What do you think of the 20 billion dollar blunder?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20071020/us_time/givingtheospreymorefirepower
2007-10-20 04:15:00 · 9 answers · asked by graciouswolfe 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
and "D", too bad you were in such a hurry to act like the a** that you apparently are, to even bother reading what our own Generals think of this machine
2007-10-20 04:23:11 · update #1
obviously, aswkingfish, doesn't want to be informed.......he has his own misguided loyoalties
2007-10-20 09:29:16 · update #2
obviously, aswkingfish, doesn't want to be informed.......he has his own misguided loyalties
2007-10-20 09:29:49 · update #3
Follows in the lines of the "Sergeant York" debacle and a few other that never really were thought all the way through:
The M247 Sergeant York D.I.V.A.D. (Division Air Defense) was a self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon. It was intended to replace the M163 Vulcan Air Defense System and fight alongside the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley fighting vehicles. It was similar in concept to successful Soviet and European tracked systems such as the ZSU-23-4. However, despite the use of many off the shelf technologies, a series of technical problems with the system and cost overruns caused the cancellation of the project.
Based on the chassis of the M48 Patton tank, the main armament of the M247 was a twin 40 mm Bofors anti-aircraft gun. The radar and fire control system were built around a modified version of the Westinghouse APG-66 system used in the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
The first vehicles were delivered in late 1983; however, there were a large number of persistent problems with the system:
* The radar could not track low flying targets due to excessive ground clutter.
* The radar could not distinguish a hovering helicopter from a clump of trees.
* When tracking high flying targets, the radar return from the gun barrel tips confused the fire control system.
* Turret traverse was too slow to track a fast crossing target.
* The electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) suite could be defeated by only minor jamming.
* The system proved to be unable to hit even hovering drone targets.
* The 30 year old M48 chassis meant the vehicle had trouble keeping pace with the newer M1 Abrams and Bradley vehicles.
These problems proved insurmountable and in December 1986, the program was canceled after about 50 vehicles had been produced. Most of these ended up as targets on air force bombing ranges.
2007-10-20 05:02:23 · answer #1 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
True it has been an expensive development so far but the aircraft is new technology and therefore is hard to get up and running. There are always bugs to sort out with any new thing fielded by the military (or by anything else, would GM sell many cars if they brought one out and said "ït's perfect, there is nothing that can be done to improve it."?) Frighteningly, 20 billion over 25 years is not all that much money in the defense budget scheme of things.
2007-10-20 13:28:35 · answer #2 · answered by togetheradecade 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You obviously are ill informed as this is not a military blunder. The story you refer to is a reporter opinion and not backed by true facts. The true facts he does mention but hides the full truth about them. Yes this plane had problems and deaths involved with it's development. The machine is a very complicated one far unlike building just an airplane, or just a helicopter. Now ask yourself this. If the machine was a mistake, why is not only the Marines flying them, but the Air Force and Navy? Look for the Army to get them next.
2007-10-20 11:33:01 · answer #3 · answered by aswkingfish 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I see them fly every day, but I don't know much about them. I do know that they will not fly alone. They will always have a cobra escort when landing troops in a hot lz. That is pretty damn good cover for it.
2007-10-20 14:02:48 · answer #4 · answered by guns155mm 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would only be suprised if our military spent 20 BILLION dollars and it worked!
2007-10-20 13:51:22 · answer #5 · answered by Mark K 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about? Have you seen these things in flight? These things are pretty bad ***. The mobility of a helicopter, with the speeds of an airplane; I think that'll come in handy.
2007-10-20 11:20:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well I still get my 20 thousand dollar bonus so I guess Im cool with it. lol
2007-10-20 11:29:25 · answer #7 · answered by Cody B 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It is a bit of a boondoggle. I wouldnt want to fly in it. Good idea but not ready for prime time yet. welcome to politics...
2007-10-20 12:04:27 · answer #8 · answered by Bob D 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well it survived for so long so somebody must have seen potential in it.
2007-10-20 11:22:00 · answer #9 · answered by Airbound Gabe 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