I hate to talk down about a company that is veteran owned, and employs local folks...however I've heard that there were some questions as to the impartiality and objectivity in the trials.
The serious issues I read of include:
A. It gets stuck just showing it a picture of a 'real' mud hole.
B. It had some issues getting in the -22... IIRC the crew had to roll the mortar/trailer into the bird, then back the 'Jeep' in, then attach... it was unable to back the trailer in first. or of it were loaded straight on, it couldn't back out?
I looked for the references to these issues but came up dry...
That all said, I'd flog one through some Uwharrie & Upper Tellico trails, and like the TS says, it beats walking... (Until ya sink it, break it, or abandon it... and you're the one on the hand receipt
)
Also the majority of the hi-dollar price tag was wrapped up in the mortar & doo-dads for the 0341 crew.
Edit-> Here is what I was refering to:
"The biggest problem for EFSS development, though, is that its 76-inch base width made it too wide for the Osprey. The design was modified to make the mortar fit, but in such a way that it requires the crew spend five to 10 minutes reconfiguring it after unloading, plus three to five minutes to re-assemble the roll-bar cage on the Growler, which is otherwise too tall to fit in the aircraft.
(The Marines have said they also plan to mount a .50-caliber machine gun on the back of the Growler, raising even more engineering questions about vehicle stability and tensile frame strength.)
Width, however, was the Growler's first design hurdle. The basic
Frame for the M151 Jeep, which had its own well-documented roll-over problems, was about the same width as the Osprey's rear hatch, leaving no room for crew to squeeze in and secure the load. The first design called for a 48-inch width, but that was expanded to 50 inches, allowing five inches clearance on either side.
``That exacerbated the roll-over problem,' said Bicknell, a conclusion of other engineers familiar with the Growler who were interviewed by Defense Watch. ``The Marine Corps is getting something that is 10 inches narrower than the (M151) jeep, but they had to keep the same ground clearance. Irrefutable laws of physics tell us that this raises the center of gravity, and that increases the tendency to roll over.
``When the Growler rolls over – and it will – it's going to injure and kill Marines,' said Bicknell. ``It's fairly short, almost a square vehicle. But to be stable, a vehicle has to be longer than it is wide. The Marines can't make it any longer because then it wouldn't fit in the Osprey with the towed mortar or the ammo trailer.'
As is presently configured, the Growler offers very little protection to its occupants. Heavy armor is out because it would make the Growler too heavy to haul in the Osprey.
The best the Marine Corps can hope for, said Jim Mills, a retired Army Special Forces soldier who led the program to develop heavier armor for the Humvee, is to protect the occupants from small arms fire and grenades. There is virtually no way, he said, to protect the Growler from a road mine or an improvised explosive device commonly used in Iraq.
Under current military safety rules, according to USA Today, the Growler would not be authorized for use in Iraq except on an already-secured compound.
Bicknell said he thinks the Marine Corps chose the Growler before designs were even sought and ``went through the motions' of evaluating other design prototypes.
``Their mind was made up before the proposal was made,' said Bicknell. ``That's the only explanation that makes sense as to why the Growler was chosen.'
As evidence, he pointed out that several design requirements were watered down or eliminated entirely during design competition that otherwise would have eliminated the Growler. The ability to drive over a 15-inch obstacle was deleted, as was the requirement that the vehicle be able to tow 53 percent of its own weight from a dead stop on a hard, dry road surface.
Another engineer interviewed by Defense Watch, who asked not to be quoted by name, said the Growler was allowed by Catto's command to retake portions of the evaluation test it initially failed.
For instance, the automotive engineer said that Growler failed a transportability demonstration at Patuxent River Naval Air Station in September 2004. Passage of that test was supposedly required before moving on to other tests, one at Twenty-nine Palms and the other at the Neveda Autmotive Test Center.
The Growler's demonstration team had unacceptable difficulty loading and unloading the Growler on the Osprey. The short wheel base made backing a trailer difficult, so the Marines devised a system to winch the trailer in, rear end first, and then back in the Growler and hook up the trailer once inside the aircraft.
According to that source, the Growler team was allowed ``a re-do,' a chance to retake the transportability test with none of the other competitors present.
``Call it a Growler, call it a Catto Cart, call it what you want,'; said Bicknell, ``but this thing is a piece of crap and there's no other way to say it. It is going to put brave young Marines at an unacceptably high risk of injury or death and that ought to be a crime.'
James Pate is the Deputy Editor for Defense Watch. Hecan be reached at jameslpatejr@adelphia.net (jameslpatejr@%20adelphia.net) Please send comments to DWFeedback@yahoo.com (DWFeedback@yahoo.com)
Linear Mode
