Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/23/2006 9:11:01 AM EDT
From another board:

I bought a 20 February Army Times this morning here on post and page 16 had a huge write up on armor, vehicle, and helicopter losses in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. Here are some numbers from that article;
The Army has lost 85 helicopters broken down as;
-27 Apache's
-21 Black Hawks
-14 Chinooks
-23 Kiowa's
Armor and wheeled vehicles are as follows;
-20 M1 Tanks
-50 Bradley's
-20 Strykers
-20 M113's
-250 Humvees
-500 Medium/Heavy Trucks, FOX recon, mine clearers, and trailers
Additional numbers in the article are;
- 230 M1 were rebuilt in 2005, the number will top 700 in 2006.
- 318 Bradleys rebuilt in 2005, the number will top 600 in 2006.
- 219 M113's in 2005, the number will top 614 in 2006.
- 5,000 Humvees in 2005, the number will top 9,000 in 2006.
- 44 aircraft in 2005, the number will be close to 85 in 2006.
The Army has ordered 16 new Apaches, and 5 new Black Hawks. But cannot replace the 27 Kiowas because production lines are no longer open.
Quote- "There are thousands of small arms, radios, and generators that require major repair and overhaul. The repair backlog includes almost every major equipment item, from 50 caliber machine guns to hundreds of thousands of pads for tank tracks".
There are currently 30,000 Humvees in theater, once the war is over, 6,000 will be "washed out" upon return to the states, the rest will be repaired and overhauled.
Every M1 thats being repaired or overhauled comes out as a M1A2 (SEP) at a cost of 7 million each. The upgrades will reduce the M1 versions from 5 to 2, (M1A1 AIM and the M1A2 SEP). Bradleys will also be reduced to just 2 versions.
Army workshops have cranked up capacity from 11 million man hours in 2002, to 20 million hours in 2005. AMC sends half its repair work to private-sector firms to help with the load.
Crunch those numbers, pretty staggering. Just thought you all might be interested.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:28:01 AM EDT
The rebuilds, at least for the heavy vehicles, were always going to happen.

NTM
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:31:12 AM EDT
how did they lose so many Kiowas?? Crash or just deadlined for age, wear, and lack of parts?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:38:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lokt:
how did they lose so many Kiowas?? Crash or just deadlined for age, wear, and lack of parts?



The very fine sand in that part of the world is taking its toll via astonishingly accelerated wear rates on all forms of equipment. It's not just crashes and IEDs doing the damage on in-theater U.S. assets.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:41:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kato4moto:

Originally Posted By lokt:
how did they lose so many Kiowas?? Crash or just deadlined for age, wear, and lack of parts?



The very fine sand in that part of the world is taking its toll via astonishingly accelerated wear rates on all forms of equipment. It's not just crashes and IEDs doing the damage on in-theater U.S. assets.



Ahhhh yes. They should start using Militec-1 on everything.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:47:15 AM EDT
I know that the fine sand did a number on B2 bomber glass as the AF paid some $$$ to have a special run of it last year to replace existing and depleated inventories.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:48:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MKSheppard:
once the war is over, 6,000 will be "washed out" upon return to the states, the rest will be repaired and overhauled.


Who's waiting till the "war" is over...
It is fast becoming reality right now.
That 6000 number is high.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:51:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lokt:
how did they lose so many Kiowas?? Crash or just deadlined for age, wear, and lack of parts?


the story doesn't specify but they say of all the aircraft losses 17 were lost to enemy fire and 68 to combat related accidents.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 1:16:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 1:17:05 AM EDT by Ross]

Originally Posted By hardcorps1775:

Originally Posted By lokt:
how did they lose so many Kiowas?? Crash or just deadlined for age, wear, and lack of parts?


the story doesn't specify but they say of all the aircraft losses 17 were lost to enemy fire and 68 to combat related accidents.



Also considering that the Army has gone over one million combat flight hours, you're looking at a rate of use that's four times heavier than any time previously per airframe (peacetime). Per airframe, Army aircraft are being flown at an op tempo greater than Vietnam (less airframes in Iraq, and they fly day and night because of better capabilites). So the numbers aren't really that high.

In fact if you look at the peactime loss ratio in training, the loss ratio in combat is almost the same per flight hour. Our aviators have actually been flying with a lower accident rate than in peacetime, but when you add combat losses back in the ratio come back up.

