Comments on: It’s not $640 toilet seats, but…

By: security systems

security systems — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:05:26 +0000

This Country is hemorrhaging money at every conceivable opening, the majority of defense contractors are akin to pigs at the tax dollar trough.
On the other end of this spectrum, as a small contractor submitting ideas in a BBA, the contractor is required to jump through multiple hoops to prove a concept.

By: BRubaker

BRubaker — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:01:47 +0000

Remember ALL US ARMY EQUIPMENT IS MADE BY LOWEST BIDDER simply put short cuts are taken to make highly advanced, and exspensive weapons cheaper. This means that vehicle, weapons don’t work the way tey are supposed to

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:47:31 +0000

Cole,
A CH-53E can carry a slung LAV right now. I think that is the biggest it can take however. And this aircraft is obviously a part of the USMC insertion methodology. Of course I am a squid so my understading of maneuver warfare is far more limited than yours.
There have been many interesting tests using the LCACs over the years. A number of years ago they even put a GAU-8 cannon from an A-10 (nah Cheney never did away with those things he is pro military) on the deck of an LCAC to see if it could be used for breaching.
There are a number of nations that use small LCACs for troop insertion. We even used these vehicles during the Vietnam War in the Mekong Delta for troop insertion. It would seem that these aircraft are faster and more maneuverable than any other option and you don’t have to worry about mines/obstacles because LCACs go right over them.
My point with the Stryker option is that once the beach is secured you can bring in the larger LCACs to offload the big hitters and push further ashore.
A vehicle that is at home both at sea and on land I don’t think will ever be created as the EFV is envisioned. After all, they have been fooling around with this thing since I was in back in 1993.
DC2

By: Digital

Digital — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:00:48 +0000

Half.
The USA is HALF of the worlds military spending.
Isn’t that a bit insane? Every country in the world combined equals our spending.
Guess that’s where our debt comes from

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 03 May 2008 21:47:30 +0000

So how much did this inquiry cost; that told us nothing new?

By: Cole

Cole — Sat, 03 May 2008 12:35:49 +0000

DC2,
Hear you on the logistics. Can’t you come back toward the shore from land to secure any beach more safely than trying to navigate through mines, underwater obstacles, and enemy fire while vulnerable in the water? The thought of an AAV or EFV going to the bottom with all hand on board is pretty terrifying. At least with air-cushioned, you would have time to bail out. And once on land, a vehicle that large with than many Marines on board is a lucrative target!
Just wonder if the billion dollar boats that carry all this stuff can handle large-scale sling loading? Get them in the water and pluck them out there? Pluck many off a air-cushioned vehicle to seize a sea entry via air-insertion and then bring the rest by air-cushioned vehicle?
Roy, had not heard anything about that Patria. Thanks. Sounds like the selection has not occurred yet, though?

By: anthony

anthony — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:32:00 +0000

I have not seen a Comanchy Chopper flying in Irak or Afgan

By: anthony

anthony — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:31:20 +0000

I have not seen a Comanchy Chopper flying in Irak or Afgan

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Fri, 02 May 2008 03:40:58 +0000

Cole, Haven't you heard? The Marines ARE planning to replace their LAVs with.....TaaDaa.....the FINNISH Patria Armored Modular Vehicle(not the GDLS/MOWAG Piranha Stryker vehicles,although that would make more sense).Hell,the British are considering the Piranha GEN V(Piranha Evolution) for their Future Rapid Effects System Vehicle(Stryker is GEN III,but I'm not sure if it's GEN IIIC or IIIH,& MOWAG is already offering GEN IV).Lockheed Martin is joining with Patria for the "Marine Personnel Carrier." While I'm intrigued,still it's a waste when we do have the GDLS/MOWAG Piranha Stryker vehicles.I guess we can only hope that "mission creep" & the greed of men will f**k up this deal too.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Fri, 02 May 2008 02:26:30 +0000

Cole,
air assault isn’t risky from an infiltration standpoint. It is more risky from a logistical standpoint. You got them in, now how do you resupply them?
I personally believe the EFV is a failed program simply because the specifications cannot be met by any vehicle design, period. Maybe what we should have focused on are beach clearing machines that are only designed to go up to the beach and maybe a little further. I don’t know. But it seems smaller hovercraft in support of Stryker/FCS carying LCACs would seem more realistic.
But the problem is all of these programs is there aren’t enough skilled people within the government that can determine whether designs and specifications are actually able to work. And with our broken system of pay the company for their flaws is the problem. But what is the alternative? Boeing misses one line of code and the subsequent revisions to the systems causes the company to go bankrupt?
That is why the government accepts the monetary risks of developing equipment that has only been created in vaporware. Look at the hypersonic article as a perfect example.
DC2