Got to have more Tanks

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Jcleppe, Apr 29, 2013.

  1. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
  2. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    35
    Thanks, but no tanks!

    Why would we think than anything congress micromanages would turn out well?
     
  3. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    That would have been a much better heading for this thread.
     
  4. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    The congressmen evidently think of it as a jobs program and not a defense program.
     
  5. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    No, Really, they said it's for our National Defense.

    I loved the answer the General gave when he was asked during a Congressional Hearing what would happen if the Army all of a sudden needed more Tanks.

    His answer:

    "We'll just get then from the 3800 we have sitting in the Arizona Desert." I'm sure they would need a wash and wax first but still, that would have to be cheaper.
     
  6. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    212
    Just wondering, not to defend it. Is it a question of keeping the plant open so that the infrastructure/factory would be in place for the next generation of tanks to built in 2017. I would think it would be cheaper to start over.
     
  7. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    Not being an expert on Tank manufacturing, I would imagine the plant would still operate for the purpose of repairing the current tanks the Army already has. Since these new tanks are not the new generation I would assume they have not re-tooled yet. This would mean they could just re-tool prior to the start of manufacturing the new generation tank when the time comes.

    Again, just a guess on my part.
     
  8. GoArmyBeatNavy

    GoArmyBeatNavy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    668
    Likes Received:
    8
    America's tank depository

    Zoom in. Command maintenance must be difficult.
     
  9. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    212

    That is a lot of tanks. The surrounding area looks exciting. Must be a real sought after duty station!
     
  10. GoArmyBeatNavy

    GoArmyBeatNavy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    668
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ha! That is what I was thinking when I saw their website. They must spend a lot of time in Reno.

    http://www.sierra.army.mil/Public/
     
  11. Bullet

    Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    99
    Allow me to provide some insight, based on my experience with program oversight.

    First, manufacturing a piece of equipment is done by a Primary Contractor in their own production facilities, while depot level maintenance is usually done by the service at one of their own depots. So, No, they plant would not stay open if production is discontinued. This is simply a "jobs program" move by Congress, especially the Congressmen from the district / state the plant is in. Unfortunately, this means the money the Army wanted to use elsewhere on other things is now directed by Congress to be used on making unwanted tanks. It happens, all the time.

    However, once production is complete, the primary contractor usually shifts production towards something else. The tooling used is usually just scrapped, unless the military pays to store it (which also is very expensive). And remaking that tooling to continue production later, or tooling for something new, is also hugely expensive; lust look at the cost a car manufacturer faces when they start a new car line. We're talking BILLIONS.

    I do applaud the individual Congressmen for looking out for their constituents. But it amazes me that there isn't some check / balance in place that prevents the interest of the very few from overtaking the interests of the very many. Part of the "you vote for my pet project and I'll vote for your's" mentality in Congress, and it ends up costing the Nation....
     
  12. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    Not likely,

    Why do we ned a new generation of tanks? My humble opinion, we currently have best military hardwares in the world and our enemies don't have something better than us. Tank is killing other tanks or act as a mobile fire power platform. If we are talking about operating in counter insurgency enviornemnt against IED/RPGs, MRAP type vehicle is better than M1 tanks. A simple question from me is what is the threat that the next generation of tanks supposed to counter?

    As a nation we don't have capabilities to suddenly ramp up military production in large scale like we did back in WW II. I think Rumsfeld was misunderstood when he said something along the line of we fight with what we have. Back in late 90's, I deployed for a training exercise OCONUS for three months. One big equipment broke down. We couldn't get a replacement part to fix it as the only company that manufactured it went out of business.
     
  13. GoArmyBeatNavy

    GoArmyBeatNavy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    668
    Likes Received:
    8

    Some view the Russian T-90 as a better tank the the M1A2SEP. I don't know enough about the T-90 to agree or not, but other nations are still developing armored systems. We have started working on the M1A3 which should provide a lighter platform with similar firepower. When you decrease weight you usually decrease protection though. Does this mean that we should keep producing M1A2s? I have to go with the Chief and say no, not when we are cutting training at maneuver units to squads and below only.

    While the MRAP is a great vehicle, I would still rather be in a tank if facing known IED/RPG threats. The TUSK system added a shaped hull to the Abrams reducing the "deep buried" IED threat. Any IED that can get through Abrams side armor would decimate an MRAP.

