#4443296 - 10/11/18 04:15 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,734
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,734
SC
|
I'm old enough to remember when the media (pre internet or it would have been even worse) blasted just about every single weapons system we've depended on the last 20-30 years. F-15, F-16, F-18, Abrams, Bradley, Blackhawk, Apache etc. ALL of them were the subject of intense scrutiny by the media in their day.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4443302 - 10/11/18 05:21 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,503
Pooch
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,503
Orlando, FL
|
"I'm old enough to remember when the media (pre internet or it would have been even worse) blasted just about every single weapons system we've depended on the last 20-30 years. F-15, F-16, F-18, Abrams, Bradley, Blackhawk, Apache etc. ALL of them were the subject of intense scrutiny by the media in their day."
But with the Bradely it was certainly deserved. All those years and billions of dollars spent to design a replacement for the M113. And basically, all they did was take the M113 design.....and put a turret on it! But, I don't mean to derail the post. Just sayin'............
"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace." Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia
|
|
#4443307 - 10/11/18 05:37 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,881
Meatsheild
Arma3 guy!
|
Arma3 guy!
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,881
Peoples Republic of Yorkshire
|
the thing i'll never understand, is that orders tend to be placed and mostly paid for BEFORE any prototypes are even built. I get funding prototypes, that makes sense, but to buy the "finished" product straight of the drawing board hardly ever works out well.
SimHQ Arma3 sessions, weekly semi-serious co-op action for all ages and skills! check the forum sticky for more info!
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3732626/SimHQ_Arma3_Sessions,_who,_wha#Post3732626
All spelling errors are included free of charge and courtesy of a broken spell checker!
|
|
#4443312 - 10/11/18 05:45 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: Meatsheild]
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,556
wheelsup_cavu
Lifer
|
Lifer
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,556
Corona, California
|
the thing i'll never understand, is that orders tend to be placed and mostly paid for BEFORE any prototypes are even built. I get funding prototypes, that makes sense, but to buy the "finished" product straight of the drawing board hardly ever works out well. Defense contractors have their cake and eat it to when it comes to funding. They get paid substantial sums up front for their projects and then they string out their sub tier manufactures payments for months on end. I always felt it was their goal to frustrate you bad enough that they would never have to pay you. The smaller you were as a company the worse it seemed they screwed with you. Wheels
|
|
#4443318 - 10/11/18 06:03 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: Meatsheild]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,734
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,734
SC
|
the thing i'll never understand, is that orders tend to be placed and mostly paid for BEFORE any prototypes are even built. I can't recall that ever actually happening. I know there are plans, IE "We are going to need 500 of these" but I've not seen the actual order for the 500 placed before a prototype has been built.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4443329 - 10/11/18 06:50 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,615
Suicidal_6
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,615
Gulfport
|
I drove both the M113A3 and the M-2 Bradley, was also a gunner on the M-2. I'll take the Brad all day every day.
_ _ ______________________ _ _
S6
|
|
#4443352 - 10/11/18 08:50 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,402
Zamzow
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,402
|
it does seem like the F-35 has had more than its fair share of teething problems. It also has more than it's fair share of capabilities expected of it. It is by far the most ambitious fighter project in history. As a whole the project makes the Raptor look "simple".
|
|
#4443382 - 10/12/18 02:10 AM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: F4UDash4]
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
NH2112
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
Jackman, ME
|
I'm old enough to remember when the media (pre internet or it would have been even worse) blasted just about every single weapons system we've depended on the last 20-30 years. F-15, F-16, F-18, Abrams, Bradley, Blackhawk, Apache etc. ALL of them were the subject of intense scrutiny by the media in their day. I remember the Abrams bashing before Desert Storm, complaints that its extremely poor fuel economy would be a problem, that it was too maintenance intensive, that the dust would kill that gas turbine because the air filters got clogged too easily and were a hassle to change, etc. As it turned out the Abrams, and all the other force multipliers (such as MLRS which I crewed) performed beyond their biggest advocates’ wildest dreams. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the army planned for that and made sure there was ALWAYS plenty of fuel. I can’t ever remember our fuel tanks being below half full, we’d get the grid for a refuel point (traveling in a brigade slice wedge) and there’d be dozens of HEMTT tankers lined up and waiting. Yes, they are maintenance intensive, typically requiring 2-3 man-hours of work each day in harsh environments like the desert. A lot of that was because at the time MLRS was built with early 70s tech (when it had been conceived) that was a little on the delicate side. Not all of it was stuff called out in the TMs; we learned early on that so much dust would gather under the launcher module that whenever possible you should drop the pods and sweep it out with a whisk broom and dustpan. It would be several inches deep, making it hard to check scavenge reservoirs and potentially gumming up limit switches. Air filters got clogged frequently but at least these were easily accessible and could be blown out with air from a HEMTT’s compressor or even tapped with your hands to knock the majority of the dust loose. But it was the high performance of these weapons that allowed them to outperform a much greater number of Soviet stuff, and high performance always has a price. As time went by improvements were made that cut down on maintenance, such as going from a 2-part paste ablative material that had to be replaced as it was burned off to permanent titanium panels that needed no maintenance. 20 years after getting out I can only imagine the changes that have been made, and some may have resulted in more maintenance being necessary as a result of performance increases. But when you figure that, in my time, a platoon of 3 launchers firing 12 rockets each could cover more ground than a battalion (24 guns) of tube artillery firing 10 DPICM rounds each, without having to survey & lay a gun line, the price of that performance was worth it.
