Skip to comments.Why the World’s Armies Don’t Want U.S. Tech Anymore
Posted on 07/14/2014 6:46:45 AM PDT by C19fan
Boeing briefed reporters on the Army-led Joint Multi Role rotorcraft project intended as a high-tech replacement for most of the thousands of helicopters in the Pentagons fleets - in Mesa, Arizona, late last month.
Weve shot ourselves in the foot twice, I said, and we are all out of feet. My comment was not exactly diplomatic, but the JMR vision of a one-size-fits-all, fast and efficient rotorcraft technology platform that would leave the rest of the world in the dust gave me double flashbacks: to the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor and the LHX/Comanche, which had similar goals and fell far short of them. (Although the V-22 was not cancelled outright, as the Army killed Comanche in 2004, the objective was something that cost little more than a helicopter, without the Ospreys fighter-like price tag.)
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Cobras and Blackhawks still seem to be moving off the shelves.
prolly cuz made in usa now just means junk...junk made to sell and fail... which needs replacement and updates to the next model, etc.... and repeat sales
gone are the days when made in the usa meant pride in workmanship and lasting value....replaced by bs marketing and advertising...what America has become and gone...
There’s also the tendency of administrations cutting off access to munitions and spare parts when they decide they don’t like you.
Between using Chinese manufactures and likely backdoor spy technology, I certainly can’t blame them.
Not opposed to giving crap to Muslims though. Let them kill each other as long as the guns, ammo and other hardware we give them degrade to bricks after a few uses.
They V-22 certainly had problems and killed far too many Marines but now, they are highly praised. Many people thought the Stryker would not cut it either but it was far better than armored Humvees.
The problem is the complexity of our equipment from aircraft to rifles. There is a reason the AK-47 is still used by millions, including our guys during Iraq. It works and is easy to maintain/build.
V-22 Osprey $72 million each. Replaces a helicopter that cost $6 million each. You’re now o.k. with that because the bugs have been worked out?
You don’t see too many countries using the Bradly fighting Vehicle while the M113 series is still in use around the world.
and How many M1 Abrams do we sell....Only Egypt uses them because we gave them the rights to build on their own soil.
And don't forget the huge price tag that come along with that complexity. Most of the world can't afford our stuff. Actually, WE can't afford our stuff.
At some point relatively soon, cheap light anti-aircraft weaponry will outpace the active and passive countermeasures that super-expensive planes can deploy, and we’re going to need to go back to a high volume, low price strategy in order to sustain a combat aircraft loss rate much more like WWII’s than we’ve seen in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past 13 years, where we’ve lost very few aircraft.
Obama has spent 180 days golfing since he took office. Every Republican should carry around a golf ball. Don’t say a word about it. Just let it be seen.
ITAR. It is a huge pain in the butt for any other country trying to buy our stuff. Our state department gets all up in their business for even fairly innocuous stuff. They would rather not deal with it.
keep counting on the imerialist scoreboard...it is obvious where that has gotten us now...
and...it fits in so geat here on planet wtf!
That's the real problem. Spare parts for Russian equipment are made in virtually every former USSR country - as well as in many of the former Warsaw Pact countries. Russia can't exercise that kind of control over its customers unless they're buying one of those few systems made only in Russia.
It is also unfortunately true that we still live in a world where most governments fear their own internal opponents more than they fear their neighboring governments. And you just don't need expensive cutting edge high tech to slaughter civilians.
I disagree that the V-22 replaces a helicopter. It does not. It fills a new niche that could not be done by either helicopter or fixed wing aircraft: over the horizon insertion directly onto an objective that was not an airfield. It's an important capability for both the Marine Corps and Special Operations and something that no one else in the world has.
The question is affordability and trade off. What do we have to give up in order to afford this piece of kit that, at best, fills a very small gap in our global military capability. My thoughts are that since we have them, we ought to keep them, but it doesn't make much sense to continue down this road of massive increases in cost for very marginal increases in capability. Not smart.
And, just so I can know, if costing twelve times is worth this added capability, would costing, say, fifty times more also be worth it? How many times the cost of Sea Knight is an Osprey worth? The Secretary of Defense decided to mothball 400 A-10s to find the money for five more F-35s. That’s 80-to-1. Would the Osprey also be an 80-to-1 kind of thing?
Upgrade and relaunch the CH-46 and be done with it. Lift, transport, shielding, multi-mission capability, redundancies.
Worked with a guy who was on the Stryker test team. He said they “overlooked” it’s many failures.
I think the Kuwaitis have a couple of M1s but not the latest and greatest. Bradleys were designed to keep up with the M1s during the and take out the Ruskies version of the Bradley during battle.
113s were deemed too slow and lightly armored to to the job. Up armored 113s would have been better than Hummers though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.