    No platoon should conduct urban operations without a dismounted infantry capability, so the Tank has a severe limitation as dismounting from it is difficult and there are only four people in a tank. The MRAP does carry more people so that is a plus. We would use Tank/MRAP and Bradley/MRAP patrol composition in some of the more kinetic patrols.
     
  14. Aglahad

    Aglahad Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    5
    Why the M1A2 had been king of the tanks for a while I wouldn't say there aren't competitors out there just as apt at tank warfare. The Leopard, Challenger, and Merkava are just a few decent ones out there. Granted they all come from allies too and tank warfare isn't exactly common these days...
     
  15. GoArmyBeatNavy

    GoArmyBeatNavy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    668
    Likes Received:
    8
    The M1 series did most of the tank killing in the Gulf War and in OIF I. The British did their part, but that is primary reason the Abrams gets most of the credit. While the M1A2 is a great tank, it hasn't faced enemy tanks yet like the M1A1 did.

    The Leopard and the Challenger series are great tanks as well. The Abrams uses the German gun and breach. They just haven't seen as much action as the Abrams.
     
  16. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    212
    Can you imagine what the Soviet General Staff had to deal with in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Besides their own domestic turmoil and that of their allies , they watched their tactics and equipment quickly wiped out by the Coalition forces. While they saw a prelude to it with the Israeli wars in the 60s through the 80s, it most have been overwhelming for these officers. Maybe a motivation to put the breaks on Gorbachev reforms. It may have been the motivation to sieze power for some of them later that year.
     
  17. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    So, how many T-90s are in the inventry, even if it's better than the M1A2SEP or which armed forces have T-90s in inventry, do they have sufficient numbers, training, maintenance capability, and projection capability to make effective use of them against United States?

    From Wiki

    How many of those developing armored systems are even close to production or in production? My guess is ZERO. We are not the only country facing budget pressure to reduce defense spending. Russia has been ramping up their defense spending, but recently put on some breaks as her oil wealth is finite.
     
  18. bruno

    bruno Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    301
    Actually I can imagine it- I was assigned to a UN assignment in Damascus Syria immediately after the Gulf War where we had a number of Soviet Officers also assigned. The whole thing was just devastating to them. That assignment was really an eyeopener for me- I was used to thinking of the Red Army as being composed of 10 foot tall soldiers with hordes of equipment and high speed stuff- instead though, the guys I was dealing with were mostly drunks who blackmarketed everything they could get their hands on. They were totally adrift. The performance of the M1, Bradley, and the Air Force was a huge eyeopener for them (and for all of the rest of the world's military organizations as well) because it showed just how far beyond everyone elses capabilities we were.
     
  19. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    212

    Very true about the technology gap. It was a crushing blow. I see stories now on Fox News and CNN about the North Koreans and Chinese hacking our sites. Maybe we are letting them know we know what they are doing. Information and disinformation. I can only imagine what we are doing to them.
     
  20. GoArmyBeatNavy

    GoArmyBeatNavy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    668
    Likes Received:
    8
    All I have is wiki too:
    Ethiopia: Ethiopia currently operates 50 T90s.[47]
    Algeria: Algeria has purchased a total of 305 T-90SA tanks in two batches. The first batch of 185 was signed during 2009 and the second batch of 120 signed in 2011 for $470 million.[48]
    Azerbaijan[49]
    India: India currently operates up to 620 T-90 which were procured in three separate orders. Two batches (310 tanks and knockdown kits in 2000 and a further 300 in 2006[50]) were purchased from Russia. Heavy Vehicle Factory (HVF) at Avadi has delivered 24 tanks in 2009-10; 51 in 2010-11; another 50 were supposed to be delivered in 2012. A further 1,000 were to be produced locally by 2020. Of those, the first batch of 10 were delivered in August 2009.[51][52] Rs 10,000-crore purchase of 354 new T-90MS tanks for six tank regiments for the China border has been approved.[53] This takes total no. of T-90 tanks to 2011.
    Russia: Russia operates 550 T-90A and 420 T-90 as of 2013.[54][55]
    Turkmenistan: Turkmenistan ordered 10 T-90S tanks over 2010 for approximately $30 million and a further 30 T-90S tanks in 2011.[48]
    Uganda: 44 T-90SA in 2011[56]
    (the source for the Russian numbers is suspect)

    I understand your point. I was just saying that the tank arms race has not stopped. I also said:
    I don't know anything about the T-99.
     

Share This Page