Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 922 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
Yeah, that a great one. US Army to congress - and it can run on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene.

US Army to Ukraine - it needs special jet fuel.
The whole bluster about the Abrams just makes it sound like a terrible vehicle, the engineers incompetent, and the army are fools for commissioning it.

The centerpiece of the armored land forces is a glorified base queen that constantly breaks, is picky on fuel and ammo, and is difficult to repair?
Does General Dynamics print that in the brochure?

I'm sure half is true, and half is BS, but WTF.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
A regular US army brigade has about 80-90 main battle tanks. If Ukraine had a mix of around 80-100 modern Main Battle Tanks along with the Infantry fighting vehicles that would allow them to well equip one brigade with this equipment which isn't bad. In suitable ground the Abrams and Leopards should make short work for any Russian T-series tanks. Maybe have supporting Ukraine T-series tanks to go in close and flush out the Russia tanks while the western tanks hang back and support and use their long range capabilities to pick off the Russian tanks.
Was wondering, thanks for explaining?

Had anyone seen any credible estimates of what a full compliment should be to get the job done? What's the number we should be targeting?
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
Sheesh, politics is complicated. Erdogan uses Islamic fundamentalist fervour exactly the same way that the Western far-right and Putin use Christian fanaticism. They're pretty much the same creatures, all of them are fascist (and all of them are supported by a good proportion of the plutocrat class - cf the Murdoch press's past sympathetic treatment of Erdogan - the only "Islamists" they ever had a good word to say about).

Just slightly different flavours of fascism - yet they can make use of the fact that their respective followers hate each other to manipulate them all the more effectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave_5k and RnR_au

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
3,997
2,387
146
The whole bluster about the Abrams just makes it sound like a terrible vehicle, the engineers incompetent, and the army are fools for commissioning it.

The centerpiece of the armored land forces is a glorified base queen that constantly breaks, is picky on fuel and ammo, and is difficult to repair?
Does General Dynamics print that in the brochure?

I'm sure half is true, and half is BS, but WTF.
Abrams is kind of a race car if you were to map it over. The US Army doesn’t like to fight fair, they like to have as much technical edge as possible regardless of cost. Not all that dissimilar to the capabilities the Navy and Air Force also like to have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,738
7,872
136
The whole bluster about the Abrams just makes it sound like a terrible vehicle, the engineers incompetent, and the army are fools for commissioning it.

The centerpiece of the armored land forces is a glorified base queen that constantly breaks, is picky on fuel and ammo, and is difficult to repair?
Does General Dynamics print that in the brochure?

I'm sure half is true, and half is BS, but WTF.
Let me tell you about the F-22... Or B-2.

We can operate equipment that is a logistics hog because we've got the logistics. The equipment can be expensive and picky and still kick ass.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
Let me tell you about the F-22... Or B-2.

We can operate equipment that is a logistics hog because we've got the logistics. The equipment can be expensive and picky and still kick ass.
That's probably true. Furthermore the US has always made a special effort with logistics because the facts of geography means it's always had to. Other countries can just trundle their equipment out of the factory gates and the war is right there, the US usually has to ship vast amounts of stuff overseas if it wants to join in a war.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,550
5,063
136
Let me tell you about the F-22... Or B-2.

We can operate equipment that is a logistics hog because we've got the logistics. The equipment can be expensive and picky and still kick ass.
Yep, actually kinda feel like a lot of the equipment is like that.

When they were discussing the Patriot missile systems, it was shocking the number of support personnel and systems that were required for just one battery.
 
Dec 10, 2005
22,361
4,670
136
We don't make dive bombers anymore, because the concept is dated.

With the rise of precision guided munitions, and the challenges of having to operate in contested air space or over areas with lots of portable air defense, having planes like the A-10 starts to become a substantial operating liability.

They work great when working in uncontested spaces fighting against people with pick-up trucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pauldun170

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
30,238
7,638
136
Let me tell you about the F-22... Or B-2.

We can operate equipment that is a logistics hog because we've got the logistics. The equipment can be expensive and picky and still kick ass.
i just watched a quick youtube clip on the B2 and the quoted maintenance rate was something like 130hrs per flight hour :eek:
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
10,977
4,298
136
We don't make dive bombers anymore, because the concept is dated.

