Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    535
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by N-L-M

  1. "2 bullets to the back of the head" kind of suicide, of course.
  2. That article mentions the COV. I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical. Knowing the name allowed me to find this: Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:
  3. Again, conflating hardware costs with program costs. We've been over this, into the trash it goes. That's not what sunk cost means. Words and phrases have meanings, and if you can't be bothered to use the accepted ones you can go peddle your own flavor of semantics somewhere else. Sunk cost is money put in and not recoverable. And the 1.5T is definitely not that, as most of it is yet to be spent. And yes, it's an estimate. Like any good forwards-thinking organization, the US armed forces try to estimate how much stuff is going to cost in the future, so as to be prepared for it. More advanced accounting will include a confidence interval for the actual number, based on varying assumptions as to what the future will actually be. This is perfectly reasonable and makes good sense. Truly, inflation is a hell of a drug. Which is why comparisons are usually carried out in constant value equivalent, as the plain dollar number is not constant value and is therefore meaningless by itself. Says the guy who is still trying to make the point that the Abrams is somehow insanely expensive despite his own sources disproving his claim, who has now moved on to insinuate that all Army numbers are fudged to hide the real cost. Riiiiight. LOL. This one line proves that you have no idea how production lines get started, go from prototypes to FSD to production, gain competence or anything else. It is a well established fact of the industry that as production lines mature, product costs fall due to less productivity losses and higher throughput from skilled workers. The fact that you even for a moment were willing to put that piece of stupidity into writing for all to see disqualifies you from discussing manufacturing. Ok now we're back to simply throwing away the numbers the army supplies for the cost of the things it's buying because you don't like it. You again fail to compare apples to apples and are surprised by it. Hardware costs. Also: M1: 2374 produced. M1IP: 894 produced. M1A1: 5572 produced. That's 8840. Now granted quite a few of the M1A1s are rebuilt M1IPs, but still. regarding costs we've already been over this. Again, see hardware costs vs program costs and so on. Yeah an apple isn't as acidic as an orange. You are now aware that the MBT-70 would also have been more expensive than the plain projected hardware cost, likely by a similar amount. But again, if you're unwilling to accept the US Army numbers for hardware costs but are willing to accept their numbers for program costs, that's peak cherry picking right there. If reality is what you want it to be, sure the MBT-70 is cheaper because no spares, training, or ammunition were stocked for it. Massive savings across the board! The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are one and the same. The XM-1 program was the successor to the MBT-70 program, coming immediately on its heels and learning important lessons from it- notably cost control and cutting back on the gizmos. "follow on program" does not in any way mean "shares technical solutions and/or parts". It means a program that succeeds where the previous one left off. I'm insulting to people who badpost. Cope. Being insulting is not against the rules, being a shitter however is. And no, you still not being able to tell the difference between program cost and hardware cost does not make me wrong. which is not however a sunk cost. Words have meanings. Also lets do some more math, since you're in the mood. $500M per plane for flight is approx 17,000 flight hours per plane at the 30K CPFH price point. That number is significantly in excess of the plane's current rated lifespan of 8000h, so claiming that the costs are marginal on the basis of flight hours is flat out wrong. Also this is again why you do all the math in constant value dollars.
