Military readiness

[a fan]

So the USS Boxer, 10 days into a deployment after an extensive overhaul has to return to port because the ship is still having issues. What the hell is wrong with the US Navy? They can't fix their ships and are decommissioning ships that are 10 years old. If the folks in DC that love to investigate incompetence at this level have some spare time why don't they bring in the Secretary of the Navy answer a few questions.

,,,but their DEI & climate commitment are first rate.

That wasn't this crew. That was the crew you operated under, OS.

Who admitted women into the Academy, for example, and when?

And when did we start building ships that ran on clean nuclear power?

.....it just wasn't called "woke" back then. Which made it so that you were perfectly fine with both the environment, AND inclusivity. Heck, I'd guess you didn't even notice. Or care.

And do you think our equipment works better, and can travel further, when they're more energy efficient? Yeah, me too. Saw Master's of Air episodes where things like gas efficiency was pretty important to the crews.

[SCLaxAttack]

So the USS Boxer, 10 days into a deployment after an extensive overhaul has to return to port because the ship is still having issues. What the hell is wrong with the US Navy? They can't fix their ships and are decommissioning ships that are 10 years old. If the folks in DC that love to investigate incompetence at this level have some spare time why don't they bring in the Secretary of the Navy answer a few questions.

,,,but their DEI & climate commitment are first rate.

USS Boxer might as well be converted to a bed and breakfast port side view for as useless as it is to the Navy right now. It may not be relevant but a friend of mine was a cook on a submarine. He use to brag about the maintenance people on the boat. There was nothing that they couldn't fix with whatever parts they had on hand. So after months of trouble shooting and testing they can't fix this damn ship. Someone high up the Navy chain of command should have fire coming out of their eyes. There are certain elements of the US Navy that are just flat out incompetent.

Cradle...that's the issue. Everything, and I mean everything, has become so technologically engineered, to include circuity and dependent on a computer, that training is out of synch with staff vs equipment.

I am sure you saw it being in the trade....no longer just being a torch, vacuum pump, some silfos, a scale, and refrigerant. Not you need a bluetooth app, a laptop, access to the internet for software updates, etc-etc. Same thing happening in the auto industry.....recruiting for highly skilled staff is challenging enough in the private sector, far more in the military.

High tech warfare. Every deployment my son-in-law’s been on since his first in 2009 - whether that’s been in infantry, Field Artillery or special forces organizations - has included a significant number of employees of the various weapons systems. No longer are enlisted soldiers the go-to maintenance people.

[youthathletics]

So the USS Boxer, 10 days into a deployment after an extensive overhaul has to return to port because the ship is still having issues. What the hell is wrong with the US Navy? They can't fix their ships and are decommissioning ships that are 10 years old. If the folks in DC that love to investigate incompetence at this level have some spare time why don't they bring in the Secretary of the Navy answer a few questions.

,,,but their DEI & climate commitment are first rate.

USS Boxer might as well be converted to a bed and breakfast port side view for as useless as it is to the Navy right now. It may not be relevant but a friend of mine was a cook on a submarine. He use to brag about the maintenance people on the boat. There was nothing that they couldn't fix with whatever parts they had on hand. So after months of trouble shooting and testing they can't fix this damn ship. Someone high up the Navy chain of command should have fire coming out of their eyes. There are certain elements of the US Navy that are just flat out incompetent.

Cradle...that's the issue. Everything, and I mean everything, has become so technologically engineered, to include circuity and dependent on a computer, that training is out of synch with staff vs equipment.

I am sure you saw it being in the trade....no longer just being a torch, vacuum pump, some silfos, a scale, and refrigerant. Not you need a bluetooth app, a laptop, access to the internet for software updates, etc-etc. Same thing happening in the auto industry.....recruiting for highly skilled staff is challenging enough in the private sector, far more in the military.

High tech warfare. Every deployment my son-in-law’s been on since his first in 2009 - whether that’s been in infantry, Field Artillery or special forces organizations - has included a significant number of employees of the various weapons systems. No longer are enlisted soldiers the go-to maintenance people.

No argument there. Coached a few that deploy as civilians for ‘systems’ support. The point i was making (poorly) is that tech and labor ‘as a whole’ are not in synch. And in the military as attrition compounds you lose the skilled craftsman that also learn new tech.

