MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Given that the US doesn't need all of the gold-plated, technologies, given that most new technologies don't work, given that 20-25 years depending upon who you talk to, mis a short life cycle or how the defense budget is a source of profits, just the cost overruns, failures to deliver on time, tested and truly necessary naval ships and military aircraft make all of the rational, more than a bit specious.
.....the above just in what is not necessary, could pay for more of everything we truly need rather than what US military hegemony cries out for. For examples.....
Of course new technologies dont always work, part of the 'new.'
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
F-35 from $1.3 trillion to $1.9 trillion and still counting. That's $600 billion in overruns now...more than bid. The over-the-life upgrades to the F-15 and F-16 serve the country just fine and given that, we could have waited and got one fighter replacement at its original costs to replace them. Not the incredibly costly F-22 and F-35...we simply didn't need, aren't getting and whose budgets would retire the whole fucking state of Calif. by now.
Two points:
Do the words "metal fatigue" mean anything to you?
The F15 and F16 aircraft presently in service are old.
It is not the technology that is the problem, but the metal in the air frame that is old and tired.
So, you are proposing that we keep our pilots flying air craft that, in a high gee turn to avoid getting shot down, the wing spars could eventually be so weak, the wings fall off the airplane?
That particular problem is why the A10 is being retired.
As for the F22 program, the plane is a gem of an aircraft, that basically can out fly any pilot we put in it.
Yes it is expensive, but there is not another plane or country with the tech to come close.
So why was the F22 cancelled?
Because some jack ass liberals screamed that having different aircraft for each service was too expensive.
Not understanding that the reason there is different aircraft for each service is that designing ONE fighter, strike aircraft etc for all three branches with air arms is costly, complicated as fuck and when you try to do it you end up with the defense program equivalent of a black hole.
You ever wonder why no other super power has even considered it?
BECAUSE THEIR ACCOUNTING PEOPLE FIGURED OUT THE PROBLEMS A LONG TIME BEFORE THE USE DID AND AVOIDED IT.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
The USS G.H. W BUSH $12.9 Billion still not fully tested or delivered 2 years late is $2.8 billion in overruns. These are Ford class, the navy expects to build as many as 5 to replace that many existing carriers which may not due to the politicians wanting 13 operational instead of 10. (the USS Geo Wash is now not being decommissioned) if so the cost are projected by the GAO to be at least another $10-$12 billion and can't even estimate operational costs due to some fixes and upgrades purposefully being done...after delivery.
Not fully tested? or delivered?
Then what pray US carrier actually did this?
She has been operational since 2009!
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
The Apache was little better than the Osprey able to do only a few missions with any level of competence. Again, according to some, the Osprey is actually overall inferior to the Vietnam-era CH-46 helicopter it replaced. It took 40 years to get it right and according to some, 40 are still not flying and the cost to oper. is the same as the A-10, A-16 and F-16 combined. One report had it at $11,000/per hour.
The CH 46 went operational in 1964.
Again, do the words "metal fatigue" mean anything to you?
The cost to replace the metal components of the air frame that have gotten dangerously fatigued in the operational life of the aircraft is just as expensive as buying or designing a new one.
As for the AH64, it is the best close support helicopter on the battle field today.
I guess you would prefer the US still use the old Cobra or perhaps the old huey converted gun ships?
The A10, as stated earlier is being retired due to metal fatigue problems in the wing spar assembly. I mean we could keep using it, and who the fuck cares if the wings start falling off and pilots get killed?
The A16, or close support version of the F16 has a few little problems.
1) the damn thing can fly slow enough to actually do the same job as the A10.
2) with the combat load out in ground support role, the damn thing doesnt have the range or loiter time as an aircraft designed for that particular job from the ground up.
Actually, to get the tilt rotor concept working correctly, it took more than forty years. The Germans played with the idea in WW2.
And as for comparing it to the A16, A10 or any other attack aircraft is stupid. The Osprey is a tilt rotor troop and cargo transport, which is why it was chosen to replace the CH46. It is not an attack aircraft, never meant to be an attack aircraft.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Right?
Yes, the US can make some fine machinery but the life cycle of what's to replace, can be 30 or 40 years not 20-25 years as given by the fact its been demonstrated and forced by how long it takes to design, build, test and deploy. Too many new military ships air and sea are procured as a replacement and modernization of existing ships. Then when the performance doesn't add up, they are justified only to compliment and they all operate together at astronomical costs.