With the rise of precision guided munitions, and the challenges of having to operate in contested air space or over areas with lots of portable air defense, having planes like the A-10 starts to become a substantial operating liability.

They work great when working in uncontested spaces fighting against people with pick-up trucks.
Then why deny them from Uk? That is the debate, not if they're worthy fighting planes...they are indeed.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
10,977
4,298
136
Abrams is kind of a race car if you were to map it over. The US Army doesn’t like to fight fair, they like to have as much technical edge as possible regardless of cost. Not all that dissimilar to the capabilities the Navy and Air Force also like to have.
And that's a bad thing? LOL
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
20,654
10,306
136
You misunderstand. Paludan was influenced by a Swedish journalist with heavy Russian links;


Erdogan is just taking advantage of the situation.
Oooooooooohhh. Russian psyops influencing campaign. No bigger useful idiot than Paludan, thats for sure. Someone should have a talk with this journalist and persuade him to get asylum on the Russian conscript front.
 
  • Love
Reactions: RnR_au

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,942
5,794
136
That's probably true. Furthermore the US has always made a special effort with logistics because the facts of geography means it's always had to. Other countries can just trundle their equipment out of the factory gates and the war is right there, the US usually has to ship vast amounts of stuff overseas if it wants to join in a war.
Or start one. ;)

But, yeah, we are unparalled in the world for our long range lift and supply capability. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor GB or France or anyone else can do what we can do. Remember GB having to use a civilian liner to get their troops to the Falklands?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
20,654
10,306
136
Or start one. ;)

But, yeah, we are unparalled in the world for our long range lift and supply capability. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor GB or France or anyone else can do what we can do. Remember GB having to use a civilian liner to get their troops to the Falklands?
Was it on here I read that the B-52 had its service contract extended so that it basically will have had a 100 year service window when it finally comes to a close?
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
9,601
4,377
136
Was it on here I read that the B-52 had its service contract extended so that it basically will have had a 100 year service window when it finally comes to a close?
Not sure where you heard it from, but the sentiment is true. They're projected to be in use through at least the 2050s as of right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,738
7,872
136
i just watched a quick youtube clip on the B2 and the quoted maintenance rate was something like 130hrs per flight hour :eek:
Yeah they are hangar queens (low flight hours) and very hard to work on anything to do with the outside.

As with all numbers like that you have to realize that's a fully burdened number, where the majority is fixed not variable. The aircraft will go through depot at set calendar times, so regardless of the number of flight hours it'll go get 50,000+ hours of mx done to it on that fixed interval.

Basically the more you fly, the cheaper it is per flight hour. This is how airlines are in ~4-5 mx hour per flight hour range while the DOD is always in the 40+ range.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon and Ajay

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,738
7,872
136
Was it on here I read that the B-52 had its service contract extended so that it basically will have had a 100 year service window when it finally comes to a close?
The current economic life numbers of the B-52 are into the mid 2050s, which would put the airframe at more than 100 and the youngest aircraft at about 93. The number is heavily influenced by usage amount, type of usage, and base location.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: pmv and cytg111

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
4,581
584
126
Or start one. ;)

But, yeah, we are unparalled in the world for our long range lift and supply capability. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor GB or France or anyone else can do what we can do. Remember GB having to use a civilian liner to get their troops to the Falklands?
Well don't laugh but decades ago, using civilian liners to move troops about was fairly common. The SS United States was largely funded by the US government so it could act as a troopship carrier in times of need. However now we just use civilian airliners to move troops around as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104583/civil-reserve-air-fleet/
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
42,348
24,259
136
Well don't laugh but decades ago, using civilian liners to move troops about was fairly common. The SS United States was largely funded by the US government so it could act as a troopship carrier in times of need. However now we just use civilian airliners to move troops around as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104583/civil-reserve-air-fleet/
Yeah Sealift Command still has to charter lots of civilian vessels if there is going to be a major thing an ocean away that requires a large deployment of ground equipment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

ASK THE COMMUNITY