|
USS Military-Industrial Keynesianism
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:lol if you think the European economies are growing faster than ours is. e: some of them might have higher year/year growth but they're all so far behind us (except Norway and a few miniscule countries not worth mentioning) that it hardly matters. Even though I hate that this is a derail, I feel like I should point out that economic growth and standards of living aren't the same thing. The economy of Europe is worse than America's, sure, but there's a ton of nations in Europe with higher standards of living. If the US ever gets another FDR type President than can force through social welfare programs, holy gently caress is Europe going to be unprepared. Honestly, it's amazing to me that for as nationalistic as some Europeans seem, they're also content to let Uncle Sam cover their military. I mean, really France? You have no airlift to get to Mali and ran out of bombs against Libya? You loving shitheads.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
The best part is that they've outsourced their military to the US, and then won't shut the gently caress up about hon hon hon you silly Americans and your big military why don't you cut spending like us in civilized, enlightened Europe?! 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
It's no different than the various contradictory political platforms here in the US. People are loving stupid everywhere you go.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
France has airlift capacity, but the planes were tool old (C-160, C-130), too small (C-235) for heavy Army materiel (25t, 18t, 15t, 14t, 11t and 8t materiel was used in Op. Serval), or too not available at the time (A400M). Still has nothing to carry around the really heavy stuff. Plus if the US are going to spend all that budget on the military, you'd be dumb not to take advantage of it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Having airlift you can't use means you don't have airlift. Though, IIRC they paid us so it's not really a thing I care about. It's just hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
They also needed our tanker support.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Speaking of paying someone to cart your rear end around after you've retired your own transport, I'll just leave this here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:The best part is that they've outsourced their military to the US, and then won't shut the gently caress up about hon hon hon you silly Americans and your big military why don't you cut spending like us in civilized, enlightened Europe?! The part about this that blows my mind is that (and this is a gross generalization, I know) European nations are generally among the first to scream bloody murder when the US intervenes in some foreign shithole. . . . . . and then the times that we don't intervene and let things play out they're the first to say that the US should have sent troops into <<foreign hellhole X, almost certainly an ex-European colony>> and how this awful genocide/civil war/dictator/whatever is practically our fault now.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
It's almost as if it's nothing but reflexive anti-Americanism with no deeper basis .... naaaahhhhh
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:They also needed our tanker support. To be fair, there isn't a nation in the western bloc that doesn't. Everyone likes to comment about NATO running out of PGMs in Lybia, but when it came to air refueling our allies didn't even go through the kabuki of expending their token resources before putting their hands (probes?) out; "yeah, we're going to need your tankers to do the lifting for us."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:To be fair, there isn't a nation in the western bloc that doesn't. You can add the US Navy and Marine Corps to this list.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:To be fair, there isn't a nation in the western bloc that doesn't. Everyone likes to comment about NATO running out of PGMs in Lybia, but when it came to air refueling our allies didn't even go through the kabuki of expending their token resources before putting their hands (probes?) out; "yeah, we're going to need your tankers to do the lifting for us." Yeah, I know. Which makes it even better that our own tanker acquisition programs are so hosed up!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:You can add the US Navy and Marine Corps to this list. Token flaccid "But, buddy tanking!" response
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, I know. Which makes it even better that our own tanker acquisition programs are so hosed up! Wanna talk about hosed-up tankers? Canada is in the works of buying the F-35. The F-35 CANNOT TANK from our current tanker fleet of 2 CC-150 Polaris, which is a version of the A310, without a hugely costly upgrade. The Mighty Harper Government's plan? "We'll pay the free market to do all our tanking for us!" Yeah. So, despite having a perfectly fine (well, pretty good, I suppose) domestic tanker which works just fine with the CF-18's we have currently in probe-and-drogue configuration, we're basically gonna say "gently caress IT" and pay contractors, or have the US do all our tanking. loving absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:You can add the US Navy and Marine Corps to this list. Enter the Osprey.  