A million hours is ALOT of hours, and that's actually very few aircraft to loose in those kind of conditions not even counting enemy fire. Think about just how much time a million hours is. Then think what a million hours in the worst possible enviroment for a helicopter is like. The number of aircraft lost has actually been amazingly low.

Upon return to the states, the aircraft are basically overhauled and at that time given upgrades. To give you an idea of just how much hell these aircraft are going through, one AH-64 returned to the states, after the usual aircraft washout prior to transport, and once it was taken apart for rebuilding over 200lbs of sand was vacumed out of the nooks and crannies. It's THE WORST enviroment to operate a helo.

The rebuild is actually referred to as "resetting" the airframe. It generally takes less than 60days from the time an airframe enters reset until it leaves. During that time, the unit is usually taking block leave, and normally the unit has it's aircraft all ready to go for training when they return from leave.

To date there have been 2,100 Army airframes reset during the last 4 years.

As for the Kiowas, they are being replaced by the RAH-70 (previously the ARH) anyway, so there's no sense in spending the money on resetting them. The 350 in inventory will simply be attritted out. The first unit of RAH-70s is scheduled to field in 2008. The Army's already gearing up on the training and logistics side right now for it. By "fielding", unlike previous "fieldings", the RAH-70 is expected to go to war immeadiately upon fielding, so they're making some effort to get things right to begin with and not have to fix things in fielding that should have been fixed during program start-up.

I can't speak for the ground side, but the air side is actually doing pretty good. Frankly better than we did in peacetime. In the end the reason the mission's getting done is because of those enlisted wrench turners are working their asses off. You don't get that kind of OR rate, nor fly those kind of hours in that kind of enviroment with that low a loss rate only because of pilot shit. It's because of the ground crews.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 1:58:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 2:07:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 2:09:33 AM EDT by 2A373]

Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:
I know that the fine sand did a number on B2 bomber glass as the AF paid some $$$ to have a special run of it last year to replace existing and depleated inventories.




OK, now just how far up in to the air does this dust go?

I really don't think it gets up as high as B-2's fly and B-2's have not been based inside Iraq. I'm thinking the replacement glass is need due to something else.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 2:11:15 AM EDT
Can this rate of attrition and overhaul be kept up? At what point does it become uneconomical, or worse, unsustainable, to be burning up vehicles like that. I understand what Ross is saying about losses per hour flow etc. but at the end of the day, lost vehicles and airframes are not being replaced. When do the production lines get cranked up? If they aren't, then what?
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 2:56:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lert:
Can this rate of attrition and overhaul be kept up? At what point does it become uneconomical, or worse, unsustainable, to be burning up vehicles like that. I understand what Ross is saying about losses per hour flow etc. but at the end of the day, lost vehicles and airframes are not being replaced. When do the production lines get cranked up? If they aren't, then what?



This has been in the back of my mind for a while.

We've won in the past because we could out manufacture everyone. We had the capability. We had all kinds of companies make stuff. Ford, Singer, International Harvester, Winchester, Remington, General Motors, etc... I can't list all of the companies that built stuff that we needed from gun, tanks, bulltes, trucks, jeeps, tires, speat brackets, spare parts, rubber gaskets, o-rings, ets... The logistics of getting it from a little factory in Indianna to the war front was amazing.

Yeah, I know they went to rationing everything to keep up with war time production demand. But we had the manufacturing capability to do so.

Today.

Do we still have the capability for war or are we too reliant on others?
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 4:30:54 AM EDT
Hmanjr

The only country building the manufacturing infrastructure to sustain long term military equipment losses is China. They are doing it by buying our empty factories and moving the equipment over there. They are getting a lot of help from our CEO's and CIC's over the past 20 years or so. Everyone loves the cheap slave labor in China. They know exactly what they are doing.

To me the loss of manufacturing capabilities does two things:

First, it undermines our ability to remain an independent country. Over the past several hundred years, the country with the greatest manufactuing capability has been leader of the world. Nobody can threaten them as there is nothing they need that they cannot make for themselves. This is called independence. Our constitution does not guarantee American independence. It is, in the end, only a piece of paper. It san't stop a bullet. China knows this. To bad nobody in this country does.

