Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

XhaxhiEnver

Scrublord
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About XhaxhiEnver

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  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.
×
×
  • Create New...