Phil
“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
|
|
#4443414 - 10/12/18 10:47 AM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: NH2112]
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
|
I remember the Abrams bashing before Desert Storm, complaints that its extremely poor fuel economy would be a problem, that it was too maintenance intensive, that the dust would kill that gas turbine because the air filters got clogged too easily and were a hassle to change, etc. As it turned out the Abrams, and all the other force multipliers (such as MLRS which I crewed) performed beyond their biggest advocates’ wildest dreams. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the army planned for that and made sure there was ALWAYS plenty of fuel. I can’t ever remember our fuel tanks being below half full, we’d get the grid for a refuel point (traveling in a brigade slice wedge) and there’d be dozens of HEMTT tankers lined up and waiting. Yes, they are maintenance intensive, typically requiring 2-3 man-hours of work each day in harsh environments like the desert. A lot of that was because at the time MLRS was built with early 70s tech (when it had been conceived) that was a little on the delicate side. Not all of it was stuff called out in the TMs; we learned early on that so much dust would gather under the launcher module that whenever possible you should drop the pods and sweep it out with a whisk broom and dustpan. It would be several inches deep, making it hard to check scavenge reservoirs and potentially gumming up limit switches. Air filters got clogged frequently but at least these were easily accessible and could be blown out with air from a HEMTT’s compressor or even tapped with your hands to knock the majority of the dust loose. But it was the high performance of these weapons that allowed them to outperform a much greater number of Soviet stuff, and high performance always has a price. As time went by improvements were made that cut down on maintenance, such as going from a 2-part paste ablative material that had to be replaced as it was burned off to permanent titanium panels that needed no maintenance. 20 years after getting out I can only imagine the changes that have been made, and some may have resulted in more maintenance being necessary as a result of performance increases. But when you figure that, in my time, a platoon of 3 launchers firing 12 rockets each could cover more ground than a battalion (24 guns) of tube artillery firing 10 DPICM rounds each, without having to survey & lay a gun line, the price of that performance was worth it.
The complaints were somewhat valid though, all that extra logistical support those systems might have proved a serious handicap if they were ever engaged against the Warsaw Pact and not the militaries of dirt poor 3rd world countries.
|
|
#4443449 - 10/12/18 04:58 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: Crane Hunter]
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
NH2112
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
Jackman, ME
|
I remember the Abrams bashing before Desert Storm, complaints that its extremely poor fuel economy would be a problem, that it was too maintenance intensive, that the dust would kill that gas turbine because the air filters got clogged too easily and were a hassle to change, etc. As it turned out the Abrams, and all the other force multipliers (such as MLRS which I crewed) performed beyond their biggest advocates’ wildest dreams. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the army planned for that and made sure there was ALWAYS plenty of fuel. I can’t ever remember our fuel tanks being below half full, we’d get the grid for a refuel point (traveling in a brigade slice wedge) and there’d be dozens of HEMTT tankers lined up and waiting. Yes, they are maintenance intensive, typically requiring 2-3 man-hours of work each day in harsh environments like the desert. A lot of that was because at the time MLRS was built with early 70s tech (when it had been conceived) that was a little on the delicate side. Not all of it was stuff called out in the TMs; we learned early on that so much dust would gather under the launcher module that whenever possible you should drop the pods and sweep it out with a whisk broom and dustpan. It would be several inches deep, making it hard to check scavenge reservoirs and potentially gumming up limit switches. Air filters got clogged frequently but at least these were easily accessible and could be blown out with air from a HEMTT’s compressor or even tapped with your hands to knock the majority of the dust loose. But it was the high performance of these weapons that allowed them to outperform a much greater number of Soviet stuff, and high performance always has a price. As time went by improvements were made that cut down on maintenance, such as going from a 2-part paste ablative material that had to be replaced as it was burned off to permanent titanium panels that needed no maintenance. 20 years after getting out I can only imagine the changes that have been made, and some may have resulted in more maintenance being necessary as a result of performance increases. But when you figure that, in my time, a platoon of 3 launchers firing 12 rockets each could cover more ground than a battalion (24 guns) of tube artillery firing 10 DPICM rounds each, without having to survey & lay a gun line, the price of that performance was worth it.