Second, if we lose the ability to sustain long term military operations then when encountered with a threat from more powerful nations we will be forced to deal with it in a short term manner. In this case we would have to go nuclear as there would be no other alternative. While the environmentalists, and bonus loving CEO's, may be loving the demise of American industry they are leading un into a more dangerous world with potentially far more devestating environmental consequences.

My prediction is that by the middle of this century we will be a potent as Europe and China will dominate the world unless India has something to say about it. I think India is far more aware of the potential threat of China than we ever will be unitl it is too late.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 4:34:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:
I know that the fine sand did a number on B2 bomber glass as the AF paid some $$$ to have a special run of it last year to replace existing and depleated inventories.



I didn't know the B-2 landed in theater.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 4:36:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 4:40:14 AM EDT by pale_pony]
Kind of like "Ladybird" Johnson owning 51% of Bell Helicopter back during Vietnam, eh?

Edited to add: Aw come-on! Wasn't LBJ one of the great left-wing heros?
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 5:12:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:
The logistics of getting it from a little factory in Indiana to the war front was amazing.

Yeah, I know they went to rationing everything to keep up with war time production demand. But we had the manufacturing capability to do so.

Today.

Do we still have the capability for war or are we too reliant on others?



You speak in past tense, it still is going on and it is amazing.
The logistics to ship vehicles and parts around the world to support the troops is staggering.
My company spends more time getting parts to where they need to be than it does actually producing them.
We have had our largest growth in parts and training in the past few years and expect it to get bigger.

I think you are really under-estimating our production capacity.
So far, we have hit EVERY production number the goverment has asked from us.
You know, just because they say it on the evening news, doesn't mean it is true.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:36:39 AM EDT
Part of the problem with having vehicles go down over there is that the Iraqis destroy them.

If a truck breaks down and has to be left by the rest of the convoy, it will be completely destroyed within hours. ALL removeable parts are stripped off and everything else is broken or burned.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 3:38:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lert:
Can this rate of attrition and overhaul be kept up? At what point does it become uneconomical, or worse, unsustainable, to be burning up vehicles like that. I understand what Ross is saying about losses per hour flow etc. but at the end of the day, lost vehicles and airframes are not being replaced. When do the production lines get cranked up? If they aren't, then what?



I don't know about the ground side.

On the air side, the reset contracts often include replacement aircraft. It depends on the aircraft though. Like I said, there's no point in buying 58's at all, since the RAH-70 will replace it. There's no point in buying an AH-64A, when you can instead put the money towards a AH-64D. In that case, the additional aircraft might be added on to an existing production contrac.

All production of airframes for the Army also include attrition through loss during training, accident, etc. The actual attrition rate hasn't actually been much bigger than the projected attrition rate, as I noted earlier. So for the number of flight hours flown, we haven't really lost more aircraft than projected and programed. When shortfalls are going to occur, then replacement aircraft are purchased. Because we're flying so many hours in such a short time-frame, replacement aircraft are also purchased otherwise we would just wear everything out and not have any.

So, yeah they're buying replacements as well. At least on the air side.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 4:00:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:

Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:
I know that the fine sand did a number on B2 bomber glass as the AF paid some $$$ to have a special run of it last year to replace existing and depleated inventories.



I didn't know the B-2 landed in theater.



I'm pretty sure they operate out of RAF Fairford with the BUFFs.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 4:40:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:

Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:
I know that the fine sand did a number on B2 bomber glass as the AF paid some $$$ to have a special run of it last year to replace existing and depleated inventories.



I didn't know the B-2 landed in theater.



I'm pretty sure they operate out of RAF Fairford with the BUFFs.



Thanks for pointing that out. However, England isn't exactly what I meant when I said "in theater." I doubt the fine sand of the desert was a factor in England and I doubt that they had issues with their windscreens needing replacements due to fine sand particles. I'm not saying it didn't happen. Maybe it did.

Meanwhile we have C-130s and C-17s landing at austere and unimproved airfields and I don't think I've heard of them destroying their windscreens due to sand. If anything, the sand particles would do as much (if not more) damage to the engines than they would to the windscreens.

