3 ms·

Meanwhile they likely have hundreds or even thousands of lbs of dead equipment in them that accumulates as they are updated over the years. At least that is wha

Meanwhile they likely have hundreds or even thousands of lbs of dead equipment in them that accumulates as they are updated over the years. At least that is what happened to the P-3. Removing things is often a lot harder than adding them unfortunately.

crooked-v 2y ago
Is that "dead equipment" as in "literally doesn't work", or is that "dead equipment" as in "nobody's used it in 35 years but one of the many edge cases involved in fighting a war will inevitably call for it"?
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  A mix. For the mechanical and hydraulic systems, it's certainly not dead though maybe underutilized or, as the mission has evolved, unnecessary. These aircraft get torn apart and rebuilt during depot maintenance every X flight hours or years. If those systems aren't working, they're fixed. They also tear out old patches and replace them with new ones, and these days (this century, really) they don't bolt on patches which creates its own problems they use adhesives and they use modeling to try and reduce the patch size to its minimum. So you don't fly around with unnecessary patches on your airframe (here I'm assuming you're at one of the competent depots, not like NG who left a plug in a fuel line and totaled the plane, fortunately it was able to land safely). But for electronic equipment and some stations and fixtures it may be deadweight or excessive weight. Electronic equipment may not get a modernization effort for decades. And depending on who wins that contract (who am I kidding, if it's one of the main five primes you're fucked) it's likely the effort will fail 2-3 times before it succeeds. Imagine flying with a radio built in 1980. Everything in it except maybe the power supply and of course the antenna can fit inside a cellphone today. That's a lot of weight that could be removed, but it's not deadweight. It's still in use. But you also find things like stations and even racks (in some of the heavies) to hold LRUs or control panels and screens that were designed back when you needed 20 LRUs to do what one can now, or a huge wiring harness that is now a keyboard, mouse, and workstation. These stations and racks don't always get cleaned out like they should and would be dead weight.
- jmward01 2y ago
  Yes and no. It is often just dead equipment. But sometimes it could still be turned on but there is no purpose for it anymore. The P-3 has been used for a -lot- of things over the years. Beyond that it is just heavy old versions of things that could easily have been lighter and required far less power. Using a 60 year old design for a replaceable part is an expensive luxury only the military can afford. If we had modernized the avionics and the main load center on that plane it probably would have save 10-15k lbs without even changing the engines or airframe.
dghlsakjg 2y ago
Slap an inop tag on it and keep moving.

crooked-v 2y ago

Is that "dead equipment" as in "literally doesn't work", or is that "dead equipment" as in "nobody's used it in 35 years but one of the many edge cases involved in fighting a war will inevitably call for it"?

Jtsummers 2y ago
A mix. For the mechanical and hydraulic systems, it's certainly not dead though maybe underutilized or, as the mission has evolved, unnecessary. These aircraft get torn apart and rebuilt during depot maintenance every X flight hours or years. If those systems aren't working, they're fixed. They also tear out old patches and replace them with new ones, and these days (this century, really) they don't bolt on patches which creates its own problems they use adhesives and they use modeling to try and reduce the patch size to its minimum. So you don't fly around with unnecessary patches on your airframe (here I'm assuming you're at one of the competent depots, not like NG who left a plug in a fuel line and totaled the plane, fortunately it was able to land safely). But for electronic equipment and some stations and fixtures it may be deadweight or excessive weight. Electronic equipment may not get a modernization effort for decades. And depending on who wins that contract (who am I kidding, if it's one of the main five primes you're fucked) it's likely the effort will fail 2-3 times before it succeeds. Imagine flying with a radio built in 1980. Everything in it except maybe the power supply and of course the antenna can fit inside a cellphone today. That's a lot of weight that could be removed, but it's not deadweight. It's still in use. But you also find things like stations and even racks (in some of the heavies) to hold LRUs or control panels and screens that were designed back when you needed 20 LRUs to do what one can now, or a huge wiring harness that is now a keyboard, mouse, and workstation. These stations and racks don't always get cleaned out like they should and would be dead weight.
jmward01 2y ago
Yes and no. It is often just dead equipment. But sometimes it could still be turned on but there is no purpose for it anymore. The P-3 has been used for a -lot- of things over the years. Beyond that it is just heavy old versions of things that could easily have been lighter and required far less power. Using a 60 year old design for a replaceable part is an expensive luxury only the military can afford. If we had modernized the avionics and the main load center on that plane it probably would have save 10-15k lbs without even changing the engines or airframe.

dghlsakjg 2y ago

Slap an inop tag on it and keep moving.