Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

XhaxhiEnver

Scrublord
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by XhaxhiEnver

  1. The cost of a series production, is calculated on procurement prices. Unless you pay for them prior and use a layered contract. Which them would indeed make no difference. The US did not. It paid for tranches through yearly procurement programs. This meant that the inflation would affect both orders YoY and cost YoY. Furthermore Inflation doesn't do wonders. It is predictable post-hoc. So basically you can retrace how much the Inflation affected the unit price. This is simply not true. Ammo, fuel, spares do not go in the unit procurement. They are procured s
  2. ... Wow, is this an elaborate joke? Those are procurement numbers. It's how much money is being procured to produce n-many tanks. As it stands the First run of only 4800 tanks used the equivalent FY72 budget of 4.2 billion. Only by 1982 the US armed forces were still busy pretending they were paying 600K FY82 USD for 7000 tanks. It's on your own quotes of my own materials. 8K tanks built in what timespan and what cost? This is rather ironical that you are simply counting the numbers built, but in the mean time you are not giving the procurement details for those numbers? How come.
  3. The Program is advertized as costing 1.5 trillion over its lifespan. To me this is conducive of an already accepted reality, and this is cost that is expected to be spent in 55 years. Then let's calculate. 1.5 trillion USD/2500 planes = 600 million per plane. Let's say that the average hardware price is 100 million then the flying costs are 500 million per 55 years. Or a bit over 9 million/year per plane. With the current 30K/hour that means 300hours a year. That means that this plane is not exactly cost factored for much action. When you know that active
  4. This makes me laugh. Mostly because you are jumping the shark. Be patient.
  5. The 595K (FY72) was factored for 7000+ tanks produced within the program time-span. But This was again hypothetical and a highly creative and controversial tactic to HIDE the real cost. It cannot have been for the unit. Why? Because we have procurement numbers. From 1979 to 1987 11.25 Billion USD have been spent on the M1 procurement program. For a total of under 4800 tanks. 7000+ tanks at 600K that's 4.2 billion on 1982's cash. The unit rate went down thanks to some tricks that the US DOD did (like procurement deferrals, paying tanks with funds appropriated for other
  6. I have never said the contrary. My whole point was to deny that the "Abrams" was a cost conservative program. It was a different program that had to adress issues with then "current threats" and "shortcomings". That means, the M1 was tank that would fall in line with the M60. It wasn't supposed to replace or one-up the MBT-70/XM-803. Those two programs were still going to get used as templates (the GM XM-1 used large component design from the XM-803 and tried to adapt them for the wholly different approach required fr the XM-1). However the comparison, was made by both
  7. Oh boy. Even with Inflation at 300% the cost would have been roughly 1.6 million. It wasn't. With real inflation the cost should have been about 1.2 million, it was almost twice that. If you had read the actual "Lessons Learned" source you would have seen that the Cost factoring in constant FY72 Dollars had jumped from 507K for 3000+ tanks to 595K (always in FY72 Dollars) for...7000+ units (which meant that the initial unit price in Constant dollars factored for the budget was TWICE the 507K FY72; The Extras are factored in at 440K/unit. However that's c
  8. The Chrysler Abrams was a "clean sheet" tank when it came to the core. The one that you're looking for, was the GM X-1 that kept elements of the MBT-70/XM803 program. That one was declined. Now again this "don't you belive me, read Hunnicutt" non-sense. Why would I read Hunnicutt when I can read the damn source. Let's start. " In 1963, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany (GE) entered into an agreement for the joint development of a main battle tank (the MBT-70). This new tank was envisioned to be a highly mobile, heavi
  9. I don't know what all this has to do with "penny pinching". Penny pinching can regard the T-80's details(T-80U's pintle mounts for the Utyos is penny pinching), but producing a tank that costs 6 times the price of the M60 in its mission capable form, is not. Take the dozer blade cost that started as a simple sub 15K equipment piece and ended up costing upwards 70K. These are cost elements on the M1 that simply reflect a cost overshot because of how the XM-1 was created. That wasn't out of penny pinching but due to the US government letting the development entirely on the contractor.
