good to hear from you.. been a really long time. I noticed the CTIS stems on the wheels and I'd have to agree all those "D" rings on there are not for hanging gear-they're for securing the buggy inside of an aircraft. From what Marines have told me, the 'mite was a good little vehicle unfortunately, it's not in the US govt's nature to reintroduce something that works back into the inventory. Not while there's tax money to be spent.
Matt

Rickf
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5918
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Pemberton, New Jersey

Post by Rickf » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:30 pm

Bob Amon wrote:"Up to 45 MPH on a highway?"

With Rick behind me, I peg 63 MPH all day long on I-95!
That is because if he slowed down he would have a 14,000 lb. Ford emblem implanted in his spare! :lol:

Rick
1964 M151A1
1984 M1008
1967 M416
04/1952 M100
12/1952 M100- Departed
AN/TSQ-114A Trailblazer- Gone

User avatar
Airborne Bob
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:31 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Airborne Bob » Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:05 am

Rickf wrote:That is because if he slowed down he would have a 14,000 lb. Ford emblem implanted in his spare!
That's right, because the truth is, Rick would never be able to keep up with me if he didn't get in my draft.

The only way that Ford will keep up with the awesome amount of horsepower I've got under the hood is for him to tailgate me and take advantage of my slipstream.
Army Basic, AIT and OCS: Ft. Knox, KY (1967)
82nd Airborne Division: Ft. Bragg, NC (1968)
South Vietnamese Combat Advisor RVN (1969)
Owner: 1972 M151A2


Post Reply

Return to “M151 General Discussion Board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests