|
The Bradley was a really bad replacement for the M113. In that it did not really fulfill the same role at all by the end of development. That is what the point of that pentagon wars scene was.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
Mazz posted:If the Bradley was really that garbage you’d have to wonder why we’re still buying them and using the same platform to make M109A7s and 2800 AMPVs. Because they saw the shitfest they had to go through to get even the Bradley? I mean, I don't know if the Bradley is bad or if it's actually cool & good, but "We have a lovely chassis, might as well build lovely poo poo on top of it" may still be a preferable course of action to "Go through 10ish years of design, procurement, production, distribution only to get something slightly less-lovely while suffering from materiel shortages until then"? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
The chassis is good, though. I understand being disgruntled based on cost compared to the much crummier M113. But the Bradley chassis is solid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Are they still trying to make those F35 Doomguy helmets work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Because they saw the shitfest they had to go through to get even the Bradley? That is terrible logic, you don’t throw bad money after bad money on something as simple as a rear echelon tracked vehicle. There are tons of existing platforms that can do what the Bradley does in the world. It turns out the Bradley is in fact as comparably effective to nearly all of them. IFV platforms are a dime a dozen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
One of the prime reasons brad hasnt been replaced (and will not be) is that the chassis and parts are also used in other platforms- m270 to name one. Brad isnt exceptional and is starting to show its age but the inertia of how many we have of them means replacing it, even slowly phasing out would cost bug money for little gain. Could we design a modern successor that would be smaller, bit faster and built from the ground up for its specific mission set? Yes. Would it be worth the cost? No. Just like replacing M1s before there is outside pressure forcing US (such as russians suddenly mass- fielding a new generation gamechanger of an MBT) the costs outweigh the possible gains. Currently such an outside pressure isnt visible in near future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The Bradley was a really bad replacement for the M113. In that it did not really fulfill the same role at all by the end of development. That is what the point of that pentagon wars scene was. The Bradley wasn't conceived or specced to be a 113 replacement. The "IFV" concept in general was just an attempt to increase firepower and protection for mech infantry units while allowing dudes to survive the nuclear hellscape, not replace the 113 in the APC role. This morphed into the Bradley when the BMP-1 appeared and caused something of a moral panic. Ironically enough however, the 113 is now being replaced by the Bradley, 30 years on. Sort of. Schadenboner posted:Because they saw the shitfest they had to go through to get even the Bradley? I can speak some to the PIM upgrade...they had a practically bottomless budget for that decision, and after testing just about every AFV chassis on the planet they opted for the Brad's. It is a really good platform and is even relatively future-proof despite its age...something something electrical power that I don't really understand. Believe me, the artillery guys wanted a fancy new toy, but no one could deliver anything that was anything more than a lateral on the Brad's existing capabilities. bewbies fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Oct 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Mazz posted:That is terrible logic, you don’t throw bad money after bad money on something as simple as a rear echelon tracked vehicle. There are tons of existing platforms that can do what the Bradley does in the world. It turns out the Bradley is in fact as comparably effective to nearly all of them. IFV platforms are a dime a dozen. I know gently caress-all about defense procurement and the M2 and so forth but "hold on to (bad thing) because the alternative is unknown and very possibly worse" is a pretty common theme through human history, especially when dealing with organizational decision-making? But like I said: I'm well out of my depth here. It seems like the M2 had a troubled birthing process but has aged well?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:I know gently caress-all about defense procurement and the M2 and so forth but "hold on to (bad thing) because the alternative is unknown and very possibly worse" is a pretty common theme through human history, especially when dealing with organizational decision-making? I’m not disagreeing with you on that general idea but it’s more that falls apart because there was nothing demanding the Bradley platform be chosen there. It won because it was right choice given the options, because it’s not as bad as the internet likes to parrot it is. If it was truly underperforming and poo poo the army could’ve opened that tender to lots of companies (there are like 5 IFV platforms in Europe alone) , and as bewbies said they even tried with the A7 PIM and it still won. EDIT: We might be talking past each other here a bit. The basic point is yeah the Bradley is not nearly as bad in current usage as the Pentagon Wars crowd likes to shout. The platform is even being expanded to other vehicles in the army because it works. Institutional inertia is probably a part and I agree that’s not the argument I should argue, it’s just also not only winning because the alternatives are completely unknown. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Oct 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Here's the full quote by the "operator":quote:You torpedoed your claim of authority on the subject of combat vehicles when you mentioned the Stryker as anything more than a lovely taxi. You've clearly not got firsthand experience with them, and thinking that an APC being able to mop the floors with untrained, incompetent and underarmed guerrillas means it's actually a good vehicle proves how little you know about them. Strykers are complete shite, while Bradleys have superior weaponry but are overall subpar for an actual conventional war against a near-peer force. Both suffer from insufficient armor / defensive capability with the stryker especially being insufficient to even take hits from a .50 reliably, without mentioning the silliness that is the rpg net being completely unable to defend against modern man-portable anti-armor assets. They're also prone to rolling. For the record I only mentioned the Stryker as an alternate but I never claimed anything about it's capability, merely that it exists. The use of all caps feels very re:re:re:fwd facebooky. I also never mentioned Enduring Freedom or the occupation of Iraq, only OIF/ODS; which would be maybe sorta near peer. The whole conversation is stupid as I never actually claimed it was good only that the Pentagon Wars is not a reliable source to assess that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:Are they still trying to make those F35 Doomguy helmets work? Probably the issue is the refresh rate in the helmet is like 34 Hrtz so its making pilots super motion sick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
That is not a person who has either 1) been in the military or 2) done any actual analysis or capability development work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Another instrumental example is the m16 platform. Tons of bullshit and shenanigans in the trials and procurement phase. Early teething problems and all manner of stupidity self-inflicted by DoD (jamming issues caused by changing gunpowder for example). However, whatever your opinion of the 1965 era M16 the intervening 50 years has matured it a lot. It’s not just the initial system, it’s also decades of development and supporting developments. The m16a4 and m4 as they exist today are good weapons. Could we replace them with something better? Probably, but the gains would be marginal and we would lose decades of institutional knowledge plus all manner of random other systems that were built and designed around it. After a certain point and at a certain scale the thing you have being good enough is actually superior to the new thing that might be technically better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
bewbies posted:That is not a person who has either 1) been in the military or 2) done any actual analysis or capability development work. I figured, also notable is the person's lack of reading comprehension or logic. My OP was "Given [Mission], why not use the M-2 or Stryker?" named only because they comprise the mainstay of the US Army's kit for that sorta role, and could git through a Stargate. The guy is there being like "I don't care about the [Mission] I only care that it is poo poo!" while ignoring my questions about how is he assessing that claim? Did he read reports? What about Iraqi Freedom / Desert Storm? Does the Bradley actually have a bad combat record? I even went and googled for some Army assessments and found the Congressional Research Report that is why yeah, the Bradley performed well in Iraq. I figure the person is just stupid, but at least the thread here could get some mileage off of him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Another instrumental example is the m16 platform. Tons of bullshit and shenanigans in the trials and procurement phase. Early teething problems and all manner of stupidity self-inflicted by DoD (jamming issues caused by changing gunpowder for example). However, whatever your opinion of the 1965 era M16 the intervening 50 years has matured it a lot. It’s not just the initial system, it’s also decades of development and supporting developments. The m16a4 and m4 as they exist today are good weapons. Could we replace them with something better? Probably, but the gains would be marginal and we would lose decades of institutional knowledge plus all manner of random other systems that were built and designed around it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:My dude if a bike's coming and the crossing isn't clear stay in your lane, it's not rocket science. You should stop or slow just as the other road vehicles behind me have stopped or slowed. In fact the law in Cambridge as in most other places is quite clear for bikes in this situation. "Never pass another vehicle that has stopped or is slowing down for a pedestrian" It actually makes sense as it exists to protect you from harm. Additionally, the law is also clear that, depending on the type of bike lane, I should actually ENTER THE BIKE LANE as a lane change before beginning my turn. So, in short, you are the problem, my dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
The only derail I like to start more than bike/car chat is sausage/hot dog and ketchup chat. Or maybe USMC obsolete or not chat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The only derail I like to start more than bike/car chat is sausage/hot dog and ketchup chat. Ketchup fanciers should be flayed alive, each strip of skin replaced with a thick coat of mustard (the really toxic Russian stuff). I’m a goddamn vegetarian and even I know that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
