Expensive Weaponry

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

bsl RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/22/2002 9:42:07 PM

OTOH, if you content yourselves with cheap kit, or with simple upgrades of existing technology, you leave yourself open to people who spend more, or take more chances, and come up with real innovations. And, even if that doesn't happen, you wind up flying systems which aren't noticably better than the ones your enemies fly, which tends to raise the body count for your side. Finally, even when the goals are far less ambitious, military projects have a way of inflating their costs till relatively modest programs come it at huge amounts. We're **getting** something for the F-22 dollars. The Europeans are spending huge amounts which their current budgets can't really support (on a military-wide basis) for Eurofighters which won't be all that much better than current generation aircraft. (Ours, anyway.)

Quote Reply

pfd RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/23/2002 8:51:13 AM

Garbage-The platform has become irrelevant to the missile (AA) or to the bomb! Pork barreling can set up straw dogs but where is the relevent threat? Lockheed lost to grandstanding and pay offs. Yet-sad to say there is no nich (now) for a super fighter. Let it die until we need it,

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/23/2002 6:37:16 PM

"The platform has become irrelevant to the missile (AA) or to the bomb!" To coin a phrase; "Garbage!" This sounds a lot like the arguments from the 1950s which "proved" that air to air missiles had made guns and dog-fighting irrelevant. That was when they started taking the guns out of fighters. They put them back in, later, when it became obvious that missiles had complicated the problem, but didn't work quite as well as advertised, and only added an extra layer of complexity for the pilots to deal with. Great missiles, huh? How do you deal with IFF? A problem with BVR engagments, don't you think? How do you deal with separating a bogey from your wingman in visual range engagements? Shooting down your own side is embarassing. How do you get your great new whiz-bang into position to use? For that matter, how do you use it if the other guy talleys you before you know he's there, and the first clue you have to his presence is the impact of HIS missile?

Quote Reply

John RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/24/2002 2:37:01 AM

F22 will be a magnificent aircraft, but where is the threat it is designed to counter? I can't conceive of a situation where you won't have complete air supreamcy even with existing kit. Surely the money would be better spent on more PGM's, on Crusader or on hospitals (just threw the last bit in to annoy you gung ho types) Cheers

Quote Reply

pfd RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/24/2002 10:41:52 AM

Sorry but turn and burn-wrap the scarf over the shoulder era has ended for now. Missles CAN be amazing. You probably think the Phoenix is still cool. It is a matter of airbone infastructure. When we need it-it can be a matter of off the shelf. Let's Keep R&D going but we don't need this dog irrispective of the sexy ads in Aviation Week. Think of it-all of the airborne threat nations are on our side but China. Welcome to the 50's. Wong Wei home....

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/24/2002 10:08:25 PM

John, If you wait till the threat is obvious, it's too late. How long is the lead time to bringing a new fighter into service? The last of the current generation American fighters was in the air by the mid-1970s (the F-18). Thirty years is long enough. Current military thinking (especially as the politicians demand operations be carried out) virtually demands not just superiority, but complete control of the air. The F-22 is the best guarantee that we can get it in the shortest time.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/24/2002 10:26:57 PM

"Sorry but turn and burn-wrap the scarf over the shoulder era has ended for now." Wrong. For one thing, you never get to use long range systems unless your rules of engagement allow you and, practically speaking, that means either we're in total war, WW3 level, or there's someone in an AWACS who's awfully confident about an identification. Want to look at the regions where we may wind up shooting? Just how many planes do you think fly over or around the Persian Gulf every day? Want to place a small bet on how eager a local American commander is going to be to authorize a BVR shoot of a plane? Do you recall an Iranian airliner which got shot down by an American destroyer under that sort of scenario? IOW, while there may be times when, for instance, the area of engagement is central Iraq where they'll just declare a free fire zone. But, in the same campaign, there may be other instances where they will not, because they can't be certain what they're shooting at and the political fallout from a mistake is too great to risk. THAT'S real world. Another problem with you're idea; those systems never work quite as well as advertised. Or, you run out of long range ordance before the enemy runs out of planes. And, oddly enough, your enemies don't always cooperate. Every now and then, they actually figure out ways to avoid being waxed and turn up, angry, and loaded for bear. You ain't gonna wipe the skies with long range shots all the time, and that means you're down to VR engagements. (Latest Russian idea seems to involve using some of their peculiar manuevers which dump airspeed to fool our doppler radars, which need movement to register, so we lose the bogeys. You can't shoot what you can't see. But, they can still shoot you.) " Missles CAN be amazing. You probably think the Phoenix is still cool." Way cool. Fer shur. If you've been reading most of the posts, you'll find one or two from me stating that I thought we still had need of a long range missile, even post-USSR. That doesn't obviate the need to be ready for VR engagements, or eliminate the role of a pilot, or the utility of good platform. "When we need it-it can be a matter of off the shelf. Let's Keep R&D going but we don't need this dog irrispective of the sexy ads in Aviation Week." Garbage. This is brilliant reasoning which leaves us perfectly equipped to fight a war with anyone polite enough to give us several year's notice before the shooting starts. "Off the shelf". Wonderful. How fast can you build a new aircraft, from scratch, begining with design, and get useful numbers into service? This isn't Battlebots. You're not likely to get an entry form to fill out and take a number before you have to be ready to fight. What are you going to say, when we have to fight? "Time out. I'm not ready yet."? " Think of it-all of the airborne threat nations are on our side but China. Welcome to the 50's. Wong Wei home...." More shallow thought. In case you've missed the last ten years, EACH time we've fought, our political and military leaders have demanded air domination as part of our GROUND operations. The former Yugoslavia, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan. We don't seem terribly eager to just walk in without it. You limit us to more than 30 year old aircraft, and we take longer to get it. That's a problem. MUCH more a problem if we contemplate hostilities with nations ready to use WMD, when we'd BETTER be ready to move, from day one, and move effectively, on very short notice.