Back to the ground vehicle discussion. Apologize for the hijack.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 7:27:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gaweidert:
Hmanjr

The only country building the manufacturing infrastructure to sustain long term military equipment losses is China. They are doing it by buying our empty factories and moving the equipment over there. They are getting a lot of help from our CEO's and CIC's over the past 20 years or so. Everyone loves the cheap slave labor in China. They know exactly what they are doing.

To me the loss of manufacturing capabilities does two things:

First, it undermines our ability to remain an independent country. Over the past several hundred years, the country with the greatest manufactuing capability has been leader of the world. Nobody can threaten them as there is nothing they need that they cannot make for themselves. This is called independence. Our constitution does not guarantee American independence. It is, in the end, only a piece of paper. It san't stop a bullet. China knows this. To bad nobody in this country does.

Second, if we lose the ability to sustain long term military operations then when encountered with a threat from more powerful nations we will be forced to deal with it in a short term manner. In this case we would have to go nuclear as there would be no other alternative. While the environmentalists, and bonus loving CEO's, may be loving the demise of American industry they are leading un into a more dangerous world with potentially far more devestating environmental consequences.

My prediction is that by the middle of this century we will be a potent as Europe and China will dominate the world unless India has something to say about it. I think India is far more aware of the potential threat of China than we ever will be unitl it is too late.



Thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one worrying.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 8:09:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shadowsabre:

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:
The logistics of getting it from a little factory in Indiana to the war front was amazing.

Yeah, I know they went to rationing everything to keep up with war time production demand. But we had the manufacturing capability to do so.

Today.

Do we still have the capability for war or are we too reliant on others?



You speak in past tense, it still is going on and it is amazing.
The logistics to ship vehicles and parts around the world to support the troops is staggering.
My company spends more time getting parts to where they need to be than it does actually producing them.
We have had our largest growth in parts and training in the past few years and expect it to get bigger.

I think you are really under-estimating our production capacity.
So far, we have hit EVERY production number the goverment has asked from us.
You know, just because they say it on the evening news, doesn't mean it is true.



Oh, don't get me wrong it's still amazing what you guys are doing. I'm not trying to diminish in any way your achievements.

But are the parts originating from the US or are they made elsewhere?

I'm sure you've heard the old saying "For lack of a nail, the horse was lost, the rider was lost, the battle was lost, the war was lost". That's not exactly it but close enough. What is(are) our nail(s)?

This isn't going to be a complete or accurate list, just a collection is half remembered crappolla.

- didn't someone mention once that there are no computer monitors built in the US anymore?
- didn't we have to buy some 5.56 from Isreal because we had a spike in usage and couldn't keep up with demand?
- aren't we having a tough time supplying armor plating or other items to the troops? Now listen that statement is not coming from the liberal Bush/ Runsfeld is f*n the troops. It's coming from a thought more along the lines of "If my house is burining down and the fire department sends one guy with a bucket. He can bust his ass all day long, which I'd be grateful, but he isn't going to put out the fire". So I understand everyone from the President, the Pentagon, and the line worker is busting their asses to get the troops the best of and everything they need, but I also realize sometimes the best isn't good enough.
- weren't we looking at a South African produced wheeled vehicle because we couldn't build something fast enough?
- can we build in-house all the parts needed if our supply is cut off or reduced?
- all the technology we have is great but what's the weak part that brings the whole system down if it fails without a replacement?

Btw, I don't watch the news so I don't know what they are saying. I'm not saying anyone is f*n up. I'm just starting to wonder and worry a bit. I'm not loosing sleep over it. Hell, a sewing machine company (Singer) and an electronics firm (Union Signal & Switch) made .45's in WWII. A couple of companies that made landing craft were Warren City Tank & Boiler Co, St. Louis Car Co., and the famous Higgins Industries, Inc. A couple of companies that made radios in WWII are Aetna (Walgreen), B.F. Goodrich (Mantola), and Sears Roebuck & Co. (Silvertone).

I'm not downplaying or dismissing good old fashioned American roll-up-your-sleeves and get to work, but when or (hopefully never) if the time comes will there be anyone who knows what to do or more importantly will there be a place to get to work and make something?
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 8:11:17 PM EDT
We rebuild a lot of those helos down here in Corpus Christi. Business has been brisk.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 8:19:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:
Do we still have the capability for war or are we too reliant on others?





Americans are going in droves to WalMart/Costco and Toyota/Volva/Subaru.