[old salt]

Details on the shootdown of Iranian ballistic missiles by USN destroyers off the coast of Israel.

https://news.usni.org/2024/04/15/sm-3-b ... ls-confirm

[cradleandshoot]

So the USS Boxer, 10 days into a deployment after an extensive overhaul has to return to port because the ship is still having issues. What the hell is wrong with the US Navy? They can't fix their ships and are decommissioning ships that are 10 years old. If the folks in DC that love to investigate incompetence at this level have some spare time why don't they bring in the Secretary of the Navy answer a few questions.

,,,but their DEI & climate commitment are first rate.

That wasn't this crew. That was the crew you operated under, OS.

Who admitted women into the Academy, for example, and when?

And when did we start building ships that ran on clean nuclear power?

.....it just wasn't called "woke" back then. Which made it so that you were perfectly fine with both the environment, AND inclusivity. Heck, I'd guess you didn't even notice. Or care.

And do you think our equipment works better, and can travel further, when they're more energy efficient? Yeah, me too. Saw Master's of Air episodes where things like gas efficiency was pretty important to the crews.

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

[NattyBohChamps04]

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

[cradleandshoot]

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

So is there a fuel efficient prototype on the drawing board for the M1 Abrams?? Damn, times have changed, the army I served in was concerned about winning wars.

[SCLaxAttack]

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

So is there a fuel efficient prototype on the drawing board for the M1 Abrams?? Damn, times have changed, the army I served in was concerned about winning wars.

As a matter of fact, googling doesn't take long.

At 6.7 lbs/gallon fuel efficiency can be pretty important.

"US Army scraps Abrams tank upgrade, unveils new modernization plan." https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/0 ... tion-plan/

Some pertinent quotes related to weight and fuel efficiency (my underlines):

“t’s really threat-based, it’s everything that we’re seeing right now, even recently in Ukraine in terms of a native active protection system, lighter weight, more survivability, and of course reduced logistical burdens as well for the Army.”

'Weight is a major inhibitor of mobility, Norman said last fall. “We are consistently looking at ways to drive down the main battle tank’s weight to increase our operational mobility and ensure we can present multiple dilemmas to the adversary by being unpredictable in where we can go and how we can get there.”'

"General Dynamic Land Systems, which manufactures the Abrams tank, brought what it called AbramsX to the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in October 2022. AbramsX is a technology demonstrator with reduced weight and the same range as the current tank with 50% less fuel consumption, the American firm told Defense News ahead of the show."

[NattyBohChamps04]

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

So is there a fuel efficient prototype on the drawing board for the M1 Abrams?? Damn, times have changed, the army I served in was concerned about winning wars.

[cradleandshoot]

What a conundrum? Fuel efficiency or combat survivability? I remember when I was in the army. We had these things called Jerry cans. You might have heard of them? FTR why are you ripping me off? Here's your sign was first used in a post reply by yours truly. Find your own sarcastic reply thief. To paraphrase the late Don Rickles...don't be a hockey puck you hockey puck.

[NattyBohChamps04]

What a conundrum? Fuel efficiency or combat survivability? I remember when I was in the army. We had these things called Jerry cans. You might have heard of them? FTR why are you ripping me off? Here's your sign was first used in a post reply by yours truly. Find your own sarcastic reply thief. To paraphrase the late Don Rickles...don't be a hockey puck you hockey puck.

Here's your sign Tater Salad.

You didn't learn much in the Army did you? How many wars did they win while you were in?

It's not an either/or decision. In the words of someone a little younger... you donut.

You gotta bone up on logistics my man.

[cradleandshoot]

What a conundrum? Fuel efficiency or combat survivability? I remember when I was in the army. We had these things called Jerry cans. You might have heard of them? FTR why are you ripping me off? Here's your sign was first used in a post reply by yours truly. Find your own sarcastic reply thief. To paraphrase the late Don Rickles...don't be a hockey puck you hockey puck.

Here's your sign Tater Salad.

You didn't learn much in the Army did you? How many wars did they win while you were in?

It's not an either/or decision. In the words of someone a little younger... you donut.

You gotta bone up on logistics my man.