Quote Reply

Edward@chambersa.freeserve.co.uk RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/25/2002 5:01:35 PM

This discussion is related to one on another thread board where skill versus technology has been discussed. In essence, a fighter is the man as well as the missile (or gun). I remember reading a few year ago about a USAF unit called the Red Squadron (or similar). They were equipped with old F5's and their role was to emulate Russian fighters in Air to Air combat. The found that a head on attack at full throttle and armed only with guns and IR missiles, they could overwhelm radar missile(Sparrow) equipped F15 and F16's almost every time. With a closing speed of around mach 4, they could launch IR missiles before being hit by the Sparrows. Also at that speed, the Sparrows could be dodged. Admittedly, modern aircraft may have better missiles, but the priciple is the same. If (and it's a big If) you are prepared to lose some pilots in the exchange, it's more cost effective to use a lot of cheap aircraft to kill a few high tech aircraft.

Quote Reply

reserva120@hotmail.com RE:Expensive Weaponry 7/22/2002 2:01:07 PM

i don't think the brit's are allowed to talk on that matter they Will always go for the cheapess/and by virtue of anything english made(uion made,"what the tube down again,damm,well strike that'll fix it).the lowest quality of the western world.........i mean in some ways british military hardware is very much like marxism"look's grand on paper but not much to be said of it in real life".........Typhoon is a lost cause(mainly because of the marxist polices of all the nation's involed)..and the over bearing english press (the few who do favor it)...touting it as "bloody damm near a F-22 at a thrid the cost are so wacked out of their mind's as not to see the last time the english won well "anything" now that i think about".......but hey after spending some time there i'm just glad the Marxist state is building anything anything at all(even if it's not really a "real british plane")...and if anyone can say with a straight face and a stiff-upper lip that a Typhoon is not a twenty-year old design(and it will be more by 2010)(when it's just time for JSF)underpower state-of the -art 1989 jet fighter it's the british.............

Quote Reply

melchoir42 RE:Expensive Weaponry 7/25/2002 6:54:39 AM

Kind of agree with you. The UK does a lot of great basic research (Chobham, electro-magnetic guns and armor, laser weaponry, passive armor, kinetic kill missiles), to name a few. The kicker is that like everone else but us they don't have the $ to press any advantage beyond the momentary. We can quickly outspend anybody and therefore regain any lost military advantage. Yes, the Challenger 2 is underpowered, overweight and breakdown prone. The SA-80 is crappy unless it's in perfect state. But if the Brits could spend the money we do, they'd be about where we are. Is the M-16A2/3/4 so very good? The F-18E is WAY overweight and overbudget. Costs $80mil. Is it twice as good as the $35mil F-16 block 50/60? Is the Bradley so very better than the Warrior? We've spent billions and billions on junk like the Sarge. York, A-12, etc,... The difference is, we can scrap the crap and still have more billions and billions to spend. The Brits, and for that matter, everyone else do not have that luxury. The USSR collapsed in part cause they couldn't keep up with us in defense $ (Lots of other factors, but this is one of them). I like the cool hardware too, but we've got a real advantage over the rest of the world. Let's just hope the current mis-administration doesn't cause a depression and send us into the third world. I've spent time there, and it ain't no fun. Just my 2cents, no more.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Expensive Weaponry 5/13/2003 7:42:58 AM

Here are some relevant points to procurement: 1. when you develop a weaponsystem you are looking 10-20 years into the future - and are probably wrong 2. Soldiers always go to war with equipment unsuited to the conflict. When they get the right equipment the war is over. 3. Winning army staff think they are unbeatable and the enemy is stupid and plan for the next war as if was a rerun of the last. Only loosers learn. 4. The pace of technological development has tapered off to nearly a standstill.