Cyrano4747 posted:The part about this that blows my mind is that (and this is a gross generalization, I know) European nations are generally among the first to scream bloody murder when the US intervenes in some foreign shithole. . . The Balkans was the best one of these if I'm remembering it right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Basically, weren't the Europeans negotiating with each other endlessly about how they would be intervening, and when it was clear that this would be a lengthy process, the US more or less went in and forced their hand? Then Europe got indignant and more or less aid "why the gently caress did you intervene?" Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 02:25 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Wanna talk about hosed-up tankers? Wait. Is the f35 boom tanking only? Even the navy version?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Wait. Is the f35 boom tanking only? Even the navy version? The B and C have a retractable probe under the right canopy frame rail.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The B and C have a retractable probe under the right canopy frame rail. Oh so I guess canada bought the Air Force version. Silly Canada. You need to check the dealer options and see if you're getting the lt or ltz package. That's how car dealers get ya. I hope you didn't fall for the 4 square technique.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
 e:f;b
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:The best part is that they've outsourced their military to the US, and then won't shut the gently caress up about hon hon hon you silly Americans and your big military why don't you cut spending like us in civilized, enlightened Europe?! The section of society that does that, often don't see the need for any military spending at all. I've gotten weird looks when I agreed with someone's centre-left economic policies but thought we maybe don't need to cut defense spending for the 24th year in row. "what do you like war or something?"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
At least the Marines have the KC-130. Better than an F-18.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
"It's a tanker! And also a tactical airlifter! And also persistent armed ISR!"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"It's a tanker! And also a tactical airlifter! And also persistent armed ISR!" Yeah but it's actually pretty decent at all that.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The B and C have a retractable probe under the right canopy frame rail. So it's a mission abort / IFE every time that thing fails in flight, right? Or after some high-G maneuvering, it doesn't open properly on the way back home.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
movax posted:So it's a mission abort / IFE every time that thing fails in flight, right? Even better, the Navy and Marine Corps F-35s - the ones which will see the most wear and tear - cannot be repaired while underway, only maintained. The airframe's too complicated and there are too many ~ULTRA MEGA TIP-TOP SUPER SEKRET~ things on it to rely on and/or train enough crew chiefs to do the job. Once they start flying off the Ford, someone should be there the night after it gets into port to take pictures of them craning the things off the flight deck onto flatbed trucks to either drive to Norfolk's flight line, since there's no loving way in hell they'll truck them over the open road to be photographed, even tarped. I can see the headlines now: "Virginia State Police Get New Speeder Foil: F-35Cs" - then a picture of a flatbed with a wingless F-35 on it holding up traffic as a wide load.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:The section of society that does that, often don't see the need for any military spending at all. I've gotten weird looks when I agreed with someone's centre-left economic policies but thought we maybe don't need to cut defense spending for the 24th year in row. Cut defense spending, still want to send your "military" to keep the peace around the world. Unless they shoot at us, that just won't do. The military is for parading around in blue helmets and building schools (and handing over the people they are supposed to protect to the people they are supposed to protect them from).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 07:21
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Even better, the Navy and Marine Corps F-35s - the ones which will see the most wear and tear - cannot be repaired while underway, only maintained. The airframe's too complicated and there are too many ~ULTRA MEGA TIP-TOP SUPER SEKRET~ things on it to rely on and/or train enough crew chiefs to do the job. Once they start flying off the Ford, someone should be there the night after it gets into port to take pictures of them craning the things off the flight deck onto flatbed trucks to either drive to Norfolk's flight line, since there's no loving way in hell they'll truck them over the open road to be photographed, even tarped. Source? All I see is something about the engines being too large for C-2s. There isn't anything about it being unable to be repaired at sea because its too secret or too complex.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:
