|
Unsurprising. The air force went above and beyond to make sure everything was airtight.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Speaking of interesting commentary, there's a rather insightful analysis about the proliferation of precision guided weaponry and technological convergence. The long version is absolutely worth reading. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2016/02/15/commentary-technology-converges-power-diffuses/79772380/ http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/technologies-converge-power-diffuses-evolution-small-smart-cheap#full quote:Commentary: Technology Converges, Power Diffuses
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Unsurprising. The air force went above and beyond to make sure everything was airtight. It's okay, I'm sure Boeing and LockMart won't be petty enough to make up the difference and more on the contracts they win from now on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
I've seen that Bradley segment from Pentagon Wars before, but never watched the whole thing. Time to correct that. Seems like a Cold War version of Catch 22.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It's okay, I'm sure Boeing and LockMart won't be petty enough to make up the difference and more on the contracts they win from now on. That, and they'll probably also sue, although it's unlikely they'd win and Northrop most likely wouldn't even have to stop working on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It's okay, I'm sure Boeing and LockMart won't be petty enough to make up the difference and more on the contracts they win from now on. I think this was the last big one for a while. Tanker's awarded, F-35 is going to suck up every fighter dollar for decades, C-17 isn't due for replacement for decades, C-5 just got AMPed, no plans for E-3 replacement, E-8 replacement is going to be a Gulfstream-type thing that probably already exists...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I've seen that Bradley segment from Pentagon Wars before, but never watched the whole thing. Time to correct that. Yup, the overarching message of Pentagon Wars was that the whistleblower got hosed over in the end and received no kudos for his moral victory, the tank/APC still got built due to the sunken cost fallacy, and everyone who tried to push it through flawed made a fortune and was rewarded by the corporations that profited from the deception and fraud.  Moral: "It never pays to be a whiner, just take the money/promotions and hope it gets fixed later."
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
The thing that Internet discussions about Pentagon wars always fail to note is that the Bradley's performance has been pretty exceptional throughout its service life
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The thing that Internet discussions about Pentagon wars always fail to note is that the Bradley's performance has been pretty exceptional throughout its service life They should of used the Sergeant York instead as their 'example'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The thing that Internet discussions about Pentagon wars always fail to note is that the Bradley's performance has been pretty exceptional throughout its service life On the one hand, I hear them talking about things like Mavericks and Paveways that, as far as I know, are now pretty decent weapons. On the other hand, I'm triggering pretty hard from how accurate it is based on my own limited exposure to procurement and testing processes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The thing that Internet discussions about Pentagon wars always fail to note is that the Bradley's performance has been pretty exceptional throughout its service life Development on the bradley started 53 years ago. Development on the F-35 started in 1996. I bet you could post the same thing about the F-35A in 2049.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The thing that Internet discussions about Pentagon wars always fail to note is that the Bradley's performance has been pretty exceptional throughout its service life It's fun to rag on the Bradley, but why is this? Is it vindication for the design of the Bradley itself, a case for good US doctrine, or just that it hasn't really been used in a "Soviets overrun Germany" style full scale war?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:It's fun to rag on the Bradley, but why is this? Is it vindication for the design of the Bradley itself, a case for good US doctrine, or just that it hasn't really been used in a "Soviets overrun Germany" style full scale war? Well it has a solid gun, a couple missiles and is just as vulnerable to IEDs as any other infantry vehicle the US has?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The thing that Internet discussions about Pentagon wars always fail to note is that the Bradley's performance has been pretty exceptional throughout its service life Except the version that saw combat, in Desert storm, was the M2A2, which was the second upgrade package from the original M2. It's impossible to state whether we'd still think highly of it had there been no upgrades, and had Burton not fought for design changes to improve crew survivability. But there's probably a lot of guys still alive today thanks to those upgrades and design improvements. So gently caress it, it's only money. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:It's fun to rag on the Bradley, but why is this? Is it vindication for the design of the Bradley itself, a case for good US doctrine, or just that it hasn't really been used in a "Soviets overrun Germany" style full scale war? I think it is almost entirely the movie, plus it is a simple enough system that laypeople can understand what is happening with it. Also to be fair the US military kind of eats its young with the Bradley thing, they show Pentagon Wars during the In any case my point is that the Bradley really isn't a great example of a failed program, of which there are many, many much better examples, such as the aforementioned Sergeant York. MRC48B posted:Except the version that saw combat, in Desert storm, was the M2A2, which was the second upgrade package from the original M2. I'm unsure if this is a criticism or a compliment. bewbies fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I think this was the last big one for a while. Tanker's awarded, F-35 is going to suck up every fighter dollar for decades, C-17 isn't due for replacement for decades, C-5 just got AMPed, no plans for E-3 replacement, E-8 replacement is going to be a Gulfstream-type thing that probably already exists... T-X? That will be pretty sizable...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I've seen that Bradley segment from Pentagon Wars before, but never watched the whole thing. Time to correct that. I've said this before but Pentagon Wars was and still is required viewing in the T&E unit I used to be a part of, especially the parts where Burton is going to the mattresses over making sure the T&E is done properly. The point about the stuff Burton got added into the design is well-taken. If the Bradley in its original design before the changes made post (actual) live fire testing had been the one that fielded it would've been a loving death trap in Desert Storm. The stuff about the "design being stupid and capabilities creep oh ho ho" are given the Hollywood treatment in the movie, fair enough, but the overarching message of "Burton tried to do the right thing when faced with an acquisitions system that was more concerned with making itself look good than it was with delivering a decent product to the end user" is absolutely 100% based in reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