  10. First, the M60 had no Thermal sight designed until 1977. Then it was fielded starting 1978. That was the M60A3 (TTS). This goes against everything that has been said, under oath, about the TTS vs the Hughues. Capabilities of both systems were equivalent (with a higher margin for the Hughues) this coupled with a digital computer, Yag laser and the initial CRT display (vs fishbowl) just made the Hughues the better sight. Shall I post Congressional hearings now?
  11. I want to reply to this, but the condescending tone is a bone breaker. I hope you are being facetious. 30/40% of the cost was the engine and transmission. However the intial cost bracket per unit was calculated as a little more than 500K USD. Even in constant USD, the price implosion was above the inflation rate (120%) at over 2.1 million USD. And that wasn't a Mission capable unit. Thermal sights and FCS cost almost as much as a the initial M60.
  12. He should have been more thorough. The refusal to mount an auto-loader to an actual service vehicle (MBT other tans) was backed by the idea that AL's would increase the complexity of the tank and malfunction at some point. This is not "moving the goalposts", it's why the US is still fielding a 4-men crew tank. There will be exceptions that will simply confirm this viewpoint. For anyone pointing the Stryker MGS... that's quite the resounding success.
  13. Mix of ordnance, few PG, most are bombs. The SVP-24 is showing its accuracy (not to shabby for a glorified ballistic calculator).
  14. It isn't about "sanction relief". It is about the P3 holding its part of the bargain, which they(UK/France/Germany) claim is possible. While in reality, on this issue, Europe is showing to be beyond powerless and in the case of the UK complicit to further deteriorating the situation for Iran. The tanker situation has nothing to do with the JCPOA though. It is an IRGC classic. This is just to show they mean business. Tit for Tat. Grace 1 was detained for its alleged future violation of the Syrian Sanctions, not the JCPOA. It's one of the very convoluted and borderline/illegal
  15. The weight of the missile is similar. The Fagot and Faktoria are at 12kg. The 77A variant is 10.7kg. Metis at 6.5 kg. You understand that the Mulat 115 is 5kg. Half the weight of the TAS-5. You also understand that the Metis was introduced 3 years after the Dragon was introduced and that the TAS-5 FAR WORSE than the Mulat. You do also understand that if you wanted to stabilize the launcher you had to ad a 17 kg tripod (M175 Lafett) which meant that the damn thing was as heavy as the Fagot...while having a third of the EFR (and I'm being generous).
  16. Missile Mass RTF. The M47 is about 11kg. It has a 1000m EFR with an official first hit probability or .8 and MV of about 112m/s. M77 is from 13 to 15 kg and its EFR is 1500m while the MV is a whooping 130m/s. Ironically a good chunk of 9P135's weight is the casing and the metal tripod (tripod being 4kg). The whole system for the M47 is 15.5 kg (with the SU36). If you want to operate by night then we get into fun territory. The TAS-5 adds another 10 KG. In layman's terms both missiles will expose their operators for 10 seconds at maximum range. While the rest of
  17. Actually both the M47 and M77. While the M47 real counterpart was the Metis, the weight of the system put it right on Fagot/Faktoria territory. The M77 on the other part, from A to D is firmly into Konkurs territory (from 13 to 15 kg) was still limited to 1500m EFR. When the 77D was introduced, the Soviets had already desiged the basis of what would become the Kornet.
  18. I just explained you that the graphic scaling is wrong. It gives a .3m in height and a whole meter in length over the real world specs.
  19. The 2.3m is based on the scale model provided. As said. The scale model makes it look larger and higher than it actually is.
  20. The graphic I provided had one issue. It tried to convey the general gun mount geometry. As such it was wrong even though the idea was sound. The actual size comparisons were not that much off. 1.88 is correct. For the 120mm M1A1. For the M1 initial prod or IP the height should be around 1.75m. So...we have a 10+cm discrepancy on that aspect alone. In order for the Armata to have a 2.1 m 0deg. The vehicle should be roughly 2.6. Roughly. On your image it is 2.94m tall. I redid my calculus on a 7cm conversion (5mm wheel) which gives a full 9.8m hull. I think that the blue prin
  21. Illustrate what? You took out a M1A1 tank, replaced it with a M1 but forgot a couple of things. First if your M1 is aiming at 0deg at 1,88m. Second the short turret you provided (because why not try that) and the badly drawn TCIV on the T-14 ( it’s 70cm tall) means that the Armata roof sits at 2,6m (Abrams at 2,37/2,44 depending the source) and aims at 0 deg at 2.3m ; this impossible as pictures have shown T-14 guns aimed at 0 deg slightly over servicemen’s head. Then the wheel spacing. The Real life Armata has the five rear wheels separated by the distance of one track
×
×
  • Create New...