Soooo, every time the fuel line disconnects the canopy RAM sheet is destroyed by the fuel splashing, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Oh so I guess canada bought the Air Force version. Silly Canada. You need to check the dealer options and see if you're getting the lt or ltz package. That's how car dealers get ya. Canada's version of the A model has the probe.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:Source? All I see is something about the engines being too large for C-2s. There isn't anything about it being unable to be repaired at sea because its too secret or too complex. It's the engine size problem and the fact that the aircrew has to be read into all the classified avionics and systems. Aircraft busted too badly for underway repairs getting craned off carriers isn't anything new. As for the source, it's a friend at NAVAIR, so I can't give you a link. I'm assuming this is the article you found: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-works-through-f-35c-air-ship-integration-issues-377171/ There's just a ton of proprietary poo poo that needs to be in place for this plane to remain airworthy while at sea. You don't make a carrier-borne airplane so complex that a single failure in the support chain can ground every single one.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:You don't make a carrier-borne airplane so complex that a single failure in the support chain can ground every single one. It's literally impossible to not do this. fuel
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It's literally impossible to not do this. fuel Except underway fuel supply has multiple redundancies built-in thanks to forward-deployed tankers and agreements with other allied navies - for example, the Aussies occasionally provide UNREP for US ships in their area. Again, this doesn't stop interdiction of supply in wartime, but vOv.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
Big chunks of the F-18 already require a TS clearance to maintain - probably most miljets really but I was surprised to find most of the regular old Marine jet is more classified than my nuke stuff - and I wouldn't underestimate how complex an existing carrier-based fighter (or other onboard equipment) is. I mean, maybe there's something extra unusual about the F-35, but this is a jet we're selling to less sophisticated / secure allies, as well. I've heard the claim before that the F-35 couldn't be maintained on some ridiculous Marine forward operating base cut from the jungle with a 1000-pounder and with a single helo-load of supplies before the flattop buys it from a DF-21, but that's a bit of a silly expectation to begin with.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Most new major systems are moving away from intermediate/depot level maintenance being performed on site by military personnel; the F-35 isn't unique in this regard. Systems are getting so much more complex that training and manning intermediate/depot level servicepeople is becoming cost prohibitive. The counterbalance is better prognostics/diagnostics, better and more expansive preventive/first line maintenance, and longer MTBFs in general. Who knows how this shift will play out, but it isn't really avoidable if you want to field the next generation of stuff. It kind of sucks that the days of fixing R-2800s with oil cans and gum are over, but on the plus side we'll never have to deal with finicky TWTs again.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Most new major systems are moving away from intermediate/depot level maintenance being performed on site by military personnel; the F-35 isn't unique in this regard. Systems are getting so much more complex that training and manning intermediate/depot level servicepeople is becoming cost prohibitive. The counterbalance is better prognostics/diagnostics, better and more expansive preventive/first line maintenance, and longer MTBFs in general. It's a question of design decisions, too. It's certainly in the financial interests of LockMart if only LockMart can maintain F-35s and the plane needs to be shipped back to mainland as soon as it loses a bolt, so simplifying maintenance was probably not a priority. On the other hand, the French fighter Rafale was designed so that maintenance and upgrades would be simpler, faster, and cheaper than on the previous French fighters (Mirages, Jaguar, etc.). On this video (in French), around the 7:40 mark, they explain how they can entirely replace an engine in less than three hours, and that many maintenance operations that required removing the engine first on other fighter designs no longer do so.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
I bet the F-35 maintenance scheme is actually a lot cheaper than the alternatives. Paying a smaller number of contractors who know already what they're doing to fix complicated stuff is always going to be cheaper than training and then paying thousands of your own people to do it worse, especially when you have the kind of short turnover enlisted military personnel do.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's a question of design decisions, too. It's certainly in the financial interests of LockMart if only LockMart can maintain F-35s and the plane needs to be shipped back to mainland as soon as it loses a bolt, so simplifying maintenance was probably not a priority. I mean, I realize that this thread's favorite pasttime is ripping on the F-35 and Lockmart and I'm certainly not any great supporter of the program in general but when you're talking about a piece of equipment that is that complex there are huge cost savings to be had in paying dedicated civilian career engineers and mechanicst to do the intermediate/depot level stuff rather than recruiting and training a brand new airman/seaman Joe High School Graduate every 4 years. That was the military's conclusion, at least. In any case, it isn't nearly as dramatic as "plane needs to be shipped back to mainland as soon as it loses a bolt"; pretty major maintenance tasks, like engine replacement, for instance, are considered first line maintenance activities (see: the remodeling of the carriers to accomodate this task). On the other hand F-35 < * so
