Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/19/2014 8:31:14 AM EST
I'm aware of a few examples, such as the F22 vs the F35 contracts. A huge amount of money was spent developing the F22. Shortly after the plane was fully developed, the contract was canceled in favor of the undeveloped F35 which is still not finished. I have heard of examples from the Navy but don't recall specifics. I am interesting in knowing about specific examples of weapons development that seems unneeded or wasteful, preferably costing in the range of billions.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 8:37:38 AM EST


Might be a good example, no?

Link Posted: 6/19/2014 8:39:51 AM EST
The fucking Comanche. My former business partner was a test pilot on the program. He said it was an absolutely incredible helicopter until DoD kept hanging new mission requirements on it until it finally got too heavy, slow and expensive to be useful and then shit-canned it.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 8:43:50 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
The fucking Comanche. My former business partner was a test pilot on the program. He said it was an absolutely incredible helicopter until DoD kept hanging new mission requirements on it until it finally got too heavy, slow and expensive to be useful and then shit-canned it.
View Quote


'Requirements creep' will kill just about anything.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 8:48:04 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brickeyee:


'Requirements creep' will kill just about anything.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brickeyee:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
The fucking Comanche. My former business partner was a test pilot on the program. He said it was an absolutely incredible helicopter until DoD kept hanging new mission requirements on it until it finally got too heavy, slow and expensive to be useful and then shit-canned it.


'Requirements creep' will kill just about anything.

Yep. That and requirements changes 3/4 the way through E&MD. And they happen to nearly every single program. Some are "meh" but some mean major design re-works.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 8:54:14 AM EST
Airborne Laser (ABL) was canceled after being 8 years late and 4 Billion dollars over budget. That's pretty rough considering the budget was $500M/year, and it was a 12 year long program.

So we spent $10B for two 747s full of laser equipment that never really worked.

We did learn a hell of a lot about beam shaping and steering, adaptive optics, etc. and those lessons are no doubt being applied to other programs like THEL.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 8:58:48 AM EST
EFV was a $3B boondoggle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle

Crusader was about $2B spent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader

None of those programs even hold a candle to the amount of waste in Afg and Irq though, we probably spent $1T+ and got absolutely nothing in return.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:00:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/19/2014 9:02:31 AM EST by DeltaElite777]
The ridiculous OICW/XM8 debacle comes to mind as well.

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
EFV was a $3B boondoggle:

View Quote


What exactly killed the EFV? I don't know anything about how development went, but it seemed like a killer capability.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:01:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/19/2014 9:06:33 AM EST by AeroE]
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:04:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/19/2014 9:05:24 AM EST by poorman]
A good 50% of the Military Industrial Complex is nothing more a nation sized toilet to flush money down. A government subsidy of the 1%.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:05:23 AM EST
Abrams that don't run on diesel
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:06:49 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Airborne Laser (ABL) was canceled after being 8 years late and 4 Billion dollars over budget. That's pretty rough considering the budget was $500M/year, and it was a 12 year long program.

So we spent $10B for two 747s full of laser equipment that never really worked.

We did learn a hell of a lot about beam shaping and steering, adaptive optics, etc. and those lessons are no doubt being applied to other programs like THEL.
View Quote



Everything on the ABL worked except the power output of the kill laser.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:07:45 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
Abrams that don't run on diesel
View Quote



I thought Abrams used Jet-A.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:08:00 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
Abrams that don't run on diesel
View Quote


The US military uses JP8 for everything. It would be idiocy for it to use a different kind of fuel for tanks.

Logistics matter.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:09:19 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:

That project had to have been oversold by someone. The problem is incredibly complicated, besides figuring out how to make a giant laser.

View Quote


No doubt. I think at the end it managed to "shoot down" or at least put enough energy on a TBM in boost phase at 50 miles, but it was never going to do it at 150-200 miles. The sad part is with today's fiber optic laser arrays they could probably generate enough energy to do what it was supposed to.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:09:24 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brickeyee:


'Requirements creep' will kill just about anything.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brickeyee:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
The fucking Comanche. My former business partner was a test pilot on the program. He said it was an absolutely incredible helicopter until DoD kept hanging new mission requirements on it until it finally got too heavy, slow and expensive to be useful and then shit-canned it.


'Requirements creep' will kill just about anything.

