US Military, NEW Doesn't always mean Better.

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by IBCW, Feb 18, 2015.

  1. IBCW

    IBCW Member Member

    The US military spends more on R & D then most of the world combined for it's military, but is all this money well spent? Many could argue that alot of the current or upcoming war machines are no better and maybe worse than what they are replacing. Let's look at a few:

    The M1A2 Abrams SEP(10.68 million) vs the M60A3 Patton (1.4 Million)

    [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_XGIy77lZQ#t=12[/ame]

    F22 Raptor (150 million)vs F35 Joint Strike Fighter (237 million)

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/report-super-fighter-will-get-pilots-shot-down/

    Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (1.8 Billion) Vs. Zumwalt-class destroyer (3.45 Billion)

    http://stevenmcollins.com/WordPress/?p=5314

    I for one favor a strong US Military and don't have a problem with alot of Tax dollars spent on R & D IF they are actually designing better war machines....if not....the money should be going somewhere else. IMO.
    Thoughts?
     
  2. IBCW

    IBCW Member Member

    On the topic of wasting money....this also comes to mind:

    http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-waste-094500638--politics.html

    In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.
     

  3. mr_flintstone

    mr_flintstone Supporting Member

    M1911 = 104 years and still used by Marine Corps
    Browning M2 = 84 years and still active all over the world
     
  4. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    Sadly, I must admit that the USMC did in fact issue M9's for a period of time. I hated mine.
     
  5. Consider we spend that money protecting most of the world, which means they don't have to spend it themselves.

    We should demand reimbursement.
     
  6. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,775
    2,248
    Florida
    The Abrams has MUCH improved armor over that of the Patton, as well as a vastly improved main gun. A fully stabilized 120mm with an advanced range finding system allows for greater range and improved first-shot hit capability vs. the Patton's 105mm main gun. Also, the Abrams has its ammo in a storage locker that directs explosions up and out from the turret, protecting the crew if the magazines get hit. The Abrams is well worth the cost.

    While we still are able to maintain air superiority around the world, the F22's capabilities in air-to-air combat surpass those of the F35, given its increased engine thrust. The F35 is a great multi-role fighter, though, and we need the ability to replace all of our existing platforms with this single air frame. Minimizing the total number of air frames will eventually reduce the overall operating and maintenance costs.
     
  7. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,775
    2,248
    Florida
    My big question is, why did the experts who developed the universal pattern not see the fact that it didn't blend into most environments with all of studies that they did? Joe was able to see that it didn't work, and he didn't even have to do a formal study. I like the pocket designs and fastening mechanisms, but the camo pattern is useless.
     
  8. MaryB

    MaryB Supporting Member

    Nothing can replace the A10
     
  9. planosteve

    planosteve Lifetime Supporter

    How about two A10's. :D
     
  10. moona11

    moona11 King of you Monkeys Lifetime Supporter

  11. colthrash

    colthrash Member

    600
    36
    bradleys in every driveway...
     
  12. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    Oh yeah, I also forgot to mention that the Corps just announced it's going to be issuing Glock 19's as sidearms with hollow point ammunition.
     
  13. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,512
    10,743
    NE Utah
    That would be true....if the old tank weren't already better than basically every other tank on the planet, at only 10% of the cost of the Abrams.

    Did you not watch the video?:confused:


    Right...because the government will surely never "eventually" decide to go with yet another cooler new airframe.:rolleyes:

    At $80 million more per airframe, it would take a LOT of M&O costs saved to recoup the investment. I'm not seeing it.
     
  14. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,775
    2,248
    Florida
    Yeah, I watched the video. The round counts that he used for firepower included several machine guns to come up with the number of advantages. As far as the main gun goes, while the M60 carries more, a 120mm smooth bore still out performs a 105, so there would theoretically be fewer reengagements of the same target, removing the need for the extra ammo.

    On the protection front, the M1 does not use a more flammable fuel than the M60. The M1 uses JP8, which isn't too much different from diesel. That's what we even use in the HMMWVs. Also, the blow out panels are pretty huge. As far as escape hatches go, they reduce the effectiveness of the armor protection, and on the M1 would only be needed if it roled over completely upside down, a low probability event.

    For ergonomics, the field phone jack could be retrofitted pretty easily. Most units don't even have field phones, anymore, though. Ask a new Soldier what a TA-312 is, and you'll get a blank stare.