So when our HumVees were being blown all to chit in Iraq and Afghanistan was the replacement vehicles top priority fuel efficiency or survivability?
FTR we won every war from 1979 until I ETS in 1982. I spent 3 years as a front line infantry paratrooper. My MOS was 11 Bravo 1 Papa. I have made 37 static line parachute jumps. I was fortunate enough to jump from every aircraft in service at that time. Did my 5 jumps at Ft Benning from C 119 flying box cars affectionately know as " old Shakey" and C123s. I have jumped in FULL COMBAT GEAR from C130, C 141, CH47 an awesome tailgate jump in Alaska and our first jump at Ft Bragg was a gift from the commanding officer of the 82nd. The last Hollywood jump I ever made was 8 of us exiting the Huey at 2500 feet. Enjoy the ride and enjoy the view. Without looking it up ...do you know what a Hollywood jump is? We had an expression for the people who use to poke fun at us. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdchit and fools. While proudly wearing my maroon beret of my unit A Company 2nd Battalion 508th Airborne Infantry my reply to them as it would be to you... CHICKEN CHIT NEVER LEAVES THE GROUND. You Natty are sadly the personification of chicken chit. On the best day of your life you could never have hung with me and my brothers.You already know that.
FTR I was one of the last classes at the Airborne School where blood wings were still allowed. My jump wings weren't pinned on they were jammed into my chest.
So long as the army has Jerry cans fuel efficiency ain't a big issue. Surviving in a combat environment really is a big deal....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCNWQUgr9mU

Been there done that...

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... &ajaxserp=

If you can't have fuel efficiency all you need is alot of these...

[SCLaxAttack]

Perhaps this article will influence some people's opinion regarding the importance of improved fuel use and efficiency in the military:

"The True Currency of Fuel in the Military Is Lives"

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... y-is-lives

[cradleandshoot]

Perhaps this article will influence some people's opinion regarding the importance of improved fuel use and efficiency in the military:

"The True Currency of Fuel in the Military Is Lives"

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... y-is-lives

IMO survivability and saving the lives of infantry is more of an issue to be dealt with than fuel efficiency. The nature of up armoring these vehicles will never make them fuel efficient.

[old salt]

The air war over Israel. Your tax $$$ at work.

https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/ira ... -missiles/

[youthathletics]

[cradleandshoot]

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

And all the fuel efficiency in the world won't stop soldiers from being blown all to chit in the name of fuel efficiency. Not that it matters to you all that much. When the first high up muckety muck officer goes public with favoring fuel efficiency over survivability of the dog faces they are putting into harms way please let me know.

[NattyBohChamps04]

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

And all the fuel efficiency in the world won't stop soldiers from being blown all to chit in the name of fuel efficiency. Not that it matters to you all that much. When the first high up muckety muck officer goes public with favoring fuel efficiency over survivability of the dog faces they are putting into harms way please let me know.

Jesus, man, you just don't get it, do you?



Who the F was talking about sacrificing survivability for fuel efficiency? You're good at making stuff up.

Maybe you can talk to all the dead and injured kids who Bush and Rumsfeld send to Iraq without sufficient armor. Not that it matters to you all that much. Fitting for Republicans like you.

You also wouldn't care that our engines are a lot more efficient in all aspects than they were 40 years ago.

[cradleandshoot]

I believe at the end of the day survivability trumps fuel efficiency. Have you ever seen a " fuel efficient" M1 Abrams tank? That 1500 HP turbine engine sucks up jet fuel like nobody's business. Fuel efficiency was never a consideration. BTW when the mission calls for it most planes can use drop tanks. I'm waiting for the first supersonic jet fighter to be fitted with electric engines.

You really think the Army doesn't care about fuel efficiency?

Why did they install an APU on the V3? Why are they looking at more fuel efficient options for the AbramsX?

Who gets to deal with the supply chain logistics of transporting millions to billions of gallons of fuel across the world to re-fuel our military?

Logistics is US Army 101. If you think the Army doesn't care about that, then here's your sign.

And all the fuel efficiency in the world won't stop soldiers from being blown all to chit in the name of fuel efficiency. Not that it matters to you all that much. When the first high up muckety muck officer goes public with favoring fuel efficiency over survivability of the dog faces they are putting into harms way please let me know.

Jesus, man, you just don't get it, do you?



Who the F was talking about sacrificing survivability for fuel efficiency? You're good at making stuff up.

Maybe you can talk to all the dead and injured kids who Bush and Rumsfeld send to Iraq without sufficient armor. Not that it matters to you all that much. Fitting for Republicans like you.

You also wouldn't care that our engines are a lot more efficient in all aspects than they were 40 years ago.

You don't get it. You peeing your pants over fuel efficiency... I'm more concerned about keeping dog face infantry alive by using APC that are up armored for survivability in a high intensity battle zone. As long as there are Jerry cans fuel efficiency is not an issue. Keeping our soldiers alive is an issue, not that it matters to you. As a former dog face infantry soldiers DFs like you scare the chit out of me...