Yup..."Oh man...that's awesome...hey...think we can add <anythingandeverything>"

"Sure...we'll get right on it..."

.mil is part of the blame, fucking contractor trying to be the good customer instead of "Umm...no...we've pretty much reached the limits" is the other issue. Greed gets 'em.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:10:25 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:



I thought Abrams used Jet-A.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
Abrams that don't run on diesel



I thought Abrams used Jet-A.


JP8, which is really similar to Jet-A1 and most turbines will happily burn DF-2 as well.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:12:10 AM EST
F35
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:13:48 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:


The US military uses JP8 for everything. It would be idiocy for it to use a different kind of fuel for tanks.

Logistics matter.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
Abrams that don't run on diesel


The US military uses JP8 for everything. It would be idiocy for it to use a different kind of fuel for tanks.

Logistics matter.

The Navy uses JP5.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:14:40 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jahdai42:
F35
View Quote


What's $1.2T between friends? It's only been Nunn-McCurdy'd about three times, and still keeps on keeping on.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:15:31 AM EST
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:17:37 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CarbineDad:
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed
View Quote


M247 SGT York.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:17:54 AM EST
Its not just weapons but systems procurement too.

We have a system in my field that has been around since the mid-1990s and no one uses it. We all say no one uses it but the contract still keeps coming up for maintenance and renewal. Everything it does we do in MS Office
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:19:13 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CarbineDad:
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed
View Quote


M247 Sergeant York.

IMHO, it mainly was stupid because they used the wrong kind of gun. A mobile 25-30mm gatling gun with a selectable rate of fire would have been more suited to killing aircraft, and could have a slower rate of fire option for use against soft targets and light armor.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:23:38 AM EST
One of our material purchasing guys went in great detail about his way to get the .gov to buy sports cars as material for an aircraft program. He was convinced he could hide what he did in plain sight and that $80k would disappear in the millions spent.

I haven't seen him driving a sports car yet though
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:24:06 AM EST
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:25:26 AM EST
Atomic Hand Grenade.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:27:17 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


JP8, which is really similar to Jet-A1 and most turbines will happily burn DF-2 as well.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
Abrams that don't run on diesel



I thought Abrams used Jet-A.


JP8, which is really similar to Jet-A1 and most turbines will happily burn DF-2 as well.



That's where I was going.
Jet fuel is essentially diesel.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:27:22 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley.
View Quote


88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas?

Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:29:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
I'm aware of a few examples, such as the F22 vs the F35 contracts. A huge amount of money was spent developing the F22. Shortly after the plane was fully developed, the contract was canceled in favor of the undeveloped F35 which is still not finished. I have heard of examples from the Navy but don't recall specifics. I am interesting in knowing about specific examples of weapons development that seems unneeded or wasteful, preferably costing in the range of billions.
View Quote



The F-22 and the F-35 were intended to complement each other like the F-15 and F-16. High - Low mix.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:30:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/19/2014 9:31:12 AM EST by ARDestructo]
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:32:57 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
The fucking Comanche. My former business partner was a test pilot on the program. He said it was an absolutely incredible helicopter until DoD kept hanging new mission requirements on it until it finally got too heavy, slow and expensive to be useful and then shit-canned it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
The fucking Comanche. My former business partner was a test pilot on the program. He said it was an absolutely incredible helicopter until DoD kept hanging new mission requirements on it until it finally got too heavy, slow and expensive to be useful and then shit-canned it.

Except that a ton of stuff from that program is on the current helicopter fleet.

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By CarbineDad:
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed


M247 SGT York.

Not a theater air defense system.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:33:52 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Spade:



The F-22 and the F-35 were intended to complement each other like the F-15 and F-16. High - Low mix.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
I'm aware of a few examples, such as the F22 vs the F35 contracts. A huge amount of money was spent developing the F22. Shortly after the plane was fully developed, the contract was canceled in favor of the undeveloped F35 which is still not finished. I have heard of examples from the Navy but don't recall specifics. I am interesting in knowing about specific examples of weapons development that seems unneeded or wasteful, preferably costing in the range of billions.



The F-22 and the F-35 were intended to complement each other like the F-15 and F-16. High - Low mix.


Except the F-16 didn't cost $60M to the F-15s $40M.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:34:20 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Airborne Laser (ABL) was canceled after being 8 years late and 4 Billion dollars over budget. That's pretty rough considering the budget was $500M/year, and it was a 12 year long program.

