|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
The whole idea of scrapping the tanks did NOT come from official sources. Was NEVER official policy, or even being seriously considered.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Logistics 101: If you fly, then every so many hours OF FLIGHT you WILL NEED to do certain types of maintenance. There are 100-hour, 250-hour, 500-hour, 1000-hour, 5000-hour, and 10,000-hour maintenance procedures that you MUST perform to keep the aircraft flying. Different aircraft will have different maintenance cycles and fixed-wing CAS planes tend to have longer times between maintenance. This means they can fly longer between mandated maintenance and that they cost less to fly per FLIGHT HOUR. A FLIGHT HOUR is a cost to fly a plane per hour that integrates the maintenance cost in with the fuel cost per hour to come up with the FLIGHT HOUR COST. An OV-10 Bronco costs $1,000 to $2,000 per Flight Hour based on electronics installed (a big maintenance cost). An F16A (block 10) costs $10,000 per flight hour while a block 40 F16C can cost $30K per flight hour. An F15 can cost more than $60K per Flight Hour. A typical rotary-wing Apache can cost north of $40K per Flight Hour and require a disproportionately greater amount of time in maintenance than even a Jet (a failing of ALL helos). In addition, due to the time some of these maintenance regimes take, your availability for aircraft can be less than 50% flightworthy. Combine this with refuel and rearm times and a country with 150 helos might have only 40 or 50 available for missions at any given time. By comparison, most vehicle maintenance on even the most sophisticated ground vehicle will only climb into the HUNDREDS of dollars per operational hour and can exceed a 90% availability rate. Even when you factor in refuel and rearming times, at least HALF of a vehicle fleet will be available for operations at any given moment. Contrary to what the airpower boys want to believe, armor will ALWAYS trump airpower for cost-of-operation and operational unit availability. The age of the equipment also adversely affects aircraft more than ground vehicles. Tanks are simply more economical that either Helos or Aircraft. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Swaghauler!
Amen brother. One of the reasons the A-10 is sticking around is because when all the whiz bang toys are grounded waiting on parts, you can usually just kick the tires check the fluids and your ready to fly. An oversimplification to be sure, but more than a grain of truth in that. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Fixed wing aircraft simply have less moving parts than rotary. It's just logic that they require less maintenance time and effort.
Ground vehicles have the added advantage of not needing to fight gravity. If something fails, you don't have multimillion dollar machines falling rapidly earthward to smash into a million very expensive bits. A ground vehicle can often still be function and add at least something to the battle, while putting a less than perfectly maintained aircraft into the fray is quite likely to result in the complete loss of the machine and crew - if it's even able to get off the ground and into the battle in the first place. That said, adding a third dimension to the battle is ALWAYS a good thing, but it comes at a cost.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sooner or later the MOD has to realise the Chally 2 needs to be scrapped (I'd say the same about the Tornados). They can not compete against modern armour and ATGM systems and we just can not afford to upgrade them. In a conflict that doesn't involve third world enemies using kit that would of been seen on a 1970's battlefield, the Chally will be slaughtered. This leaves 3 options: 1) Buy a better tank from NATO allies such as the Leo 2) Build a better tank using modern tech and lessons learned 3) Scrap tanks entirely and go for other solutions. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
If the Challenger 2 had been continuously upgraded like the Leo 2, it would be on par. They Leo 2 is an older design than the Chally 2 so it serves as a good example of how the base design can be kept effective.
I would have included a 4th option for your list - upgrade the Challenger 2 to levels comparable with the Leo 2 |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|