The complaints were somewhat valid though, all that extra logistical support those systems might have proved a serious handicap if they were ever engaged against the Warsaw Pact and not the militaries of dirt poor 3rd world countries. Not really, in a fight against the WP we never would have covered so many miles so quickly with so many units. If the army’s logistics trains could keep up in the desert, they’d have most likely been able to in Europe. I guess it would depend mostly on whether we had air superiority.
Phil
“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
|
|
#4443452 - 10/12/18 05:32 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: NH2112]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,734
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,734
SC
|
I remember the Abrams bashing before Desert Storm, complaints that its extremely poor fuel economy would be a problem, that it was too maintenance intensive, that the dust would kill that gas turbine because the air filters got clogged too easily and were a hassle to change, etc. As it turned out the Abrams, and all the other force multipliers (such as MLRS which I crewed) performed beyond their biggest advocates’ wildest dreams. Yes, they drink a lot of fuel, but the army planned for that and made sure there was ALWAYS plenty of fuel. I can’t ever remember our fuel tanks being below half full, we’d get the grid for a refuel point (traveling in a brigade slice wedge) and there’d be dozens of HEMTT tankers lined up and waiting. Yes, they are maintenance intensive, typically requiring 2-3 man-hours of work each day in harsh environments like the desert. A lot of that was because at the time MLRS was built with early 70s tech (when it had been conceived) that was a little on the delicate side. Not all of it was stuff called out in the TMs; we learned early on that so much dust would gather under the launcher module that whenever possible you should drop the pods and sweep it out with a whisk broom and dustpan. It would be several inches deep, making it hard to check scavenge reservoirs and potentially gumming up limit switches. Air filters got clogged frequently but at least these were easily accessible and could be blown out with air from a HEMTT’s compressor or even tapped with your hands to knock the majority of the dust loose. But it was the high performance of these weapons that allowed them to outperform a much greater number of Soviet stuff, and high performance always has a price. As time went by improvements were made that cut down on maintenance, such as going from a 2-part paste ablative material that had to be replaced as it was burned off to permanent titanium panels that needed no maintenance. 20 years after getting out I can only imagine the changes that have been made, and some may have resulted in more maintenance being necessary as a result of performance increases. But when you figure that, in my time, a platoon of 3 launchers firing 12 rockets each could cover more ground than a battalion (24 guns) of tube artillery firing 10 DPICM rounds each, without having to survey & lay a gun line, the price of that performance was worth it.
The complaints were somewhat valid though, all that extra logistical support those systems might have proved a serious handicap if they were ever engaged against the Warsaw Pact and not the militaries of dirt poor 3rd world countries. Not really, in a fight against the WP we never would have covered so many miles so quickly with so many units. If the army’s logistics trains could keep up in the desert, they’d have most likely been able to in Europe. I guess it would depend mostly on whether we had air superiority. It's likely that at least in the initial stages of a cold war gone hot in europe that the Abrams would have been retreating toward their supplies rather than advancing away from them.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4443477 - 10/12/18 08:16 PM
Re: F-35 ongoing issues
[Re: NH2112]
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
|
Not really, in a fight against the WP we never would have covered so many miles so quickly with so many units. If the army’s logistics trains could keep up in the desert, they’d have most likely been able to in Europe. I guess it would depend mostly on whether we had air superiority.
Not so much, I mean, you'd be massively engaged in the most intense, fastest paced combat in history, facing an enemy that spent twice as much on their military in PPP terms, one that was bound to use tactical nukes very heavily at the outset, I believe there would be some logistical issues!
|
|
|
|