So we spent $10B for two 747s full of laser equipment that never really worked.

We did learn a hell of a lot about beam shaping and steering, adaptive optics, etc. and those lessons are no doubt being applied to other programs like THEL.
View Quote

I kinda think that tech may be used as a BMD at one of the national labs, but I could be wrong.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:35:33 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:


88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5KY9nxyegatnNTOaa8ch-Td1Bz-yOg-MEeVjL5aX4n7UkrxMt5Q
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley.


88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5KY9nxyegatnNTOaa8ch-Td1Bz-yOg-MEeVjL5aX4n7UkrxMt5Q


LOL

When you emphasize survivability over lethality and mobility, you get an 88-ton behemoth.

Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:35:52 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Capt-Planet:

Except that a ton of stuff from that program is on the current helicopter fleet.


Not a theater air defense system.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Capt-Planet:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
The fucking Comanche. My former business partner was a test pilot on the program. He said it was an absolutely incredible helicopter until DoD kept hanging new mission requirements on it until it finally got too heavy, slow and expensive to be useful and then shit-canned it.

Except that a ton of stuff from that program is on the current helicopter fleet.

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By CarbineDad:
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed


M247 SGT York.

Not a theater air defense system.


I think it was actually meant to go to Division level.

But, pretty sure that's the "armored tracked" system he was asking about.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:37:12 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Squatch:


LOL

When you emphasize survivability over lethality and mobility, you get an 88-ton behemoth.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley.


88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5KY9nxyegatnNTOaa8ch-Td1Bz-yOg-MEeVjL5aX4n7UkrxMt5Q


LOL

When you emphasize survivability over lethality and mobility, you get an 88-ton behemoth.

For perspective...a fully loaded Abrams is about 75tons.

88 tons? That's nuts.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:38:13 AM EST
Not quite expensive as other projects, but the next best thing ever ever



By 1996? I can't wait!
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:41:10 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By robplumm:
For perspective...a fully loaded Abrams is about 75tons.

88 tons? That's nuts.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By robplumm:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley.


88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5KY9nxyegatnNTOaa8ch-Td1Bz-yOg-MEeVjL5aX4n7UkrxMt5Q


LOL

When you emphasize survivability over lethality and mobility, you get an 88-ton behemoth.

For perspective...a fully loaded Abrams is about 75tons.

88 tons? That's nuts.


Yep. And, thankfully, the Army is going to kill it and pour the money into lifecycle upgrades to the Bradley (which works juuuust fine). In fact, the ursprung of the GCV program was the fact that the Bradley cannot carry a full infantry squad. So, in order to carry ~9 fully laden soldiers, you need this monstrosity. I heard rumor from the MCoE that they're looking at decreasing the size of an infantry squad, so suddenly the Bradley makes sense again.

Nuts-o.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:41:41 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Blackhawk5:
Not quite expensive as other projects, but the next best thing ever ever

http://youtu.be/KVRyY5QH9Lo

By 1996? I can't wait!
View Quote

One of the side effects of reunification.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:42:13 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


I think it was actually meant to go to Division level.

But, pretty sure that's the "armored tracked" system he was asking about.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Capt-Planet:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
The fucking Comanche. My former business partner was a test pilot on the program. He said it was an absolutely incredible helicopter until DoD kept hanging new mission requirements on it until it finally got too heavy, slow and expensive to be useful and then shit-canned it.

Except that a ton of stuff from that program is on the current helicopter fleet.

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By CarbineDad:
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed


M247 SGT York.

Not a theater air defense system.


I think it was actually meant to go to Division level.

But, pretty sure that's the "armored tracked" system he was asking about.


It was - I probably misused "theater" in that sense. Hell, today that would probably be called "Mobile Upper Battlespace Kinetic Deterrence Delivery System" The MUBKDDS
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:42:42 AM EST
Imagine how many more troops we could have in service today and how many more capable weapons platforms we could have bought had we not squandered many billions of dollars over the past couple of decades developing shit that never even got put into service. How many extra BCTs could have right now with just the money wasted on the Comanche, the Crusader, FCS, A-12 Avenger, EFV, etc?
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:49:05 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By robplumm:
For perspective...a fully loaded Abrams is about 75tons.

