Wasteful projects...

the United States is known to waste money on projects that they either shut down when they're almost done, or that they overfinance.

the osprey

the more recent assault rifle pork projects

the f-22 (way overfinanced)

what do you think was the biggest waste?

[edit on 6/5/06 by madnessinmysoul]

None of them are wastes, actually IMO.

First, the Osprey. After studying many pieces of data, I've come to the conclusion that at the very least the U.S. Marine Corps NEEDS the Osprey. Its state-of-the-art, it has a superb payload and range, and despite its size, its a far more cost-effective way to go. That sounds rather surprising, but as well as the CH-46E and CH-53D/E have done, they are far too mechanical and require much more servicing and care, all of which adds up to huge long-term costs. The Osprey may cost a lot in its development, but during service, costs will go way down. The CH-46 and CH-53 are helicopters of an industrial warfare nature, the Osprey can handle any situation.

As for the assault rifles, these are mainly experiments. They haven't even really decided on what rifle to go with. The OICW, for example, isn't even planned for use for at least another 10 years.

The F-22, I actually sort of agree with you there. I for one believe that the F-22 at this point is a very useless project. Even with the emergence of China and India as superb air powers, the U.S. is still light-years ahead of most air forces, mainly due to the downfall of the USSR. It just seems like overkill at this point. However, again, America needs to advance its economic and military transition from industrial to post-industrial, and the way to do that is to constantly change the architecture and make-up of our military. The F-22 is a perfect way to do that.

Haven't they had issues with the Osprey? I seem to recall several crashes in the past and possible talk of getting rid of the Osprey.

Originally posted by firebat
Haven't they had issues with the Osprey? I seem to recall several crashes in the past and possible talk of getting rid of the Osprey.

Its an understatement to say the Osprey has had issues. However, its important to remember that the V-22's problems are no different from problems experienced by other high-tech projects during development.

They approved procurement last winter. The Osprey is on its way.

Almost all highly advanced projects have teething problems to one extent or another during the project. So I wouldnt call them a waste if they have such problems along the way.

what do I think was the biggest waste? I would have to go with all the money spent on Somalia. That whole continent is a mess and we shouldnt have spent military dollars on it when we cant even secure our own borders.

I agree with sweatmonicaIdo except on the F/A-22 argument. The Raptor is supposed to be overkill, and technology nowadays is advancing at an alarming rate. The F/A-22 will give the U.S. capabilities of no other aircraft, and it will allow fighters to fly into areas that the F-15 simply cannot reach. But you want overkill; you never want "just enough" in military technology.

Fighter technology from other countries isn't the sole reason for the F/A-22; it's anti-aircraft technology that is becoming readily available and very cheap from other nations that make the Raptor a necessity. Why risk sending in multiple F-15s when you can send one F/A-22 that is not only a lot more difficult for the enemy to detect, but has features and capabilities unheard of in the other aircraft? It also can get out of the area it's in really quickly, if necessary.

Most of the Raptor's features are classified, so I have no doubt that this plane provides capabilities unheard of before.

we may need experimental weaponry to advance us. we may just be going through phases with some projects.

i think the biggest problem has been our inability to tell contractors to do what they can with the money we gave them.

we wasted money on the osprey, it's some obscene amount (around 600%) over budget.

i think we need to start telling the military industrial complex that they need to make do with what we gave them in the first place.

also, we waste money on crap weapons like the m-16. why do we even bother with some of these weapons? POLITICS.

POLITICS AND MILITARY ONLY MIX IN FACIST GOVERNMENTS

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
I agree with sweatmonicaIdo except on the F/A-22 argument. The Raptor is supposed to be overkill, and technology nowadays is advancing at an alarming rate. The F/A-22 will give the U.S. capabilities of no other aircraft, and it will allow fighters to fly into areas that the F-15 simply cannot reach. But you want overkill; you never want "just enough" in military technology.

Fighter technology from other countries isn't the sole reason for the F/A-22; it's anti-aircraft technology that is becoming readily available and very cheap from other nations that make the Raptor a necessity. Why risk sending in multiple F-15s when you can send one F/A-22 that is not only a lot more difficult for the enemy to detect, but has features and capabilities unheard of in the other aircraft? It also can get out of the area it's in really quickly, if necessary.

Most of the Raptor's features are classified, so I have no doubt that this plane provides capabilities unheard of before.

Hate to nitpick, but the Raptor was redesignated the F-22 once more.

