General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#2 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
As for UAVs, hear hear, this is something I've also been banging on about for years and years. It's amazing that the so-called military experts have only just figured out these sorts of needs.
Or at least, it's not, military bureaucracy is appalling these days - at least from a UK MOD POV. Decision making to implementation is glacial. When that decision has finally trickled down, it's usually out of date as military needs have moved on, usually resulting in a massive waste of money. For example, this decision about UAVs, why is it going to take 3 years to increase an existing tech by 10 machines when the tech is needed NOW? It's like the UK need for helicopters, again for some reason it's going to take years just to get the helicopters the morons who make the decisions forgot to make sure we had enough of in the first place! How long does it take to build a helicopter these days FFS!? Personally, IMO, the best decision we could make militarily is cut out about 90% of the bureaucratic cancer of the stuffed suits who do nothing but **** things up anyway, give them each a gun and some ammo, and send them human wave style at the Taliban positions! ![]() Anyway, UAVs! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
For example, this decision about UAVs, why is it going to take 3 years to increase an existing tech by 10 machines when the tech is needed NOW? It's like the UK need for helicopters, again for some reason it's going to take years just to get the helicopters the morons who make the decisions forgot to make sure we had enough of in the first place! How long does it take to build a helicopter these days FFS!? 1.) If I had to guess it is about a year, and of course the production line has a capacity.
2.) It sounded like they said OVER a theater by 10, which means increasing available assets so that there is the ability to have ten more in the air at any one time. That means far more than ten in total as you will always have some being used for training or down for maintinence of whatever. Adding 10-20 airfames the size of a Predator in three years from a brand new requirment on top of a what was already being procured is actually very fast by any standard. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
What are you on about, junior? You should have learned this in second grade when the teacher explained that 9/10 of an iceberg is underwater. |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
The Arctic ice is floating in water. A floating object displaces its weight in water. When ice floating in water melts, it adds its weight to the total mass of water, and the water level remains unchanged. Now why don't you go chase Modius on a freeway. Your disengenuous hectoring is boring. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
1.) If I had to guess it is about a year, and of course the production line has a capacity. 2.) It sounded like they said OVER a theater by 10, which means increasing available assets so that there is the ability to have ten more in the air at any one time. That means far more than ten in total as you will always have some being used for training or down for maintinence of whatever. Ah, OK, that makes sense. I was thinking of just the extra 10 without factoring in those extra numbers. Adding 10-20 airfames the size of a Predator in three years from a brand new requirment on top of a what was already being procured is actually very fast by any standard. I still have a problem with this. You're talking about manufacturing 3-7 machines extra per year - that still seems incredibly slow IMO for a tech that saves US lives during a sort of quasi war footing! I know it's not a WWII production line, and that these are advanced bits of kit, but this seems more akin to a cottage industry... Which is my point really. They've had 8 years to realise what a ****ing good idea UAVs are and yet they're still ordering them on a practically individual basis! ![]() |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|