geogob
Koohii o nomimasu ka?
Problem is that very often, the flexible solutions I speak of are thrown out and never selected. Why? Well politicians do not care whether it’s going to cost more or less or be more or less effective in 20 years or 10 years. Heck! Not even in 5 years. They only care on how much and how effective it's going to be until the next election. It's sad, but true.
Often engineers and project leaders have solutions in their book that are very well adapted for the current needs (like for the war on terror or conflict in the Middle East) and that are often cheaper or have much more flexible solutions, generally more expensive. With a standard platform, often less effective for current needs but that can be adapted for many different situations, the system will often become much more effective in a specific theater than one designed for a generic type of environment.
But then you’ll have people saying that “they are too expensive” or that “they don’t even do the job” or that “they are not adapted for them”. These people often forget (or do not realize) that a system more expensive now can cost much less maintenance later on or be much more effective later on in other type of operations. In the long haul, considering the 15 or 30 or what ever life time of a system, the overall acquisition, operating and maintenance cost can much less than the one for a cheaper initial solution… but politicians get elected within the next 5 years, not 15 or 30, so a lot of pressure is coming from then and they often have the last word in these kind of “large” investments.
There is a very good example I can think of… Take the F15 and F18. The F15 uses Pratt & Whitney engines and the F18 uses General Electric engines. Now, GE jet engines are rather seldom in aviation (military and civilian altogether), although most builders give you the choice between GE, P&W and Rolls Royce engines for the same aircraft (I know Airbus Industries does that). Why do you see GE engines on so few aircrafts (even though buyers can choose to have them), but you see a lot of RR or P&W? Cost. Cost. Cost. The GE engines are so expensive.
But the design of the GE engines is amazing. If the compressor gets damaged on the PW engines, like those of the F15, you take the engine out and put a new one in. If the damage is reasonable, you might be able to refit the engine and make it air-worthy again. This will ground your aircraft at least a good day if not more… and it will cost you a new engine.
If the GE Engine gets damage to its compressor stage (like on the F18), you pull the engine rack out, open it up, change the compressor, put the engine back it. 30 minutes.
The day you’ll start getting rocks and sand in your engines and having to change and engine every two weeks, grounding half your fleet because of lack of man power to do all the work, you’ll start to regret the GE engines. But you saved some money... maybe.
--
Now take the LAV to put things into perspective. If you have a good design (I have no idea if it is really), when they saw that the RPG-7 was a specific threat and they had a solution against them, it was probably quite easy to modify them or fit them with the device to protect them. On the other hand, they might be design in a way where doing such changes is very difficult, takes a lot of resources and costs a lot.
So seeing that changes have been made to them is, as I see it again, a good thing. At least it shows that you can adapt them to your specific needs. Whether this is easy or not is another question.
--
Just with anything, it’s a mater of choice and compromise. Just like with the choice you have between tracked vehicles or wheeled vehicles.
Ok I think I'm in a writy mood today. I need to stop that :\
Often engineers and project leaders have solutions in their book that are very well adapted for the current needs (like for the war on terror or conflict in the Middle East) and that are often cheaper or have much more flexible solutions, generally more expensive. With a standard platform, often less effective for current needs but that can be adapted for many different situations, the system will often become much more effective in a specific theater than one designed for a generic type of environment.
But then you’ll have people saying that “they are too expensive” or that “they don’t even do the job” or that “they are not adapted for them”. These people often forget (or do not realize) that a system more expensive now can cost much less maintenance later on or be much more effective later on in other type of operations. In the long haul, considering the 15 or 30 or what ever life time of a system, the overall acquisition, operating and maintenance cost can much less than the one for a cheaper initial solution… but politicians get elected within the next 5 years, not 15 or 30, so a lot of pressure is coming from then and they often have the last word in these kind of “large” investments.
There is a very good example I can think of… Take the F15 and F18. The F15 uses Pratt & Whitney engines and the F18 uses General Electric engines. Now, GE jet engines are rather seldom in aviation (military and civilian altogether), although most builders give you the choice between GE, P&W and Rolls Royce engines for the same aircraft (I know Airbus Industries does that). Why do you see GE engines on so few aircrafts (even though buyers can choose to have them), but you see a lot of RR or P&W? Cost. Cost. Cost. The GE engines are so expensive.
But the design of the GE engines is amazing. If the compressor gets damaged on the PW engines, like those of the F15, you take the engine out and put a new one in. If the damage is reasonable, you might be able to refit the engine and make it air-worthy again. This will ground your aircraft at least a good day if not more… and it will cost you a new engine.
If the GE Engine gets damage to its compressor stage (like on the F18), you pull the engine rack out, open it up, change the compressor, put the engine back it. 30 minutes.
The day you’ll start getting rocks and sand in your engines and having to change and engine every two weeks, grounding half your fleet because of lack of man power to do all the work, you’ll start to regret the GE engines. But you saved some money... maybe.
--
Now take the LAV to put things into perspective. If you have a good design (I have no idea if it is really), when they saw that the RPG-7 was a specific threat and they had a solution against them, it was probably quite easy to modify them or fit them with the device to protect them. On the other hand, they might be design in a way where doing such changes is very difficult, takes a lot of resources and costs a lot.
So seeing that changes have been made to them is, as I see it again, a good thing. At least it shows that you can adapt them to your specific needs. Whether this is easy or not is another question.
--
Just with anything, it’s a mater of choice and compromise. Just like with the choice you have between tracked vehicles or wheeled vehicles.
Ok I think I'm in a writy mood today. I need to stop that :\
)
