It's no fun talking to someone who knows specific facts, rather than someone who makes wild, rather unsubstantiated generalizations. . .
No, and I know it's not quite that simple, but the constant willingness to throw good money after bad has to be the most flagrant (and easily-changed) problem in the procurement process. There is an expectation, no - actually a demand, for any R&D effort, no matter how small or how far-fetched to produce a viable system. That's criminally stupid stubbornness.
Oh, absolutely Congress is to blame in large part. I worked there last summer; I got to see their dysfunctionality in all its glory. My boss forgot to sign a bill he submitted; a member of the transportation committee called our office asking what railroad companies have track or rolling stock in his district, etc.
I don't share your view that the EFV is going to die - mainly because the AAV is both old and is tainted in the current anti-IED hysteria of Congress, and the Marine Corps needs something else, even if its NOT a vehicle for a questionably-relevant mission that's as big as a house in an era of precision-munitions proliferation. . .
. . .and the MV-22 or CV-22 or whatever will undoubtedly have its bugs worked out, but not it's weak armament (1 7.62mm MG on the ramp?), nor (if it turns out to be the case, as some suspect) the inherent fragility of its tilt-rotor mechanism and subsequent susceptibility to battle damage.
You're right about its capabilities and advantages as compared to other options, I think, and probably in regards to the decision made to buy it, but I'm still violently against the way in which its development and procurement occurred as representative of the process as a whole. . .
LOL, fair enough, I was desperate for credibility. You're pretty confident of its eventual success, so I won't argue the point further. I hope you're right.
Fair enough - I will admit that I'm more skeptical of the aircraft's performance rather than adamantly opposed. To tie this into the thread's original message, however, I will say that part of the conditions for funding the AF's massive boondoggle should be a change in the procurement system. Not that the costs of the aircraft themselves are going to go down - you're right about that as well - but at least the system should be run better.
And maybe a little foresight, like maybe forcing them to invest in SLEPs or something of that ilk when their new-acquisition programs are cut, wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Matt
Bookmarks