Quote Reply

giblets RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/5/2003 11:00:32 AM

Melchoir has the main point, $$$$, the F-22 is easily the best, however, it costs $200 million,the eurofighter, the next best fighter, 'only' costs $60million. Europe is struggling to pay for that, however, by developing the Eurofighter, we have a competant weapons system that can do the job. We have also got all the knoledge that comes from building this, some of which has been used in the JSF. The USA for its part is vehemently xenophobic in its own precurement process, their last major non American precurement was probably the Harrier. Whilst there have been many criticisms from posters over the europeans producing such aircraft as the A-300 transporter, there have been none for the USA when they have gone ahead to develop a weapons system in competition to a european project. I thinkt he new transporter contract has to have been the first in a long time when even some american critics ahve cited the precurement as a waste of money designed to prop up an American industry. Since 9/11, the supposedly protectionist european union has done nothing to bail out its airline industry, yet the US has given its already declining airline handouts to stave off bankrupcy. Boeing has been given a huge uncontested contract for tankers (definitely good for the taxpayers I'm sure). There are a number of world class european weapons system available, non of which have been brought by the USA, which has chosen to 'invest' its money in developing its own version of these weapons systems.

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/5/2003 1:38:03 PM

Oh boy. Have I been waiting for someone to mention this. The US has always had a bad case of "not invented here". Even if the outside world has a superior system, the US will not purchase it. Want to know why? Pork. Weapons that are produced by US companies directly and indirectly benefit the politicians and generals / admirals. The peacetime US military is not about combat effiency, its about making money. Hence, whenever there is a problem, someone will point out how a new weapon system will solve it. Isn't it interesting how we can produce a F-22 (which was the counter to a Soviet aircraft that was never produced), but Australia (maybe someone different now) has better combat utilities. Gas mask, except for the hood, look like the same piece of crap we had over 30 years ago. Need I mention the M-16? I've given up on a real battle carthridge, but in 30 years, no one has been able to produce a heavier weight round? Iraq in Gulf War I, had a better artillery piece (G5) than the US. Thank goodness other things were not equal. The British (thank goodness they are our allies), have better radios than the US? When did they start spending more money on defense than we do? Why do we need submarines that can shoot cruise missiles? Isn't "shore bombardment" the purpose of naval gunfire? O yea, I forgot. The Navy ships can't get close to shore anymore, since someone in a speedboat or paddling a rubber boat my blow it up. $50 million for a aircraft to drop a $500,000 bomb. We can spend that. But $5 million to activate a Battleship that can drop a $500 16" shell is "too expensive"?

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/5/2003 7:52:20 PM

"The USA for its part is vehemently xenophobic " No. Xenophobia is hatred of foreigners. A desire to favor you own, domestic industry is not xenophobia, by definition. However, in fact, it's not purely a desire to favor domestic industry for reasons of politics. It's also a desire not to become dependent on foreign countries who may, someday, decide to use their participation as a political lever against American policy. While this is less of a factor with respect to, say, Britain and Canada than it might be with respect to other countries, it's a factor there, too. Can you imagine a French government which decided that control of a bottleneck in production of an important weapons' system was a good way to gain leverage over American policy? I can't imagine a French government which WOULDN'T think in those terms. Canada is as friendly a country towards America as there is, but there are aspects of domestic Canadian politics which could easily lead to the issue being raised in Canadian politics, with a large group demanding that the Canadian government use it's leverage to force America to do or not do something. Think about the Cuban boycott, for instance. Real world examples? The Israeli buy the engines for their Merkava tanks from Gemany (I think it's the engines. Might be the cannon.) and there was, last year, a LOT of pressure in the German political system to cut off sales to influence Israeli policy with respect to the Intifada. If there is to be major sales of items more significant than food, fuel, or clothing, there will have to be some way to absolutely guarantee that the sellor can in no way attempt to use the business to exert political pressure. America is large and rich enough to do without these kinds of sales, so America has the leverage to avoid the potential of this kind of pressure.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Expensive Weaponry 6/5/2003 7:57:31 PM

The matter of surface ship guns has been simmering for a lot of years, now. It doesn't, however, really explain cruise missiles, at all, let alone on submarines. The kind of missiles we've used, are REAL standoff weapons. There just isn't any good parallel between a ten or twenty mile gun shot and a multihundred mile missile shot. The former can be seen coming, and can be attacked. The latter takes the launch platform well out of harm's way. Submarines offer the additional advantage of extreme stealth. What you wind up with, with SLCM, is the ability to station an attack platform within striking range of potential targets whenever you want, with extremely low likelihood of them even being noticed. This removes all sorts of potential political and diplomatic problems. How close do you think you could put gun platforms to the Chinese coast, in a crisis, without starting a fight? How much noise would sending a TF just outside the territorial limits of Libya or Syria? And, when you're ready to launch, there's an excellent chance that your enemy won't even know anything is in the air until it strikes. He is highly unlikely to have any realistic chance to hit the submarines, back, at all.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - December 3, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us