  4. I did read the document, and your conclusions from it are so off-base that I'm not sure you read it. Consider, for example, the closing remarks, on page III of the document (page 6 of the PDF): "small real cost growth" is not at all the situation you describe. A growth of 19%, mostly because extra features were added in? say it ain't so! And again, 19% growth for features, mainly the strengthened powertrain, is literal taxpayer rape. wew. Also, the 507k is hardware costs for a single vehicle. Doubling the order for what is pretty much the same hardware cost per unit does not mean that the hardware cost per unit has doubled, and indeed the paper only talks about an estimated price increase if 19%. I really don't know how you could even reach that interpretation. You know, that's a fascinating source, but once again your source does not say what you claim it does. To wit, the Army's response to that claim: Page 89 of the very PDF you posted. If you're gonna cherry pick quotes from sources, at least bother to read your entire source. Cause it firmly disagrees with the conclusion you are trying to draw from it. Fun for the whole family! And a bit more, just to get the point across: Oh no muh poor taxpayer getting ripped off for squillions of dollars oh no It's almost as if getting sent to an active war zone in the sandbox leads to greater wear and therefore need for spare parts, as well as high fuel consumption, while the M60A3s are left at home or in Europe, who'd a-thunk it? The cost of the M1 exceeding the M1A1 is interesting, wonder what led to that. You do have a legit point that in practice it appears that the M1 has turned out to be expensive to operate, but that's a far cry from it being a case of the US MIC "raping the taxpayer". 1-800-come-on-now Ah, a clear sign that you indeed don't know what you're talking about, thanks for playing. for reference, the 1.5 trillion is a lifecycle cost for the entire fucking fleet. Not a sunk cost. And that's a really shitty way to dodge the point, which was that early LRIP costs are not indicative of full scale production. All the congressional testimony you've posted says otherwise, the design to cost was largely successful and the tank was delivered on time and mostly on budget, a great achievement for any development program, let alone one run by the US Army. It was absolutely the successor program to the failed MBT-70, what are you on to? So the US Army disagrees with you on the cost issue, and by all accounts the Abrams program has been a resounding success. You don't scale up a 3300 tank buy to 7000 if the cost balloons out of control, and sufficient evidence has been posted in this thread (ironically, by you) to disprove that notion. Inflation is a hell of a drug, and the extras in the TTS don't help. But anyway, TL;DR there's plenty of evidence that the Design-To-Cost of the M1 Abrams was by and large successful, and that it was successfully limited to a unit hardware cost significantly below that of the MBT-70, thus backing up the claim that started this whole discussion, ie that the Abrams was a budget tank born from the failure of the MBT-70 project. Not really no. What is however ironic is that you're calling out Ram despite you being the one who's incredibly wrong about this. The F-35 cost issue is prime bait and you took it like a champ. Thanks for playing.
  5. For those keeping track at home, the D9 for example has a lot of rollers (good MMP), deep grousers for excellent traction in soft soil, and oil coolers for the torque converter. Unlike armored vehicles in which the torque converter is intended to lock up quickly and therefore not get very hot, the torque converter in the D9 is designed to work in slippage at all times. This results in a lot of power being turned into heat in the oil, which then needs to be cooled to prevent the seals from dying. You could run a tank in 1st gear and 100% slip on the torque converter and get pretty good tractive effort, but not for any length of time. The D9 is a very well designed tool.
  6. And yet the RFP it was designed to meet was a cut down MBT-70 spec, and the design incorporated a lot of lessons learned from the MBT-70. The main difference was a flexible spec with Design-To-Cost as part of the RFP, allowing the active trading of performance requirements for cost reduction. Because the Army was really not happy with the cost of the MBT-70 and was out of both time and budget. Yes. For LRIP. In 1983 dollars. The very paper you quote mentions that inflation in that interval is nearly 300%, (239% according to this), which is the most significant chunk of that, and LRIP lots are always more expensive than mass production lots- for reference, the LRIP lot 1 F-35A was approx $200M a pop, and LRIP lot 11 is down to $89M per. So yeah, LRIP costs are not entirely indicative of mass production costs, which is what 3000 units most definitely is. Also you should be comparing apples to apples, that is hardware costs. Comparing hardware costs of the M60 to total costs of the M1 is disingenuous, as the M60 also needs those extras you are not factoring in. Same source, page 3217: Your own sources disagree with your opinion, the Abrams is not "the MIC raping the taxpayer". Another interesting snippet from page 1882: Seems like the Abrams is actually really close to the M60A3 in costs despite being a much better platform. If that's a sign of "raping the taxpayer", what would you consider a reasonable price to be, for that performance? And again, page 1910. This source you posted does not in any way support your claim that the M1 project ended up, and I quote, " producing a tank that costs 6 times the price of the M60 in its mission capable form ". Much the opposite, in fact. The M1 was extremely cheap compared to the M60 for what it was, and was the result of an extremely cost-conscious development, having learned the lesson of the failed MBT-70.
  7. It has to do with the Abrams development mostly evolving from a cut down MBT-70. Ending up more expensive than the M-60 is mostly irrelevant because by that time the M60 was entirely obsolete, and therefore could not fill the role required, nor could any vehicle of equivalent cost. For the defined role, the Abrams as designed was a very austere design with few exceptions, and if you think for some reason that the Abrams wasn't designed under some pretty strict cost limits you are sorely mistaken and are more than invited to re-read Hunnicutt. Also penny pinching in general is a figure of speech for cost cutting, not only the cost cutting associated with small low value details. But choosing a 1-axis gunner's sight stab over 2-axis because it's $3000 cheaper is indeed penny pinching when it comes to a tank. Not than the MBT-70, to which the comparison must be made. Yes, also killed were the FCS, GCV, and some other programs which were supposed to replace the Abrams with an autoloaded vehicle. The fact that these projects all got cut and ate up most of the budget, leaving fuckall for Abrams upgrades, is a separate issue. Also talking facts here, bucko. Compare the estimated price of the MBT-70, M60A1 and M60A3 to that of the Abrams in then year dollars. Had you bothered to open a copy of Hunnicutt, you'd see that he provides the following numbers in equivalent 1972 dollars: $422k final Chrysler proposal $507k RFP design goal $526k XM-1 1978 estimate (including GFE) (from here) $339k M60A1 $432k M60A3 $611k XM803 (MBT-70) So yeah, Definitely a budget conscious development. (now if you're going "wait those numbers can't be right how come it's so much cheaper than the design goal", the answer is "competition". Chrysler's bid was $196M to GM's $232M).
