1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Just like the Abrams, Bradly and Apache

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by burmafrd, Feb 9, 2008.

  1. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,150 Messages
    1,286 Likes Received
    Critics said the V 22 would never work. And some still have not given up since it would mean they would have to admit th were wrong. I have talked to troops who have seen it in action and agree that its ability to land quick and take off quick and most importantly GAIN ALTITUDE fast is a HUGE edge.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/02/08/osprey/index.html
  2. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,789 Messages
    2,859 Likes Received
    What were the sticking points that made people think the abrahams and bradley would not work?

    Not arguing here I was just unaware of issues people had with them initially.

    Was it accuracy due to speed or reliability?
  3. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,150 Messages
    1,286 Likes Received
    There was a big stink when the Bradley could not swim (that was a original design criteria but was WAY down the list of what was important) and that it was vulnerable to anti tank weapons. Well, duh, it was not armored like a tank and therefore there is no logical reason why you would expect it to.
    The Abrams was called too heavy and there was supposedly a big worry about the air filter for the turbine engine. The Apache was thought to be too complicated to maintain an acceptable level of readiness.
    Needless to say, after the Gulf war of 1991 it was suddenly very hard to find all these KNOWLEDGEABLE critics that the newspapers and magazines had been quoting for years. I beleive it was Newsweek that in the early/middle 80s did a big piece on how vulnerable our hi tech military was compared to the Russian military. Typical mediots.
    The V 22 was a radical departure on how aircraft fly and are used. If anyone had bothered to do their research, they would have seen that the Harrier had a similiar trouble prior to its use. Something that different, operating and flying very different then anything else, and some people were "shocked" that there were a lot of crashes and other problems.
  4. Yeagermeister

    Yeagermeister Active Member

    47,576 Messages
    8 Likes Received
    I remember at one they had just about killed that project because of too many crashes and problems. At least they stuck with it long enough to correct the problems.

    I'm still amazed how an object as large as an M-1 can move so fast.

    On one of my first training missions in Germany we were heading back when the convoy came to a sudden stop. We look out and to our right were 2 or 3 Apaches firing missles down range. I wish I could find my pictures but that was almost 20 yrs ago. :laugh2:
  5. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,789 Messages
    2,859 Likes Received
    Thanks for the info Burm. :cool:
  6. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,150 Messages
    1,286 Likes Received
    A lot of criticism of our weapons systems are due to the complex nature that modern weapon systems are. Many people- WRONGLY- thought the russian idea of simple is better would work= and it did not. Simple all too often means MUCH LESS CAPABLE. Simple works for the AK 47, but it did not for the T-72.
    Of course one real big problem the Russians had was lousy quality controll; to be frank they had virtually NONE.
    Now that is NOT to say that we make perfect weapon systems; not even close. All too often they ARE more complex then they need to be. Everyone wants all the bells and whistles and that is NOT usually a good idea.
    BUT the fact is that all modern weapon systems are now built by committee's and I am frankly suprised how well we actually do there.
    ONE thing to always keep in mind: how a system starts out rarely is how it ends; teething problems and exterminating all the bugs can take years.

Share This Page