Com-Central.net

I bought a 20 February Army Times this morning here on post and page 16 had a huge write up on armor, vehicle, and helicopter losses in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. Here are some numbers from that article;
The Army has lost 85 helicopters broken down as;
-27 Apache's
-21 Black Hawks
-14 Chinooks
-23 Kiowa's
Armor and wheeled vehicles are as follows;
-20 M1 Tanks
-50 Bradley's
-20 Strykers
-20 M113's
-250 Humvees
-500 Medium/Heavy Trucks, FOX recon, mine clearers, and trailers
Additional numbers in the article are;
- 230 M1 were rebuilt in 2005, the number will top 700 in 2006.
- 318 Bradleys rebuilt in 2005, the number will top 600 in 2006.
- 219 M113's in 2005, the number will top 614 in 2006.
- 5,000 Humvees in 2005, the number will top 9,000 in 2006.
- 44 aircraft in 2005, the number will be close to 85 in 2006.
The Army has ordered 16 new Apaches, and 5 new Black Hawks. But cannot replace the 27 Kiowas because production lines are no longer open.
Quote- "There are thousands of small arms, radios, and generators that require major repair and overhaul. The repair backlog includes almost every major equipment item, from 50 caliber machine guns to hundreds of thousands of pads for tank tracks".
There are currently 30,000 Humvees in theater, once the war is over, 6,000 will be "washed out" upon return to the states, the rest will be repaired and overhauled.
Every M1 thats being repaired or overhauled comes out as a M1A2 (SEP) at a cost of 7 million each. The upgrades will reduce the M1 versions from 5 to 2, (M1A1 AIM and the M1A2 SEP). Bradleys will also be reduced to just 2 versions.
Army workshops have cranked up capacity from 11 million man hours in 2002, to 20 million hours in 2005. AMC sends half its repair work to private-sector firms to help with the load.
Crunch those numbers, pretty staggering. Just thought you all might be interested.

Over a 15 year period, it sounds like a bad 1-2 months in Vietnam (four months, if counting casualties), a testament to the sound designs of the equipment, their employment, and the infrastructure in place to get them back into the inventory.

To focus on a single type for comparison, there were 7,013 UH-1's (all variants) that served in Vietnam, of which 3,305 were destroyed.

Total helicopters destroyed in the Vietnam War was 5,086 out of 11,827.

Vehicles would be more difficult to account for, because many never came home..they were transferred to the ARVN as units pulled out. This includes numerous armored vehicles, including mine.

Obviously, the costs have gone up, adjusted for 35-40 years of inflation.

Not too shabby, IMO.

"There are thousands of small arms, radios, and generators that require major repair and overhaul. The repair backlog includes almost every major equipment item, from 50 caliber machine guns to hundreds of thousands of pads for tank tracks".

There will be plenty of work for civilians at the arsenals, and in associated businesses. If you consider the work to rebuild ONE M4 carbine to specification, that means a full parts bin, a technician who understands the design and how to run the gauges, plus a series of inspectors at both ends of the supply chain. Will the US be buying more new gear, scrapping old gear or making do with current designs through to the next big purchasing period?

- Maple_Leaf_Eh

Will the US be buying more new gear, scrapping old gear or making do with current designs through to the next big purchasing period?

Hi all!

Maple, the answer to your question is "some of each". The Army is using this as an opportunity to "spiral" new technologies and systems into service. Some of the old gear will be replaced with equivalent items. Some will be rebuilt, but to 0-hour condition with all the latest upgrades installed. And some items will be scrapped and replaced with improved and new systems. The idea is to push advanced technologies and systems into the field as they become available, and to keep existing equipment in peak condition, while culling older and less capable equipment out.

The Pentagram has a pretty comprehensive plan for maintaining our capabilities and continuing the Transformation effort, as long as our Congress will fund it. Of course, that is the hurdle, since they will bicker about the funding while wasting twice that amount on silly pet projects. The bottom line is that the health of the Army rests in the hands of the civilian leadership.

I still wonder what the criteria for that list included with the ground vehicles in mind.

Is it:
Operational loss (broke beyond theater level repair),
Castrophic loss (...BLOWN UP, BURN DOWN or something such as that !!)