Pentagon shipboard, air and weapons procurement is a waist, a money hole and job's program and has little to do with defining a mission, accomplishing a mission and doing it cost-effectively.
Plus Jlf, a good part of my 'bloated military' OP was the $50 billion for troops etc. still in Iraq at the time and war costs still piling up, the $150 billion per year on surveillance and bureaucracy for Homeland sec which goes along with it and why after the debacles of the F-22 and F-35 was still now need yet another jet fighter and so soon before the others even begin to enter their life cycle.
Look at the aircraft with a 30 or 40 year life cycle, they are slow, low tech and yes, well designed. The B52's still in service have the grandsons of their original pilots flying them.
But, you fail to understand one very simple fact.
The faster, more maneuverable an air craft is, the faster the metal gets tired, hence the shorter operational life span.
Metal does not stay strong for ever, especially under stress. It gets tired, then cracks, and when it cracks it fails, usually catastrophically. And then people die.
In fact, you go out to the Mojave desert you will see hundreds of 'mothballed' airliners.
These have the same problem but for a different reason.
The hundreds of take offs and landings and repeated pressurizing of the cabins has caused the metal around hatches and windows to start cracking.
How would you like to be on a trans ocean trip and the hatch blow out of the airliner you happen to be on?
Sorry, your arguments, particularly about aircraft are flawed since you seem to assume that the properties of metal stays constant.
And for the record, the A10 is long past its original operational live, as was the navy Intruder, but retiring them for the safety of the crews is better than having crews die for no other reason than to save a buck.
Well why are we paying Billion$ for new technologies that don't work ? How about the Zumwalt destroyer ? A claimed 30 new technologies. and only ONE worked while one ship ended up dead-in-water at the Panama canal.
Come on man, you know better than this. We are already down to the F-16C which is the 4th upgrade of the F-16 and they know that at about 8000 hours, they need to refurbished or retired.
Example:
The torture process, known officially as the full-scale durability test, will discover if the F-16 fleet, already five years beyond its originally planned retirement date, can serve well into the 2020s. The Air Force is betting it can, and is preparing a series of upgrades intended to keep the Falcon credible and capable right up until it is withdrawn from service.
As for the F-22, it is a fine aircraft no question but was the most expensive at more than $140 million each and an out-of-this-world and record $44,000/PER HR. flight cost. As we type there is consideration that the program will make a restart but may be almost impossible with even 75 more aircraft starting at a whopping $227 million each. Plus the F-22 would also need software and tech upgrades.
Another problem is that due to its technology, NO foreign sales are allowed whereas the F-35A has two already.
The A-10 was to be scratched, then was brought back but will be scrapped again because it in fact has been replaced by the F-35 although there are many that want and look forward to a real competition. And thus the A-10 may be kept in service which of course means upgrades after their torture tests.
The Air Force has known and made accommodations for metal fatigue going back to WWII and now have the life span of planes down to the hour. That fact of life doesn't end a jet's life cycle, it merely requires upgrades.
As for the Ford class carriers, I was mistaken, the first of which is in fact the USS Gerald R. Ford.
The Navy said Tuesday that more "first of class" problems have been found in the new Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier that will delay delivery at least another two months.
The Navy did not specify what the new problems were with the Ford, which has already been the topic of numerous congressional hearings on cost overruns and troubles with arresting gear on the flight deck.
However, Capt. Thurraya Kent, a Navy spokeswoman, said that "during ongoing testing of developmental systems aboard the CVN 78 (Ford), first of class issues are continuing to be resolved."
Delivery of the aircraft carrier to the Navy, which had been expected in the August-September time frame, will now be delayed at least until November, the Navy said.
"If additional issues arise during the remaining shipboard testing, that date may need to be revised," Kent said. The ship being readied at Newport News (Virginia) Shipbuilding is 98 percent complete.
In a scathing statement, Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed his exasperation at yet another setback for the Ford, which has had $2.3 billion in cost overruns to boost the estimated final cost to $13 billion.
Another delivery delay "further demonstrates that key systems still have not demonstrated expected performance," McCain said. "The advanced arresting gear [AAG] cannot recover airplanes. Advanced weapons elevators cannot lift munitions. The dual-band radar cannot integrate two radar bands. Even if everything goes according to the Navy's plan, CVN-78 will be delivered with multiple systems unproven.
"This situation is unacceptable and was entirely preventable," McCain said. "The Ford-class program is a case study in why our acquisition system must be reformed."
< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/24/2017 10:08:17 AM >
_____________________________
You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith
|
Our bloated (immoral) military spending. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread