Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The F-22, Domestic Jobs, and the Military-Industrial Complex
Posts
I bet the Russian version does.
"Look at that subtle off-white coloring, the tasteful thickness of it... Oh my God, it even has a watermark."
No, no, no....we already know what happens. And when the dust settles, and the heroes save the day, you know who really looses? The taxpayers.
But you are correct about quantity being a quality all its own. Because, ultimately, it doesn't matter how awesomely badass the F-22, or whatever high-tech toy, is, it's still useless if the pilot is shot at any point, it can still be destroyed on the ground, and sooner or later, someone is going to shoot it down. With a much cheaper missile that requires no pilot. They never thought the U-2 would be shot down either, after all.
I kind of worry that we, in the US, kind of regard our view of military superiority the same way Adolf Hitler did when he decided to become a control freak. A weapon is bigger, badder, heavier (our tanks are some of the heaviest in the world, for example), and above all, way more expensive. Yes, our economy can handle it, sort of, but there is an immediate cost. The cancellation of the F-22, as cool as it is, demonstrates this point. Personally, I'd think we'd benefit from having taken the huge quantities of money spent on development, and having purchased vast numbers of F-15s or other existing fighter craft--which will already be upgraded anyway, and which we were going to spend money on anyway--instead. We'd certainly have a lot more planes.
But, I'm also probably an idiot in this subject. I just wonder when we decided every tank had to be a goddamn King Tiger Mk. IV with optional sun-roof and satellite radio.
Then again, a lot of our stuff is outdated too, just like the rest of the world. I don't know which is worse--the notion that a lot of our stuff is old and rusty just like every other world powers', or the idea that we're so anxious to spend huge quantities of money to replace it the second we think it's obsolete.
Ironically, the LM version of LCS is built there.
http://psionikubi.deviantart.com/art/OPENING-COMMISSIONS-366450436
The Aussteyr (Australian variant of the Steyr Aug) can definitely fix a bayonet as well under the barrel.
Yeah, sure. And I'm sure all those thousands of tanks are just going to be converted into monuments and tractors.
We usually sell outdated equipment and vehicles. According to your logic we still use every serviceable piece of equipment ever produced for the military.
Frankly, the very idea of driving a converted Bradley tractor sounds awesome.
Not from want of trying, I imagine.
Besides, I never said we kept everything, just that some of it was old. The stuff is still sitting intact in storage. Which is not to say we shouldn't be doing that, but we are.
The link you posted even says they were phased out in the early 90's. The way it works in the Army is, Spec-Ops gets something, then years later the Infantry get it, then everyone active unit gets it, then national guard gets it. I'm sure the national guard had M60's for a few years after the active army phased it out, but that's not because we prefer to keep old equipment, it's because it takes a while to completely phase something out. Utilizing old equipment means we have to manufacture parts to repair the item and we have to train people to repair it. In the end it's easier to sell it to allied nations and completely replace it.
I just remember those things were used in the Gulf War and I personally don't consider that a long time ago.
Of course, there is plenty of other old stuff too. Note, I am not saying this stuff is bad (that is not my field of expertise), but it is comparable in age to some of the other old stuff used in other countries.
Which returns to my original point--I don't know what's more worrying, that some of our stuff is rusty and old like that of other countries, or the fact that we love spending money to replace it. Or just spending money for the sake of spending money, as sometimes seem to be the case.
strange to think about that
Yeah, you're telling me.
Of course, they were still working on the F-22 back then as well. That was about the time a prototype flew, I think.
we need to keep that
Khavall's Beginner's Guide to Music Everything(Theory Blog)
It's dangerous to be on the ground. Or in a plane. Let's just say anywhere.
Edit: I need to get over this whole mindset of saying the Second World War ended 50 years ago. I'm not even that old, I just have a horrible sense of time.
Have you even read the wikipedia article you posted? It says that they were used by an airforce EOD unit, not as a main battle tank. The Abrams had already replaced the M60 by then as our MBT. Thirty years isn't that long for a vehicle. We use them until we need something better. We still use the A10 because it's probably the best fixed wing CAS aircraft ever created. Our aircraft and vehicles may be decades old in some cases, but we still retro fit them often and always maintain them. Age should never be the sole reason to replace something.
Edit: The main thing that determines what is a good aircraft for anti-armor is the ordnance it carries, not the aircraft itself. The A10 is great for CAS because it's so durable and its GAU-8 is a motherfucking beast. Close air support doesn't always mean anti armor though. Lately it hasn't meant that at all.
Hardly, M1s are 61 tonnes. The Challenger 2 is 62 tonnes and Merkavas are 65 tonnes.
Interesting story, the Canadian army [1] is (was? in the process of?) replacing their Leopard C2s with Leopard 2 A4/A6s because the former had no air conditioning, which really sucks in Afghanistan. We bought them as surplus from the Dutch [2].