You hit it on the head, its overkill. Its just not necessary at this point in time. But, again, I do appreciate the fact its a necessary transition to a post-Cold War/industrial military force.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
we may need experimental weaponry to advance us. we may just be going through phases with some projects.

i think the biggest problem has been our inability to tell contractors to do what they can with the money we gave them.

we wasted money on the osprey, it's some obscene amount (around 600%) over budget.

i think we need to start telling the military industrial complex that they need to make do with what we gave them in the first place.

also, we waste money on crap weapons like the m-16. why do we even bother with some of these weapons? POLITICS.

POLITICS AND MILITARY ONLY MIX IN FACIST GOVERNMENTS

I agree that the burgeoning military-industrial complex is a threat to the United States. However, you can't disagree that some things have worked out. The Osprey, again, may be extremely costly in development (almost unnecessarily), but it is worth the costs, IMO.

As for the M-16 being a crap weapon, its a great mix of firepower and light weight. Not crap at all.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the United States is known to waste money on projects that they either shut down when they're almost done, or that they overfinance.

the osprey

the more recent assault rifle pork projects

the f-22 (way overfinanced)

what do you think was the biggest waste?

[edit on 6/5/06 by madnessinmysoul]

Hrmmm...Agenda here? Its funny ALL of the projects you mention happen to be US projects, that mean that only the USA is "wasteful"?

if we are going to have a thread about " wasteful progects " -- please for feck sake lets have some that reallly were wasteful

at the moment , the criteria seams to be

if its american , its expenseive , and i dont like it = wastefull

that is total garbage .

now a real american wasteful project was the : Sgt York DIVAD , M247 .

now that really was a steaming pile of poo , cancelled after eating USD$6 billion +

and as skippy said , lets fling poo at other nations costly mistakes as well

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
if we are going to have a thread about " wasteful progects " -- please for feck sake lets have some that reallly were wasteful

at the moment , the criteria seams to be

if its american , its expenseive , and i dont like it = wastefull

that is total garbage .

now a real american wasteful project was the : Sgt York DIVAD , M247 .

now that really was a steaming pile of poo

, cancelled after eating USD$6 billion +

and as skippy said , lets fling poo at other nations costly mistakes as well

Why? madness is probably an American, therefore only American projects deserve his attention, as is the case with myself.

Other nations' mistakes mean nothing to us Americans, so why fling poo at them?

"Fair and Balanced" at work yet again.

Originally posted by skippytjc
Hrmmm...Agenda here? Its funny ALL of the projects you mention happen to be US projects, that mean that only the USA is "wasteful"?

You are so dense, as ALWAYS. Madness NEVER said only the USA is "wasteful." perhaps if you actually read, maybe only American projects have any bearing on madness. Really, why would he care about other nations snafus? We don't use MiG-29s.

Don't make empty accusations. That's your M.O.

He does seem to have an agenda though. Saying that "only politics and military mix in facist governments," essentially he is trying to imply that the U.S. government is facist, which isn't true. he also refers to the M-16 as a "crap weapon." Since when is the M-16 a crap weapon? If it was a crap weapon, it wouldn't be the second most manufactured assault rifle in the world (next to the AK-47). And it wouldn't be utilized consistently by the U.S. military.

On the contrary, the M-16 is a very accurate and reliable weapon. Don't believe all the Vietnam-era stuff you hear. For one, it is believed a lot of that bad rep the M-16 had in Vietnam was overblown. Also, the modern M-16 is a heck of a lot more robust then the Vietnam-era M-16.

SweatmonicaIdo, I guess it is just a differing of opinions we have, for I believe one should always have overkill as their weapons, not something "adequate." Something adequate is what lets the enemy inflict damage on you. Something that can blow the enemy out of the water is what keeps them from touching you.

Like when the U.S. attacked Afghanistan a few years ago and utilized special bunker-buster bombs that no one knew the U.S. had. The North Koreans went and hid their Kim Jong leader guy somewhere because they were afraid Bush might attack them. Those bombs's capabilities shocked the rest of the world, because now governments like North Korea know that the U.S. could really inflict soem serious damage to them through such bombs without the use of nuclear weapons.

There ain't no such thing as peace; there is only a state of non-violence, and maintaining such a state requires the existence of an overwhelmingly powerful military force to keep everyone else in check.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
He does seem to have an agenda though. Saying that "only politics and military mix in facist governments," essentially he is trying to imply that the U.S. government is facist, which isn't true. he also refers to the M-16 as a "crap weapon." Since when is the M-16 a crap weapon? If it was a crap weapon, it wouldn't be the second most manufactured assault rifle in the world (next to the AK-47). And it wouldn't be utilized consistently by the U.S. military.