  8. So, seeing as some people need a refresher: You really should read Hunnicutt's Abrams book, but the 10 minute version of the story is as follows: MBT-70 was going to be the best tank that anyone had ever made. Ever. It was going to have all the bells, a double serving of whistles, and bully the hell out of any Soviet tank in every respect. At least, that was the idea. The MBT-70 proved to be a very problematic beast and got stuck in development hell for the better part of a decade, and by the time it was cancelled there was very little time and even less budget to get a working tank into service, and Congress was not happy with funding another ambitious development project. The Abrams was therefore most definitely a budget option compared to the state of the art at the time, though it was designed with some inherent growth features built in for later upgrades (notably, the CITV on the M1A2 was planned for pretty much from the get-go). The US was fully willing to have an autoloader in their fancy tank, and by all accounts the autoloader on the MBT-70 worked just fine; but it was not easily adaptable to the Abrams, and there was no time or budget to mature a new one- the Abrams was almost criminally late to the field as it was! All Abrams variants prior to the M1A2 are in one way or another budget versions, and only in the A2 did the US Army really get all the features they initially wanted (plus a bunch more that had cropped up and matured in the mean time). The US has designed several vehicles with autoloaders and even type-classified quite a few, with the Stryker MGS actually seeing service. Other than memes which as far as I can tell derive from wikipedia- tier sour grapes, there's no actual evidence that the US Army does not like the idea of autoloaders, much the opposite.
  9. I'll take "things that never happened" for $500, Alex. See also: MBT-70.
  10. Ok I see it's a two-for-the-price-of-one deal. Have fun on the Carl Sagan forums. Another protip for the masses: If your only defenses are "I haven't been banned for it yet" and "it's not illegal", perhaps you should keep that to yourself.
  11. Friendly reminder that it is a really, really bad idea to deliberately antagonize moderators. We shouldn't have to point this out.
  12. And that's what we call "casus belli".
  13. Yeah I had a feeling I'd get some white knighting from you. This kind of bullshit is exactly up your alle. Back when I made the mistake of thinking this ronny person may be capable of learning I responded, but I make it a policy not to reply to zero effort posts or obvious bait. If you want to discuss overall SNRs, yours is practically negative, thanks to all the flat out wrong bullshit you post. You're also on my cleanup list btw, and as a general rule it's advised to not pick fights with mods. That doesn't tend to end well.
  14. Aight @Ronny I'm just gonna put this here so everyone can see it. Your posting is bad and you should feel bad. Your SNR is a flat 0, you post nonsense and start useless threads in which you argue inane bullshit and just in general waste people's valuable time with questions a good 5 minutes googling would answer. Your posts aren't even up to basic shitposting standards, let alone gudpoasting. Kindly meet the standard or you'll soon find yourself unable to post at all.
  15. Canister, or shrapnel if it's a time fuzed shell which ejects the balls after a short flight. Also I really appreciate this thread!
  16. The current direction on discord seems to be a Lone Free State of Texas Rooikat-equivalent, with 1930-1940 tech.
  17. You either have a very low energy and sad 120, or a more powerful 30mm. 30x113mmB is not up to the task of matching even high pressure 120mm HE rounds, thanks to being low velocity and having poor sectional density. Clutch-and-brake steering on a tank that size is... somewhat brave.