1. Wait, we have an army?
2. Wait, they have an army? [3]
3. Alternatively, they don't have an army, that's why they're selling the tanks!
Wow, I just saw this. I wonder what country they got this tank from.
I never said that the A-10 wasn't good. Where did I say it wasn't? I'm sure it's fantastic. The point is, it's still quite old, and kept in large inventories, despite the fact that we spend huge quantities of money to make new ones, some of which are dropped. Would it really kill the military to stay with the older ones, which apparently are absolutely god-awesome, rather than expect a new replacement every ten years that takes 20 to develop?
I was actually speaking of the subject of cost, not actual weight. American tanks are frequently expensive. I'm sure they are worth it, but they are expensive.
there was a plan to replace them with Strykers a few years back, but that was scrapped and we borrowed some 2A6s from the Germans, which were the ones used in Afghanistan before we bought the Dutch 2A4s and A6s
M1A2: $4.35 mil
Leopard 2 A6: $4.51 mil
Challenger 2: $7.92 mil
I'm just using the numbers off Wikipedia here.
To be fair, I'm sure economies of scale factor in here somewhere. Because it looks like the English really got shafted otherwise.
Our stuff isn't old and rusty. We constantly update old equipment. The oldest part of an A10 would probably be the airframe. It might be old like other countries, but it's probably been retrofitted more than other countries, and better maintained. Also just because something is old like other countries' equipment, we haven't replaced it because it doesn't need to be replaced.
Edit:
Helicopters will always be an RPG target, but where a chopper fails a fixed wing aircraft should excel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-7_Corsair_II
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
To be fair, I'm also considering stuff like the Chinese Type 99 ($2.5 million, or so it says) and the Indian/Russian T-90 ($2.23 million). Especially since China is, after all, a major military power. Though the M1 was less expensive than I was expecting, so I stand corrected.
I meant "old and rusty" in the context of it is, in fact, old. Which it is. I've been very careful not to say things are "bad", since I already admitted I wasn't an expert in the matter. I'm more interested in the fact that, since it is old, the logical reasoning to replace it is easy to follow, but apparently, it is still very, very good, so was it actually necessary to spend billions of dollars kicking around a new one?
They're designed to be good anti-armour. Too bad you're not fighting any armour.
Also, you know you've got problems when you need to fly close-air support (e.g. F-16s) for your Apaches.
Browning .50 cal lolol.
Yeah, you're generally not going to see huge price differences between comparable pieces of equipment across Western countries. Eurofighters and Rafales cost quite a bit too.
Hopefully the greater use of drone aircraft will make militaries less risk-adverse as there is no pilot to lose, resulting in fewer civilian casualties or friendly fire. Rather than bombing something you can't identify just to be safe, you can leave it be and worst case scenario you lose a couple of million dollars.
I also wonder if a drone aircraft has ever been used in a kamikaze attack. They should be, just for kicks.
EDIT: speaking of older weapons, a couple of coastal defence vessels were in the harbour last week. These aren't old ships, going into service in the late 1990's. Their armament? Two .50 caliber machine guns and a 40mm Bofors gun . . . which would have been designed back in the late 1920's-early 1930's.
That would be a very expensive way to get your kicks.
Old aircraft, on the other hand, are more like cars - simply at some point, the maintenance becomes prohibitive compared to getting a new one.
I wasn't trying to imply that it was always the case but it generally is for aircraft and vehicles. Most of our small arms weapons are shitty. The .50 cal isn't that bad. It's a bitch to set up, and it has too many small parts, but it can usually be jerry rigged to work if it goes down. It's about to be replaced by this.
I meant in terms of designs--specifically the design/development costs involved (which can be astronomically high). Naturally, old aircraft can only be maintained for so long, but the situation appears as though these aircraft are going to be replaced, rain or shine, until everyone is absolutely certain that we don't need them anymore. And then we'll still have them around for another for years.
Ignoring the cost of actually building the things, the new development costs are completely independent of that, right? What bothers me, personally, was that we were going to keep replacing older fighters anyway, because they were perfectly suitable, while spending an astronomic sum on developing a new one. And, ultimately, the new one became a point of considerable contention. It just seems incredibly inefficient, even by military procurement standards.
That's why even an F-14 will be superior to most enemy aircraft it is likely to encounter.
That's the point I was driving at. Conversely, the most limiting fact of any aircraft would have to be the pilot. The human body can only take so many G's. I would assume we're nearing the limit (if we haven't already reached it) of performance for manned aircraft.
Impressive reliability for a single-engine plane, but it's a low speed attack plane, unlike the super-sonic F/A-18 Hornet the F-35 is supposed to replace. And I still remain very skeptical that a fast jet like that can outdo the A-10 for CAS.
I read some article awhile back that stated the F-22 goes beyond what the human body can endure. I think we've definitely hit that limit now.