Comments on: Amphibious Vehicle Leaks Cash

By: Slim Pickins

Slim Pickins — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:57:55 +0000

They ought to just use the WW ll stuff. It works it is reliable, it is paid for. We could use the billions to hire more troops. And as for not being able to get the software to fire the guns,how about letting the troops fire them?

By: Marvin

Marvin — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:40:34 +0000

Everybody wants a new toy that bigger and better the the one before. What I see is that the troops fighting in Iraqi are having trouble getting the supplies they need. This goes to the future troops that will replace them. Stop giving contracts and spending money on “new toys” that don’t work and are extremly over budget. Rein in the contractors and their spending ways.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:56:00 +0000

I totally agree with the comments already posted. the AAAV was all the rage when I was in because it was gonna be the Marines new toy. I got out in ’03. Four years later and it still isn’t done. Don’t turn this into another osprey, cancel this flop and pay someone else who actually cares about our troops and wants them to have the best, most reliable equipment when they go into harm’s way.

By: Ken Abmert

Ken Abmert — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:53:51 +0000

Someone left the chicken coop’s door open and the fox
came in and had a feast.

By: Gregory Romeu

Gregory Romeu — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:11:55 +0000

I have worked within the Northrop Grumman systems as a contractor. I know exactly where the problems lie and what it would take to turn these types of contracts around. But do you think that for one minute that they would pay me what I am worth to handle these tasks through to the solutions and solved stages? Hell no!

By: Gregory Romeu

Gregory Romeu — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:56:16 +0000

By: college educated Grunt

college educated Grunt — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:46:00 +0000

I tis all about the bling!! Follow the money trail!! What make soething simple, cheap and effective , not the american way! I will give you an example, the US?NASA spent millions trying to design a pen to write in space, we need one right? What do the Russians do? Use a pencil! We have to have high tech, so it breaks down and defence contractors continue to make money on the spare parts. Want to see things get fixed quick? put their kids in these vehicles in Iraq or Afganistan.

By: Madhatter202

Madhatter202 — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:59:00 +0000

I drove the AAVP7A1 during my time in the early to mid 90’s. The things were junk and built to break down every 10 hours. They were designed to be disposable. The P7 could never hope to keep up with an A1 or LAV. The suspension did not allow it. The UGWS also was not gyro stabalized, therefore it was difficult to shoot and move at the same time. The Corps needs a better option, more of an IFV and not a true transport. Have to be dynamic in todays game. Hydro leaks were an everyday thing so nothing has changed there. Do think 10 years is far to long. This project, with todays technology, could be acheived in 2–3 years. The design by all standards is already antiquated. It’s time to get a new contractor!!!!

By: Charlie

Charlie — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:27:41 +0000

Were this a civilian project General Dynamics would have simply been dumped and forgotten.

By: Luis M. DeLaCruz

Luis M. DeLaCruz — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:08:41 +0000

What I want to know is why make the thing more complex? On the P-7’s the gunner simply sighted the target, pulled the trigger and the gun fired, no software was needed. Although slow in the water they never gave the problems stated in the news piece. On land with th governers off they could reach speeds which could keep up with any tank at the time (if slower than an A-1 not by much). The P-7 were relativly easy to repair and maintain, were rugged and got the job done.
I realize that in time there comes a need to replace the old P-7’s with something more modern but let not make to needlessly complicated just to have the latest toys. Simple, rugged, relaiable is what the new Amtrac should be not a wonder toy.