Well, since we really don't know what the U.S. government is, its up for debate and all theories are on the table.

As for his agenda, I'm not saying for sure. However, for skippy and ignorant_ape to bag him for focusing on U.S. projects is not only unwarranted, its just plain stupid. Madness seems like an American, and like I said, whether or not Russia is building their military correctly is of secondary concern to us. What concerns us most is how OUR military is doing. Its the "Fair and Balanced" syndrome at work yet again.

On the contrary, the M-16 is a very accurate and reliable weapon. Don't believe all the Vietnam-era stuff you hear. For one, it is believed a lot of that bad rep the M-16 had in Vietnam was overblown. Also, the modern M-16 is a heck of a lot more robust then the Vietnam-era M-16.

I agree with accurate. Reliable? That's very questionable. For one, it CAN be very reliable, as long as you clean it up to three times a day. This means that the M-16 loses long-term reliability in extended firefights. As for the bad rep that the M-16 got in Vietnam, it was in no way overblown. As you stated, the modern M-16A4 is far more robust than the Vietnam-era M-16.

SweatmonicaIdo, I guess it is just a differing of opinions we have, for I believe one should always have overkill as their weapons, not something "adequate." Something adequate is what lets the enemy inflict damage on you. Something that can blow the enemy out of the water is what keeps them from touching you.

But what you're failing to see is that the U.S. already overpowers just about every other country in the world easily. I realize this is not what you said, but the U.S. military is in no way on par with the rest of the world. It is light-years ahead of the rest of the world. Therefore, what "adequete" means to U.S. forces is like total annihilation to other forces.

There ain't no such thing as peace; there is only a state of non-violence, and maintaining such a state requires the existence of an overwhelmingly powerful military force to keep everyone else in check.

More like more than one overwhelmingly powerful force is required.

Almost all weapons have to be cleaned up to three times a day if used in some place like Iraq. Anthony Swofford, the Marine who wrote that novel "Jarhead," even says in it that when they found the AK-47s of the Iraqis, those things would have jammed up easily since they weren't cleaned.

Yes, the U.S. overwhelms other nations in pure military might, but what about if you need to send some F-15s in to secure airspace in a hostile country? That country could have inexpensive, but very advanced, anti-aircraft systems that could target and fire on the F-15s easily. In that case, unless you just want to fight with the Soviet methology (i.e. huge numbers), you don't want to lose any aircraft. So you send in something much harder to detect, like an F/A-22. In such a case, you'd want to most sophisticated aircraft.

Also with fighting; it's easy to talk statistics with the military, but for the guys who have to do the actual fighting, they want something that will allow them to annihilate the enemy, not something adequate enough to fight them with the idea that, if they die, the U.S. has superior numbers of this adequate equipment to still take the enemy.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Almost all weapons have to be cleaned up to three times a day if used in some place like Iraq. Anthony Swofford, the Marine who wrote that novel "Jarhead," even says in it that when they found the AK-47s of the Iraqis, those things would have jammed up easily since they weren't cleaned.

Well, that's absolutely true.

Yes, the U.S. overwhelms other nations in pure military might, but what about if you need to send some F-15s in to secure airspace in a hostile country? That country could have inexpensive, but very advanced, anti-aircraft systems that could target and fire on the F-15s easily. In that case, unless you just want to fight with the Soviet methology (i.e. huge numbers), you don't want to lose any aircraft. So you send in something much harder to detect, like an F/A-22. In such a case, you'd want to most sophisticated aircraft.

Soviet doctrine wasn't all about huge numbers, but that's besides the point. You do have a point, what you said is a dilemma that is faced by our military leaders constantly. I just believe the threat you speak of simply isn't there, and if it exists, its in very limited numbers that can easily be mitigated by employing SEAD missions via the F-16CJ or the EA-6B. Also, as stealthy as the F-22 may be, its still not completely invisible to radar, so SEAD is still required in order to have a successful F-22 mission.

Also with fighting; it's easy to talk statistics with the military, but for the guys who have to do the actual fighting, they want something that will allow them to annihilate the enemy, not something adequate enough to fight them with the idea that, if they die, the U.S. has superior numbers of this adequate equipment to still take the enemy.

True.

The most wasteful project in the US is Congress. Anybody want to know why military projects cost so much? The reason is the appeasement of Congressmen and Senators. Want to get your project funded? Easy just promise to build it in the districts or states of the people on the committee that reccommends your project. Why else would part of the V-22 be built in Philadelphia and part built in Texas? This is not even mentioning the WAM money that each rep gets. Just look at West Virginia.