As for Aircraft, thats simple since if hit by enemy fire/mechanical failure and crash, the airframe most likely is a total write-off. Rapid Deaccelaration with 'terra-firma' tends to condemn the aircraft as NMC.

Just a few thoughts,

- SFC_Jeff_Button

Every M1 thats being repaired or overhauled comes out as a M1A2 (SEP) at a cost of 7 million each.

Isn't that considerably more than what the tanks cost *new*? Even accounting for inflation?

[img][/img][img][/img]
That article mentions that most all vehicle losses were due to IED's and car bombs, so I'm assuming that all the vehicles were total losses. As great as the Stryker might be, the mesh grill attached to it sure makes it look awkward for use in an urban enviroment, even thought the mesh no-doubt saves the crew and vehicle from RPG attacks.
I noticed in an USA Today article in Fridays edition, that the Navy is retiring the F-14 Tomcat, after 32 years of service. Its replacement the F18E/F Super Hornet has a 214mph slower top speed, and costs 24.6 Million dollars more than the F14's cost when new, (47.3 mil for the F14 in 1974 VS 71.9mil for the F18 in 1999). Seems that the F14 costs to much to repair. An F14 requires 50 hours of maint for each 1 hour of flight, versus 5-10 hours of maint for the F18. Also mentioned was the fact that the F14 was aimed at dogfighting, (as in top-gun fame) but that it is no longer needed since jets now shoot missiles at each other from miles away. The last F14 to fly a combat mission was February 8th, when Cpt. William Sizemore flew over Iraq with another F14 from the USS Theodore Roosevelt and dropped bombs. The F14 is being called the "last of the pure fighters". Do you supposse that a bunch of F14's will end up at China Lake as targets? What a sad fate for such a wonderful bird.

- SFC_Jeff_Button

The F14 is being called the "last of the pure fighters". Do you supposse that a bunch of F14's will end up at China Lake as targets? What a sad fate for such a wonderful bird.

Earlier generations have made similar claims for their favorite bird. At least one Vietnam War Navy or USMC jet jockey was quoted as saying "when you're out of F-8's, you're outta fighters!". Not everyone was happy to trade their F-8 Crusaders for the heavier, less agile, multi-role F-4.

David

I don't see how the F-14 can be considered a 'Pure Fighter' It was designed as a Fleet Air Defense Interceptor and wasn't supposed to have to dogfight at all. It was supposed to engage targets at 100 miles with the Phoenix missle. Suppsoedly it would shoot six maissles and let the computer figure out which targets to aim them at

Now when the F-15 was designed the mantra was 'Not a pound for Air to Ground' Everything was made as light as possible including making wire bundles just long enough to reach the boxes they went to meaning that when I neaded to replace the Comm control panel on an early F-15A I had to reach way down into the side console and ghook up 3 cannon plugs by feel with about 2 " of slack. And if you got a cannon plug on crooked and bent a pin it could take hours to replace the connector with it's 125 pins. Al of it done way down inside the plane where you couldn't see what you were doing. Later A models had about 6" of slack in the cables. but pilots used to get the early birds whenever possible they swore that there was a performance difference with the lighter birds. We were told that over 100 pounds had been saved just by making sure no cable was longer than neccesary. The F-15 was the last of the real dogfighters. The F-16 can't dogfight because of the 'fly by wire' side stick controller. With the side stick the pilot is only suggesting to the flight control computer what manuever he wants to make. the computer decides how much control to apply making sure the airframe is not 'over Ged' As one F-15 pilot i debriefed put it "If I have a missle coming up my tail I WANT to over G the airframe. I don't want some computer overriding my inputs because 'I may over stress the airframe and shorten the life of the aircraft' I want to pull that airplane around as tight as I can and if I pop a few rivets that is fine with me. If I pull the wings off then I'll eject but If I get away with it I'll help do the over G inspection when I get home" By the way the highest recorded G load on an F-15 was 19Gs in air combat manuevering. The pilot momentarily blacked out but he mad it back to the base. The wingtips were 1.5" higher than they should be (as measured before it was 'one time flight' back to St Louis. I wish I could remember the tail number of that plane.

About the F-8 remember the Navy never did put a gun in their F-4s which also made converting from the Crusader to the Phantom a less than desirable assignment for many fighter jocks.