88 tons? That's nuts.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By robplumm:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley.


88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5KY9nxyegatnNTOaa8ch-Td1Bz-yOg-MEeVjL5aX4n7UkrxMt5Q


LOL

When you emphasize survivability over lethality and mobility, you get an 88-ton behemoth.

For perspective...a fully loaded Abrams is about 75tons.

88 tons? That's nuts.


Because he is wrong. With max armor package it would weigh 68 tons. But the vehicle is designed to change packages against threats.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:51:03 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:


Because he is wrong. With max armor package it would weigh 68 tons. But the vehicle is designed to change packages against threats.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By robplumm:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley.


88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5KY9nxyegatnNTOaa8ch-Td1Bz-yOg-MEeVjL5aX4n7UkrxMt5Q


LOL

When you emphasize survivability over lethality and mobility, you get an 88-ton behemoth.

For perspective...a fully loaded Abrams is about 75tons.

88 tons? That's nuts.


Because he is wrong. With max armor package it would weigh 68 tons. But the vehicle is designed to change packages against threats.


Nope...not wrong. (Looks out window, waves to buddies in GCS)
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:51:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/19/2014 9:51:56 AM EST by Bohr_Adam]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CarbineDad:


It was - I probably misused "theater" in that sense. Hell, today that would probably be called "Mobile Upper Battlespace Kinetic Deterrence Delivery System" The MUBKDDS
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CarbineDad:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Capt-Planet:

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By CarbineDad:
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed


M247 SGT York.

Not a theater air defense system.


I think it was actually meant to go to Division level.

But, pretty sure that's the "armored tracked" system he was asking about.


It was - I probably misused "theater" in that sense. Hell, today that would probably be called "Mobile Upper Battlespace Kinetic Deterrence Delivery System" The MUBKDDS


In the Army sense for ADA, "theater' is used for systems that pretty much stay in one place and can provide coverage for an entire theater. They are designed to be assets of the theater commander, not assigned to maneuver forces.

I've also seen it used the way I assume you meant it - as an opposite of strategic - essentially meaning "deployable" for use in a combat theater.


Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:51:30 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:


Because he is wrong. With max armor package it would weigh 68 tons. But the vehicle is designed to change packages against threats.
View Quote


68 tons is still fucking ridiculous for an OTMBT ground combat vehicle.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:51:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/19/2014 9:52:06 AM EST by ContrarianIndicator]
There's no such thing as military waste. The military is the only part of govt that is efficient.

Even if there is waste, it's not really waste, because that waste keeps us safe at night.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:52:00 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:


Except the F-16 didn't cost $60M to the F-15s $40M.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chairborne:
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
I'm aware of a few examples, such as the F22 vs the F35 contracts. A huge amount of money was spent developing the F22. Shortly after the plane was fully developed, the contract was canceled in favor of the undeveloped F35 which is still not finished. I have heard of examples from the Navy but don't recall specifics. I am interesting in knowing about specific examples of weapons development that seems unneeded or wasteful, preferably costing in the range of billions.



The F-22 and the F-35 were intended to complement each other like the F-15 and F-16. High - Low mix.


Except the F-16 didn't cost $60M to the F-15s $40M.


Key words: "were" and "intended".
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 9:52:00 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:


Because he is wrong. With max armor package it would weigh 68 tons. But the vehicle is designed to change packages against threats.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BobRoberts:
Originally Posted By robplumm:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Originally Posted By DeltaElite777:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley.


88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5KY9nxyegatnNTOaa8ch-Td1Bz-yOg-MEeVjL5aX4n7UkrxMt5Q


LOL

When you emphasize survivability over lethality and mobility, you get an 88-ton behemoth.

For perspective...a fully loaded Abrams is about 75tons.

88 tons? That's nuts.


Because he is wrong. With max armor package it would weigh 68 tons. But the vehicle is designed to change packages against threats.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140123/DEFREG02/301230041/US-Army-Chief-Confirms-Ground-Combat-Vehicle-Dead-Now-

Says 70 here...which...for a fucking APC is still amazingly high.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 10:07:01 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
I think it was actually meant to go to Division level.

But, pretty sure that's the "armored tracked" system he was asking about.
View Quote

I know, you're correct. We understood what he meant, but what he said is not what he meant.
Link Posted: 6/19/2014 10:08:22 AM EST
MEADS
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top