But what if the bike is trying to pass a tank destroyer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The only derail I like to start more than bike/car chat is sausage/hot dog and ketchup chat. As a lifelong Chicagoan don’t you fuckin’ dare drag me down into the mud if I’m buying a hot dog I absolutely get the whole deal but if my lazy rear end is microwaving some wrapped in a wet paper towel ketchup/mustard is perfectly adequate for the amount of effort I’m shooting for  , real answer put drat near anything on a hot dog and I’ll eat it but Chicago style owns
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
If you’re doing lazy poo poo hotdog lay a line of A1 next to the ketchup and mustard. That poo poo got me through a lot of standing “lunches” pulling overnight shifts back when I worked banquets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Even my “lazy” dog is sausage/dog, potato bread bun, mustard, pickle spear, sport peppers or substitute pepper. When motivated by knowing I won’t have time or supplies for real meals, I ensure I have chopped onions and celery salt on hand and a proper variety of peppers to change things up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Ketchup does not belong on any kind of sausage or hot dog for any reason, ever. Kimchi, on the other hand, is a great addition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Even my “lazy” dog is sausage/dog, potato bread bun, mustard, pickle spear, sport peppers or substitute pepper. A better man than I
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Ketchup does not belong on any kind of sausage or hot dog for any reason, ever. incorrect
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Ketchup does not belong on any thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Technicality. Curry ketchup != What Americans call ketchup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Ketchup is the perfect companion for a brat or hot dog and I will fight this entire thread to the death over this. Although my usage of ketchup is dependent upon my mood. Mustard and BBQ sauce are also excellent choices. The spicier the better in those cases. But I will fight for my right to
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Ketchup is the perfect companion for a brat or hot dog and I will fight this entire thread to the death over this. Even though Toys R Us is dead, there is no requirement to grow up, so you’ll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
The Department of Energy does not (to my knowledge) regulate ketchup, but even if it did it'd be in bad shape to stop this derail. Here's a long, depressing and thread-relevant article about the decline of the US civil service under Trump: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis It's a year old but I hadn't seen it before. Well worth a read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
We're turning out long-range missiles like sausages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Again, with this. Where does this come from? Lead was put into gasoline as an octane booster. That was what the research effort that adopted it was looking for, and that is what it was literally patented for. Midgely and Kettering were not looking for something to protect valve seats. Because the oil industry made up a bunch of poo poo in the 50s/60s/70s to avoid having to reformulate gasoline without lead, and today's old-timers are locked into that "common knowledge" about valve seats that they were told as teenagers. Cosmos with NDT actually summed up the major events pretty well, but valve seat wear was wrapped up in it. So now there's an entire industry of snake oil fake lead additives that do nothing because unless you're truly beating your engine like a HD truck or prostreet racer, you will NEVER see enough valve wear to cause problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thomasgnau/status/1054763263496470528?s=21 Aim High.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Oh for gently caress's sake, they've already solved this. They're printing the handles on base. The ultimate problem is that you had a poorly designed part on an extremely low-volume product that's certified for aviation. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Glad it only took years to find a solution, then, given that they’ve purchased nearly 400 of the cups since 2016 through 2018.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/19/business/for-want-of-a-working-coffeepot-your-flight-is-delayed.html Terrible aviation coffee hardware has probably cost commercial airliners more in flight delays. To be clear are these actually "mugs" or carafes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Theres a picture of one here. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/10/22/battle-over-air-forces-1300-coffee-cups-heats-up/
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Theres a picture of one here. Ah that has to be tested to make sure it doesn't come loose from the galley during turbulence, the heater doesn't overload and all that other aviation safety stuff. It also looks pretty unlike anything I've seen on an airliner so I'm guessing new ones are custom hand built? Seems like you should just use whatever airliners use but thats probably not "military enough"
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Plus you have things like it has to be domestically produced and probably from the OEM, so if Boeing has to start making a limited run of coffee makers from scratch, the per unit cost is going to be pretty high.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
They probably ARE what airliners were using when these planes were built. E-3s have the standard 707 galley from the late 60s/early 70s...most of which don't work anymore, of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 20:27
|
|