  18. But what about the big bouy and lil bouy? The people want to know!
  19. The sectioner's curse of assembling the sabot backwards strikes again!
  20. Yes. Off the centerline = measured from the centerline = arc is in total double this angle.
  21. Tread is the distance between the *centers* of the tracks, ie how far apart their centerlines are.
  22. Not available no. Also be advised that you have less than a week, time to wrap things up.
  23. The caliber absolutely is important, Especially on a laser spot homer. Laser homers home in on the center of the laser illuminator spot which as you can probably guess within 2 seconds of thinking about the problem is splashed all over the side of the target, not the roof. Hitting things like a T-72 glacis or NATO box tank NERA arrays from a steep dive does help you get through it, the size of the warhead is still important cause you're still going through a lot of armor. On IIR missiles which do actually choose their point of impact on the roof, warhead size would seem less important, and yet every single one in production has a tandem warhead arrangement of non-negligible dimensions, so the simple dismissal of caliber as irrelevant doesn't pass the smell test. Fixed wing aircraft designators are different from heli ones as they're operating from up high, and not down low where all the interference and dust is; they therefore have an easier time of things. And even then, the 40 NM range for ATFLIR is for a very new system in ideal conditions, and given with no reference target size. Spot size grows with distance, and while 50m accuracy may be enough to hit an industrial building, for example, it sure ain't good enough for a tank. Also the fact that you're ignorant of real world issues and haven't bothered to use google before coming here is a point against you, not in your favor. But seeing as you seem to need a good hard whacking with some primary sources, git rekt: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a251803.pdf The Hellfire had an average accuracy of 76% during ODS. And that was against a cooperative enemy! Laser guidance won't work through cloud cover. Here's another freebie: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434233.pdf skip ahead to chapter 2 part 2 and git larned. I'm going to stop spoonfeeding you at some point, so enjoy it while it lasts. There are indeed other threats to helis, but effective gun counterfire from literally any target is not doing the helis any favors, and time fuzed HE which reaches helis behind terrain masking is a big threat compared to LOS-limited command-guided missiles such as those AA systems fling. Ukrainian knockoff beam riders are even lower energy and sadder. Not a good idea. Also, laser illumination is like most EM "beams" not a binary "is/isn't illuminated" business, you have a lobe, and the sides of it are still enough to set off any LWR which isn't ancient. Also 0.3 sec to correct an offset of 3-5m (which is the min offset you'd need to get the target mostly out of the main lobe) is very optimistic for any ATGM. And to top it all off, that ATGM is extremely low energy and sad, being a 125mm beam rider. Get with the times, this isn't the 1960s, GLATGMs are not a good idea. No, even within that context it's still low energy and sad. And at the time it was in development the Tamuz 1 was already fielded in significant numbers, and had the RF link allowing the operator to select the target for contrast lock after launch, so no. LAHAT is sad and Tamuz is a good boy. Nice assumption there, but I haven't forgotten. Problem with infantry is that they're the squishiest thing on the battlefield, and lasing a tank while someone else far away fires a slow missile at it is a very good way to get plastered by HE from an angry tank. Squishies gonna squish, even if they have laser designators. Laser illuminators are not in any way low sig. At all. Not the kind of dive LAHAT (and indeed Laser Hellfire) perform, as they're homing in on the spot painted on the front or side of the vehicle from a ground based designator. Hell you can even see this in the LAHAT promotional material if you actually bother to look. Also, if it's that irrelevant, why do they bother with full size warheads and a precursor? Obvious answer time: because it's damned far from irrelevant. What non-Spike ATGM-sized missiles has Rafael developed recently? And how much larger, proportionally, are their warheads compared to those of the Spike family? I'd like to see a single source confirming that it ever entered service. Cause all I see is the bunchpics from when they were testing it, and it seems to never have entered service anywhere. Got any source to change my mind on this topic? Considering how the Tamuz was in service long before LAHAT was properly developed, and was a MUCH more effective missile, LAHAT would appear to be completely useless, particularly for a cost-effectiveness conscious military. You know, there's a reason LAHAT seems to have died a quiet death with nobody appearing to have actually adopted it into service.
  24. ATTENTION DUELISTS: @Toxn @LostCosmonaut @Lord_James @DIADES @Datengineerwill @Whatismoo @Kal @Zadlo @Xoon detailed below is the expected format of the final submission. The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT. Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit. FINAL SUBMISSION: Vehicle Designation and name [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here) Table of basic statistics: Parameter Value Mass, combat Length, combat (transport) Width, combat (transport) Height, combat (transport) Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal) Estimated Speed Estimated range Crew, number (roles) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view. Vehicle feature list: Mobility: 1. Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features. 3. Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features. 4. Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features. 5. Other neat features in the engine bay. 6. Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features. Survivability: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Link to Appendix 2- armor array details. 3. Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like. Firepower: A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Main Weapon- a. Type b. Caliber c. ammunition types and performance (short) d. Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features. e. FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on. f. Neat features. 3. Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise. 4. Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached. B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery. 2. Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order. C. FCS: 1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture. 2. Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system. Fightability: 1. List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability. Additonal Features: Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories. Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long. Example for filling in Appendix 1
×
×
  • Create New...