    As far as the T-72s that the M60s shwacked in Desert Storm go, the T-72s were lower-grade export versions.

    The operating costs and logistical advantages are undeniable. At this point, though, protecting out crews is worth the greater costs associated with running the M1.

    There is no denying that the M60A3 is a good tank, but if I had to ride into battle in a tank, I'd take an M1. The Russians and Chinese will never stop developing their technology, and just as it goes for fighter aircraft, if we don't go for the next better thing, someone else will. There is no reason, however, not to maintain the stock of M60A3s just in case of WW3, though. Nevertheless, I'd prefer to ride into battle in an M1 if I ever had to TC a tank, thank you very much. I kind of like the reduced odds of being incinerated by cooking off rounds or hull penetrations.

    On the subject of the F35, There has been a lot of inefficiency in the development process. The costs should come down over time.
     
  15. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    3,960
    279
    IL
    Never has................
     
  16. IBCW

    IBCW Member Member

    M60-2000

    General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) developed the new version of the M60, the M60-2000, for export. The M60-2000 MBT has been marketed for several years and a number of countries in NATO and the Middle East were briefed on the vehicle. Following customer feedback, detailed engineering work was carried out and in December 2000 GDLS decided to build a functional prototype.

    The General Dynamics 120S is an upgrade of the M60 tank. The 120 in the designation represents the 120mm smoothbore gun and the S stands for speed and survivability. The earlier M60-2000 designation is no longer considered relevant as so much of the MBT is new.
    The 120S is a unique product that integrates the M1A1 120-mm turret, equipped with a 240X4 Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR), onto a fully modernized M60 chassis. The turret is protected with the latest armor, which was successfully demonstrated to the Turkish Main Battle Tank Committee. The 120S chassis includes an M1A1 suspension system, giving the tank greatly improved cross-country mobility and a stable base for fire-on-the-move accuracy similar to the Abrams tank. The new 120S is fully functional, ready to accept a powerpack of the customer’s choice. To achieve mobility similar to an M1A2 Abrams tank, a 1200-horsepower AVDS-1790-9A engine is available. The upgraded AVDS-1790-9A 1200HP diesel is similar to that used on the M88A2 and Merkava vehicles. The engine is mated to M1 Allison X-1100-5 transmission and Abrams final drives. However, other propulsion options are also possible.

    The 120S makes existing M60 fleets relevant by increasing their capability to close to that of the M1A1 Abrams tank’s performance at half the price. Also of significance is the fact that the 120S upgrade components are in production with logistical and operational support readily available through the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps. The 120S offers a pragmatic approach to potential customers.

    The first potential customer was Turkey. General Dynamics Land Systems has offered to build a prototype of its proposed M60-2000 upgrade of the M60A3 main battle tank to be evaluated by Egypt.
    On 27 September 2001, General Dynamics introduced its 120S Main Battle Tank during the opening ceremonies at IDEF 2001 in Ankara, Turkey. General Dynamics Land Systems rolled out a fully functional prototype of its 120S main battle tank (MBT) at its Detroit facility in early August 2001.
    General Dynamics engineering shop produced a first phase prototype vehicle. It had a M1A1 functional turret and suspension system with the M1 gear box, hydraulic pump and M1A1 slip ring. The hull has adapters fitted so the M1A1 rotary shock absorbers, torsions bars and T-158 track can be used. Hull sides had M1A1-like sponsons and ballistic side skirts.

    Looks like General Dynamics made an upgrade to the M60 Battle Tank for half the money of the Abrams.....but for Export only?
     
  17. mr_flintstone

    mr_flintstone Supporting Member

    If all these pieces of hardware we're talking about were junk, we'd all agree they should be scrapped. The Abrams is a magnificent piece of machinery, as are the F22, the F35, the M9 Beretta, the Humvee, etc... So were the M60, 1911, F-16, F/A-18, the Jeep, the A-10, etc...

    Some things were scrapped too soon. Others were held onto too long. I personally think that that as long as something serves a useful or niche purpose, we should make some use of it. When it becomes obsolete, we should move on. Maybe instead of saying "why did we develop the M1A", we should be asking why we aren't still using the M60 in some useful capacity.
     
  18. And I want AN A-10 with proper grammar. :p
     
  19. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,775
    2,248
    Florida
    Our defense industry makes a lot of its money in the export market. If the US Military doesn't have a particular need for a new product, there are plenty of other opportunities to exploit in foreign markets for customers who want something less expensive.