|
jlf1961 -> RE: Our bloated (immoral) military spending. (3/24/2017 1:18:02 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
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it can, and is preparing a series of upgrades intended to keep the Falcon credible and capable right up until it is withdrawn from service.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The A-10 was to be scratched, then was brought back but will be scrapped again because it in fact has been replaced by the F-35 although there are many that want and look forward to a real competition.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."
The F35 has two sales pending already because the F35 was designed with the British baby carriers in mind.
And I am well aware of the F16 full scale durability tests, and well aware of the results, in theory the F16c's could fly for a whopping 92 years.
Key words there is "In theory."
You also spoke of refurbishing older aircraft.
Okay, to replace the wing spars for ANY aircraft you basically strip every piece of metal off the entire air frame. Then you disassemble the section of the air frame were the wing spares are located.
Now, that means that you have to very carefully remove every rivet holding all that aluminum to the ribs of the aircraft.
They did this to one A10 when the air force decided to see just how much money was involved. You cant just drill the rivets out, that might actually damage the frame itself, so you use a specially designed tool for the job.
It takes 30 to 45 minutes to remove one fucking rivet. I know from experience since I helped refurb a WW2 P40 the local CAF group was working on.
Basically, it came out to being cheaper to buy new A10's or replace them.
The problem came when the air force went to Congress and explained the problem.
Congress didnt want to fund the project to start up the A10 lines and any new design, even using off the shelf tech was out of the question.
As far as the desire for new technology, it is not always the military that want it. In fact, with certain exceptions, the military prefers simpler equipment as it is easier to maintain.
For example, the C130, the A1 Skyraider, even a shit ton of navy destroyers and ships that congress has deemed inefficient and unable to cope with the needs of modern warfare.
However, air superiority fighters are a different story.
The fighters now actually exceed the ability of the pilots to fly them, but the anti aircraft weapons of the modern warfare environment would make life expectancy in a lower tech aircraft so low as to be non existent.
Remember the famous U2? Everyone said it was beyond the reach of Soviet SAM's. Well Gary Powers proved that false.
Then came the SR71. Okay, a soviet SAM can reach it, but not catch it.
Well then the soviets proved that wrong by shooting down a mach 6 capable drone.
Over 90% of the electronics on modern fighters and bombers have nothing to do with actual combat, but everything to do with not getting shot down.
Which is why they developed the HARM air to surface missiles. They home in on the radar beacon of the SAM site and blast it to hell and gone.
Works great except that the newer SAM systems only need to have the radar on for a second or two to get a target lock fed to the missiles, then it goes off and the HARM is lost.
So it is left to the pilot on avionics on the plane to avoid the hit.
As for ships, the newer technology is necessary, again not for anything than to avoid being sunk.
Ask the Royal Navy about the Exocet missiles.
So all that high tech is not so much as fluff and bling but survivalbility.
As for tanks, my personal opinion is that I dont want to be anywhere near them. They draw fire from everything.
And a single trooper with a five hundred dollar throw away tube anti tank rocket can kill them.
|
|
|
|