- bsmart

About the F-8 remember the Navy never did put a gun in their F-4s which also made converting from the Crusader to the Phantom a less than desirable assignment for many fighter jocks.

True enough, Bob. And I'm sure a source of endless frustration to many F-4 jocks (AF, Navy, and USMC alike) who found themselves point blank to an NVAF MiG-17 or MiG-21 and unable to do anything about it. (Inside arming distance for AIM-9, let alone AIM-7!) I was actually thinking more about the fact that our squadron pilots called the F-4 the "Rhino" for a reason.

Marginal armor content: The F-4 was built about as solid as a tank!

David

The "pure-fighter" quote came from the Friday, 17 February USA Today article on page 2A, not me. That particular quote came from Adm. William Fallon, the U.S. Pacific Commander and a former F14 weapons officer, (maybe he's biased). I don't know anything about F-8's. I wasn't aware that the Navy never had guns installed on their F-4 Phantoms. Seems like stupidity to me. I feel there will always be a need for a gun system on a jet for one reason or another.
I apologize now for the "marginal Armor content", I love jets and have a special fondness for F-105 Thunderchiefs (Thuds) as well as the F-100 Super Sabre, F-4 Phantom, and A-7 Corsair. WWII would be almost every plane the US built. Always wanted to be a pilot but my mild color blindness nix'd that.
But back to what started this thread, losses to U.S. equipment overseas. I was aware of the Vietnam helicopter losses through the research I've done on Hueys. This was merely an "informational" piece to share what I've read in Army Times. I'm just kind of amazed at the numbers, not so much the actual vehicle/aircraft losses themselves, but the dollar amounts for the losses. Of course the human losses outweigh everything, but the dollar costs are stagering. In my research, I have found an M47 cost $129,000 to produce, an M60 cost $1,291,865, and an M1A2 costs 4.3 Million. See the following site for M1 info; www.globalsecurity.org.../lima.htm. Why it costs 7 million to upgrade a 4.3 million dollar tank, I don't know. I hope this clears things up.

- SFC_Jeff_Button

In my research, I have found an M47 cost $129,000 to produce, an M60 cost $1,291,865

Jeff,
I'm surprized at the figure for an M60. It was not my (or our, then) impression that the cost was even half that figure (at least up through the M60A1......A3's with all the goodies maybe....).
Can we get more than one source for the cost of, say, an M60A1 ~1970? I have doubts about the million-plus cost for the first two generations of 60's.

aha!...got it now...that price was for the latest/greatest M60A3 version:


www.fas.org/man/dod-10...-m60a3.htm

Yeah, I was researching M60A3's because the 3- M60's at Ft Irwin are all A3 models. The $1.291,865 price is from the "Army Master Data File Acquisition" listing. How acurate the cost is I do not know. You get what you pay for. At 4.3 Million dollars, It would be my hope that as an M1 track commander, that the 4.3 mill went towards protecting me and my crew from a 105mm buried in the ground, not just towards a computer system that drains my battery.

- Jinx

- SFC_Jeff_Button

Every M1 thats being repaired or overhauled comes out as a M1A2 (SEP) at a cost of 7 million each.

Isn't that considerably more than what the tanks cost *new*? Even accounting for inflation?

Hi Jinx! Hi Folks!

The cost of a new tank would possible be far more. There is NO plant, with skilled workers present, that can build new tanks.

You would have to find skilled workers, possible train some of them, check out all the equipment that was placed in storage (that is if any of it was saved), service and repair all of it as needed before restarting production. So less you are planning on building 10,000+ tanks, the restarting process cost would make 7 million per vehicle look cheap.

You have to remember that we didn't need the old AFV plants to make steel vehicles because all FCS vehicles will be made out of sci-fi composits. I think we are lucky that we still have plants that can do repairs and upgrades to old and damaged hulls.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

- Jinx

- SFC_Jeff_Button

Every M1 thats being repaired or overhauled comes out as a M1A2 (SEP) at a cost of 7 million each.

Isn't that considerably more than what the tanks cost *new*? Even accounting for inflation?

Also remember that most of the new tanks were built back in the 80's with 105's. I think there have been at least two generations of armor since then as well as considerably more advanced electronics. So yes they are more expensive but they are also conciderably more capable.