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
I spent a fair amount of time deeply involved in testing a major upgrade to highly technical systems. For months, they tracked literally every single bit of maintenance performed with contracted data collectors following soldiers and officers and civilians around to see what they were doing to fix issues. This data was compiled based on man hours, money spent on failed repair steps, successes, levels of people involved as a maintenance problem escalated, etc. The data is then reviewed to see if it's a soldier competence problem, lack of training, technical manual problem, something that can easily be fixed with a minor hardware or software change, or something that should just immediately result in getting contractors involved. This is all compared to the previous build and the project requirements when we order upgrades or new systems. It isn't perfect, but we don't just stand there like morons when defense agencies say only they can fix it for oodles of money.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:43 |
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:Yeah but it's actually pretty decent at all that. Define "pretty decent." Because under the common definition of the word "decent" it is definitely not decent at the first, and I'd argue it isn't decent at the third either. As far as the maintenance discussion goes, this is obviously a topic that is near and dear to my heart. It is absolutely a true statement that the military is getting away from three level maintenance in favor of two level maintenance. Three level maintenance is where you have operational level maintenance (the flightline for aircraft), intermediate level maintenance (backshops at an operational base to work on components removed from the aircraft) and depot level maintenance (non-operational locations where the heaviest/most invasive level of mx is performed). In three level mx the first two levels are typically performed by blue/green-suiters with the third usually a mix of uniformed personnel, civil service civilians, and contractors, depending on the specifics of that weapons system. In two level maintenance you basically get rid of the intermediate level, with the line maintainers at the operational level performing servicing, basic diagnostic actions, and some troubleshooting/repair of components. If the diagnostic check comes back bad and/or if they exhaust their troubleshooting/repair options, the line maintainers just R2 (remove/replace) the bad LRU (line replaceable unit) and send the LRU back to depot, which is often the manufacturer. It is pretty well established that two level is cheaper for the government than three level, especially as systems get more and more complex, because the more complex a system is the greater likelihood that your intermediate level shops will need a larger percentage of contractor FSR support. Given that fact, it makes sense to consolidate the contractor-provided functions at a specific location as opposed to spreading them out to the field. The disadvantage of this is that you are much more dependent on JIT logistics, so with some systems you'll see the two-level system bastardized a bit, with the powers that be pushing contractor FSRs out to the field in order to reduce the dependence on JIT. You'll particularly see this with systems on which the line maintainers have limited/no tools, training, and tech data to perform any repair actions on the LRUs in question. In this instance two-level is more like two and a half level, with there being depot level (the manufacturer), intermediate level (contractor FSR field backshop), and a half level at the operational level, where blue/green-suit maintainers literally just perform diagnostic checks and R2 LRUs. However, this "two and a half level" maintenance scheme is generally with systems that are so new/in demand that the military is fielding them before they've fully build up the organic capability (3 T's, tools, training, and tech data) to support field level maintainers performing any sort of troubleshooting or repair on the systems. mlmp08 is absolutely right that generally speaking the military prefers to get away from this system as soon as possible and move towards a true two level system, because "two and a half level" a) costs more and b) puts you even more at the mercy of the contractors in question. The military just isn't always able to do it as quickly as it would like because of funding/programmatic decisions made that impact the timeline of getting the requisite amount of the 3 T's out to the field level maintainers.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:34
|
|