3 ms·

We manufacture arms, ordinance , and aerospace craft pretty well. Also Toyota cars, believe it or not?

chordalkeyboard 4y ago
https://theaviationist.com/2022/10/05/south-koreas-f-35as-grounded-by-malfunctions-172-times-over-18-months/ https://theaviationist.com/2022/10/05/south-koreas-f-35as-gr... https://news.usni.org/2021/01/19/navy-calls-freedom-lcs-propulsion-problem-class-wide-defect-wont-take-new-ships-until-fixed https://news.usni.org/2021/01/19/navy-calls-freedom-lcs-prop... https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-navy/2020/08/21/watchdog-75-percent-of-sub-and-aircraft-carrier-maintenance-ended-late-in-recent-years/ https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-navy/2020/08/21/watchd... Not very well anymore, we can't even keep the old stuff operational, let alone make new stuff that works.
- tb_technical 4y ago
  The first point about the f35 is controversial for a variety of reasons - look up the reformers. They're still around today, and they still criticize the f35s metrics in all the ways they don't matter. Secondly, the vast majority of strike craft aren't ready for war in peacetime. This might be seen as a remarkable problem with the f35, if it didn't apply to many other strike craft the air force operate. Second point was a known flaw with a long history that was overlooked, because, frankly, the LCS is a jobs program. But here's some of the history of the problem: when the LCS program was started, the demonstrators had appropriately sized combining gears - although it was likely the company underbid a bit to get on the contract. Mid-construction of future vessels the company that provided these combining gears was bought by another company. They updated their leadtime to three years per unit (each ship needs two) and were thusly booted from the contract. The next best size combining gear (from another supplier) wasn't good enough. And now you know the history. On top of all this, the companies building these ships are now flushing the oil and remachining the combining gears to be more durable - so they're fixing this problem. Third point, this is a point on maintenance of some super large ships - which is both difficult and can only be carried out at ONE shipyard in the whole USA for the two newest carrier classes (Newport News). A slipping of the maintenance schedule would be natural with a full work schedule - and they have their hands full building the new Ford class supercarriers. You've selected three problems on complex systems in a country that makes hundreds of different defense products. I think my point still stands.
  - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
    > Secondly, the vast majority of strike craft aren't ready for war in peacetime. If you can't maintain your aircraft in peacetime, what do you think will happen when you go to war? Aircraft become more difficult to repair because the op tempo increases and lower echelon maintenance must be performed in theater. There is a thing called 'readiness' and you're attempting to normalize the lack of it. > Second point was a known flaw with a long history that was overlooked, Yeah it doesn't look good for the defense industry when they knowingly build stuff that is overpriced and doesn't work as a 'jobs program.' > Third point, this is a point on maintenance of some super large ships - which is both difficult and can only be carried out at ONE shipyard in the whole USA for the two newest carrier classes (Newport News). Sounds like my point still stands, we can't build new technology that works and we can't keep the old stuff going because of a lack of defense industry capability. > You've selected three problems on complex systems in a country that makes hundreds of different defense products. I think my point still stands. This might work to persuade some bureaucrats but when you go to war, the enemy doesn't care about why you can't keep your war machine functional, they just like it that you can't (because they get to win). These are just high profile instances of a general malaise. There are dozens of examples we could discuss.

https://theaviationist.com/2022/10/05/south-koreas-f-35as-grounded-by-malfunctions-172-times-over-18-months/ https://theaviationist.com/2022/10/05/south-koreas-f-35as-gr... https://news.usni.org/2021/01/19/navy-calls-freedom-lcs-propulsion-problem-class-wide-defect-wont-take-new-ships-until-fixed https://news.usni.org/2021/01/19/navy-calls-freedom-lcs-prop... https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-navy/2020/08/21/watchdog-75-percent-of-sub-and-aircraft-carrier-maintenance-ended-late-in-recent-years/ https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-navy/2020/08/21/watchd... Not very well anymore, we can't even keep the old stuff operational, let alone make new stuff that works.

tb_technical 4y ago
The first point about the f35 is controversial for a variety of reasons - look up the reformers. They're still around today, and they still criticize the f35s metrics in all the ways they don't matter. Secondly, the vast majority of strike craft aren't ready for war in peacetime. This might be seen as a remarkable problem with the f35, if it didn't apply to many other strike craft the air force operate. Second point was a known flaw with a long history that was overlooked, because, frankly, the LCS is a jobs program. But here's some of the history of the problem: when the LCS program was started, the demonstrators had appropriately sized combining gears - although it was likely the company underbid a bit to get on the contract. Mid-construction of future vessels the company that provided these combining gears was bought by another company. They updated their leadtime to three years per unit (each ship needs two) and were thusly booted from the contract. The next best size combining gear (from another supplier) wasn't good enough. And now you know the history. On top of all this, the companies building these ships are now flushing the oil and remachining the combining gears to be more durable - so they're fixing this problem. Third point, this is a point on maintenance of some super large ships - which is both difficult and can only be carried out at ONE shipyard in the whole USA for the two newest carrier classes (Newport News). A slipping of the maintenance schedule would be natural with a full work schedule - and they have their hands full building the new Ford class supercarriers. You've selected three problems on complex systems in a country that makes hundreds of different defense products. I think my point still stands.
- chordalkeyboard 4y ago
  > Secondly, the vast majority of strike craft aren't ready for war in peacetime. If you can't maintain your aircraft in peacetime, what do you think will happen when you go to war? Aircraft become more difficult to repair because the op tempo increases and lower echelon maintenance must be performed in theater. There is a thing called 'readiness' and you're attempting to normalize the lack of it. > Second point was a known flaw with a long history that was overlooked, Yeah it doesn't look good for the defense industry when they knowingly build stuff that is overpriced and doesn't work as a 'jobs program.' > Third point, this is a point on maintenance of some super large ships - which is both difficult and can only be carried out at ONE shipyard in the whole USA for the two newest carrier classes (Newport News). Sounds like my point still stands, we can't build new technology that works and we can't keep the old stuff going because of a lack of defense industry capability. > You've selected three problems on complex systems in a country that makes hundreds of different defense products. I think my point still stands. This might work to persuade some bureaucrats but when you go to war, the enemy doesn't care about why you can't keep your war machine functional, they just like it that you can't (because they get to win). These are just high profile instances of a general malaise. There are dozens of examples we could discuss.