User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 9:37:38 AM EDT
[#1]
Might be a good example, no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 9:39:51 AM EDT
[#2]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 9:43:50 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 9:48:04 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
'Requirements creep' will kill just about anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 9:54:14 AM EDT
[#5]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 9:58:48 AM EDT
[#6]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:00:37 AM EDT
[#7]
The ridiculous OICW/XM8 debacle comes to mind as well.
Quoted:
EFV was a $3B boondoggle: What exactly killed the EFV? I don't know anything about how development went, but it seemed like a killer capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:01:36 AM EDT
[#8]
Two Navy programs: Mine Obstacle Defeat Systems and its follow on, Counter Mine Systems. Out of the Assault Breaching office.
These are those "small potato" programs that don't cost much on their own, but there are dozens of others that are equally expensive. But the worst of the worst in recent times was Future Combat Systems. NASP was another good one in the early to mid '90's. And don't forget the billions spent on A-12 for the Navy. Quoted:
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. That project had to have been oversold by someone. The problem is incredibly complicated, besides figuring out how to make a giant laser. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:04:38 AM EDT
[#9]
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%.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:05:23 AM EDT
[#10]
Abrams that don't run on diesel
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:06:49 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Everything on the ABL worked except the power output of the kill laser. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:07:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Abrams that don't run on diesel I thought Abrams used Jet-A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:08:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:09:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That project had to have been oversold by someone. The problem is incredibly complicated, besides figuring out how to make a giant laser. 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:09:24 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 'Requirements creep' will kill just about anything. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:10:25 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought Abrams used Jet-A. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:12:10 AM EDT
[#17]
F35
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:13:48 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The US military uses JP8 for everything. It would be idiocy for it to use a different kind of fuel for tanks. Logistics matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:14:40 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F35 What's $1.2T between friends? It's only been Nunn-McCurdy'd about three times, and still keeps on keeping on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:15:31 AM EDT
[#20]
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:17:37 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed M247 SGT York. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:17:54 AM EDT
[#22]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:19:13 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was the name of the armored tracked theater air defense system that never got deployed 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:23:38 AM EDT
[#24]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:24:06 AM EDT
[#25]
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:25:26 AM EDT
[#26]
Atomic Hand Grenade.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:27:17 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
JP8, which is really similar to Jet-A1 and most turbines will happily burn DF-2 as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:27:22 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ground Combat Vehicle - an 88-ton (and counting) replacement for the 30-ton Bradley. 88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:29:14 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:30:12 AM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:32:57 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:33:52 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-22 and the F-35 were intended to complement each other like the F-15 and F-16. High - Low mix. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:34:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. I kinda think that tech may be used as a BMD at one of the national labs, but I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:35:33 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
88 TONS? Are they buying it from Jawas? https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5KY9nxyegatnNTOaa8ch-Td1Bz-yOg-MEeVjL5aX4n7UkrxMt5Q Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:35:52 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that a ton of stuff from that program is on the current helicopter fleet. Not a theater air defense system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:37:12 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL When you emphasize survivability over lethality and mobility, you get an 88-ton behemoth. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. 88 tons? That's nuts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:38:13 AM EDT
[#37]
Not quite expensive as other projects, but the next best thing ever ever
By 1996? I can't wait! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:41:10 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For perspective...a fully loaded Abrams is about 75tons. 88 tons? That's nuts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:41:41 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not quite expensive as other projects, but the next best thing ever ever  http://youtu.be/KVRyY5QH9Lo
By 1996? I can't wait! One of the side effects of reunification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:42:13 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it was actually meant to go to Division level. But, pretty sure that's the "armored tracked" system he was asking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Quoted:
Quoted:
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:42:42 AM EDT
[#41]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:49:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For perspective...a fully loaded Abrams is about 75tons. 88 tons? That's nuts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:51:03 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because he is wrong. With max armor package it would weigh 68 tons. But the vehicle is designed to change packages against threats. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 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) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:51:19 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:51:30 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because he is wrong. With max armor package it would weigh 68 tons. But the vehicle is designed to change packages against threats. 68 tons is still fucking ridiculous for an OTMBT ground combat vehicle. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:51:31 AM EDT
[#46]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:52:00 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except the F-16 didn't cost $60M to the F-15s $40M. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 10:52:00 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because he is wrong. With max armor package it would weigh 68 tons. But the vehicle is designed to change packages against threats. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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. Says 70 here...which...for a fucking APC is still amazingly high. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 11:07:01 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it was actually meant to go to Division level. But, pretty sure that's the "armored tracked" system he was asking about. I know, you're correct. We understood what he meant, but what he said is not what he meant. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2014 11:08:22 AM EDT
[#50]
MEADS
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