American manufacturing is dead and gone. Greed and stupidity is the guiding light.


We are far too relaint on others for our needs, especially critical war items, or the ability to tool over and make them.




Link Posted: 2/24/2006 8:38:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:


- didn't someone mention once that there are no computer monitors built in the US anymore?



Don't know about everything, but that's pretty much true for the current Generation of stuff.

However, There's a nice little building in Tempe that houses ASU's Flexible Display Center, which is a joint venutre of the US Army, Honeywell, ASU, and a pile of other companies.

The next Generation of monitors is starting there, now, with DOD money. Monitor's that can be rolled up and stuffed in your pocket.

Alot of stuff is going overseas. But the US is nowhere near capacity, and all the good stuff is still built here.

If we go to war, our boys won't lack for bullets. It's Civilians that won't be able to buy a toaster.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 9:45:39 PM EDT
i bet the army is regretting closing all those depots back in the 90s
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:37:26 PM EDT
Don't worry about getting all this stuff repaired/replaced. The overhaul industry is BIG business and employs hundreds of thousands all across the country. Contracts for repair & replacement were being let before this war even started, and contracts for the next big conflagration (Iran?) are likely being calculated even now.

We haven't yet reached the point of "roll up the sleeves" in response to the War on Terror, and we probably wont.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:04:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MKSheppard:
-27 Apache's
-21 Black Hawks
-14 Chinooks
-23 Kiowa's
-20 M1 Tanks
-50 Bradley's
-20 Strykers
-20 M113's
-250 Humvees
-500 Medium/Heavy Trucks, FOX recon, mine clearers, and trailers



I love how you guys are rationalizing this as a operation/hours thing. Face it: that is a FUCKLOAD of vehicles LOST- not damaged, not down due to scheduled upgrades. The number of vehicles damaged but repairable must be fucking outrageous.

Makes me fucking sick to think about.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:14:47 PM EDT
When/if a full scale WWIII type conflict emerges against other modern nations, I have no doubt that we'll be able to produce what we need. We have the resources and the know-how to produce anything we need within our borders, which is the most important part. Though the factories are not here today, if they were needed they certainly would be.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:16:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/24/2006 11:24:24 PM EDT by OregonShooter]
20 tanks in a f*ck load of tanks?

We have what 9000 of them?

A couple quotes from the article:

"The wear and tear on those vehicles is estimated at five times normal peacetime use, and that wear factor is cumulative as the war drags on."

"One senior official of the Army Materiel Command estimates that if the war ended tomorrow there would still be two years' worth of work to fix all the vehicles and gear."
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 11:22:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Moe-Ron:

Originally Posted By MKSheppard:
-27 Apache's
-21 Black Hawks
-14 Chinooks
-23 Kiowa's
-20 M1 Tanks
-50 Bradley's
-20 Strykers
-20 M113's
-250 Humvees
-500 Medium/Heavy Trucks, FOX recon, mine clearers, and trailers



I love how you guys are rationalizing this as a operation/hours thing. Face it: that is a FUCKLOAD of vehicles LOST- not damaged, not down due to scheduled upgrades. The number of vehicles damaged but repairable must be fucking outrageous.

Makes me fucking sick to think about.




You need to read Ross's post, perhaps a couple times over.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:08:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
If we go to war, our boys won't lack for bullets.



Attention to detail. As has already been, mentioned herein once, we ara at war and had to buy bullets from the Israeli's.


Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:23:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:

Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:
I know that the fine sand did a number on B2 bomber glass as the AF paid some $$$ to have a special run of it last year to replace existing and depleated inventories.




OK, now just how far up in to the air does this dust go?

I really don't think it gets up as high as B-2's fly and B-2's have not been based inside Iraq. I'm thinking the replacement glass is need due to something else.


The dust can get really far up into the atmosphere. Some of the satellite photos I've seen are impressive. A sandstorm streatching from Egypt to the Gulf, a tremendous amount of engergy. Remember ODS was fought before the sandstorm season and OIF was fought during it. So you have sand in the air swirling around at what 60 or 70 mph and then a B-2 cruising along at 500+mph. Considering the B-2 requires special glass for stealth anyway, I can see it.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 5:39:05 AM EDT
tag for later
Top Top