The main thing you can criticize the Bradley for is that it does the same thing as a BMP while being twice the weight and a good meter taller. Only, it turns out that for the US this didn't really matter because you can airlift it anyway, and you have night vision and the bad guys don't, so they can't even see it to shoot at it. When you're in a vehicle that will explode if a tank as much as looks at it, seeing the other guy first is the most important thing and the Bradley does that so it's successful. The Bradley is basically the Lincoln Town Car to the BMP's Toyota Yaris; a four-point-something liter V8 and a two ton curb weight just isn't necessary if you just want to drive five people from point A to point B. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
MrChips posted:T-X? That will be pretty sizable... That's true, I forgot about T-X and it could end up being a pretty big contract. It's also likely to move relatively quickly since all the designs are either already flying or have been in self-funded development for a while. I don't really expect it to go to Boeing or LM though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
The Fulda Gap is sandier than I thought: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=105_1455658393
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
http://www.history.com/news/wyomings-cold-war-era-nuclear-missile-site-to-become-tourist-attraction This was one of my duty sites
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
For the first time in my life, I want to go to Wyoming for something besides porn and fireworks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
The Bradley doing well in Desert Storm is a little like that scenario where the Americans and Iraq swaps MBTs* and see if the end result is all that different. Training+Doctrine+Logistics+Mass of Stuff can do a lot to make up for any weaknesses in certain equipment. *Probably matters a lot more than if someone is using a BMP, Bradley, Stryker or CV90.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Training+Doctrine+Logistics+Mass of Stuff can do a lot to make up for any weaknesses in certain equipment. All the videos of tanks getting sklounsted in Syria is a good example of this. Infantry support for our tanks? Why would we need that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
The news coming to work today said that China's plopped some missiles (I think SAMs) on one of their little man-made islands and pissed the hell out of Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Oh, no. How we possibly have seen that coming. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/17/moscow-anti-smoking-campaign-uses-obamas-image This is kind of hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The news coming to work today said that China's plopped some missiles (I think SAMs) on one of their little man-made islands and pissed the hell out of Taiwan. It's not one of those man made islands. It's a real one that China, Taiwan and Vietnam all say is theirs. China has had about 1400 people living there for some time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:It's not one of those man made islands. It's a real one that China, Taiwan and Vietnam all say is theirs. China has had about 1400 people living there for some time. Ah. I misunderstood the story then. edit: in fairness they talked a poo poo ton about island building in the same thing, so I think the miunderstanding is a bit forgivable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:All the videos of tanks getting sklounsted in Syria is a good example of this. Infantry support for our tanks? Why would we need that? Either that or Shilkas going Spastic in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:It's not one of those man made islands. It's a real one that China, Taiwan and Vietnam all say is theirs. China has had about 1400 people living there for some time. I imagine if they find that the SAM sites work on the legit island (keeping aircraft away), they'll start installing them on their reclaimed kitty litter ones soon enough. Pimpmust posted:The Bradley doing well in Desert Storm is a little like that scenario where the Americans and Iraq swaps MBTs* and see if the end result is all that different. Didn't a bradly kill an Iraqi MBT by driving on a hill over top of it and firing it's bushmaster almost straight down into it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Didn't a bradly kill an Iraqi MBT by driving on a hill over top of it and firing it's bushmaster almost straight down into it? If I remember correctly it was a complete accident. The Lion of Babylon (inferior T-72 copy made in Iraq) was sitting in a defensive position in a sandstorm and the advancing Bradley suddenly found itself practically on top of an enemy tank.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:If I remember correctly it was a complete accident. The Lion of Babylon (inferior T-72 copy made in Iraq) was sitting in a defensive position in a sandstorm and the advancing Bradley suddenly found itself practically on top of an enemy tank. Wouldn't point blank AP 25mill to the rear/sides gently caress up most tanks circa '91?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
One soviet-made 100mm AT gun operated by Iraqi crew destroyed no less than 2 M1A1 Abrams at point blank range during Desert Storm. When I played that scenario as "the wrong side" in WinSPMBT  (the less said about how well the rest of the Iraqi forces did the better)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 22:26
|
|
TCD posted:Wouldn't point blank AP 25mill to the rear/sides gently caress up most tanks circa '91? not to the sides with standard sabot. theres a depleted uranium fin stabalized sabot that is a little more potent.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
I've got a weird question that this seems like the perfect thread to ask in: Even though I've seen the film of the Operations Crossroads underwater nuclear test a bunch of times (the one in 1946 where they set off a 20kt nuke in the middle of a mini-armada), today I learned that one of the ships was a working submarine with a small crew in it that was submerged about 1500 meters from the blast. Other than the obvious question of how a WWII sub had a hatch large enough to fit the crew's gigantic brass balls, I'm wondering just how fantastically loud of a bang it was for the crew inside of the sub. They've got to be kind of unique vs people who experienced it on the ground in that the blast's sound and pressure wave was being transmitted through water, and then smacked a giant hollow metal shell. For whatever spergtastic reason, I want to know if it was just sort of a big THX bass rumble, or if it sounded like the hammer of the gods smacking their boat. What little I can find on the sound of a nuclear explosion is along the lines of "if you're close enough for it to be super loud, it would be silent to you because the supersonic pressure wave would have killed you/busted your eardrums." Clearly this is not the case for those in the sub since the water helped the transmission of sound but protected them from the blast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
That is a question I would like answered as well. I would ask how they convinced people to sit that close to a nuclear blast, but 1946.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:That is a question I would like answered as well. I would ask how they convinced people to sit that close to a nuclear blast, but 1946. "Hey Lieutenant, how'd you like to do your part for God and Country?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:That is a question I would like answered as well. I would ask how they convinced people to sit that close to a nuclear blast, but 1946. "Yeah, life's been kind of dull since the war ended. Been looking for a thrill ever since." "Buddy, have I got a detail for you."
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
I assume they survived and was able to tell using sign language ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 03:49
|
|