Originally Posted by SSGN_Doc
Each branch does have some unique needs when it comes to aircraft and in some small arms.
Landing on an aircraft carrier is a lot different than landing on a land based runway. Arresting gear, tailhooks, landing gear upgrades, corrosion resistance all play a role in naval aircraft. An airframe goes through a lot more abuse in a seagoing version.
But you also see waste in the small things. Like my nice blue digital camoflage uniform. Why? Wouldn't any other camo uniform fill the role as a working uniform? Now the Navy is looking at replacing it with a woodland digital camoflage uniform. Each sailor gets a uniform allowance to pay for replacing worn uniforms each year. Most uniforms will last two to three years if taken care of. So the replacments that I bought a year ago will no longer be authorized, and I will have to replace them early with new uniforms.
the cost to the tax payer is in the research and contracts to obtain the uniforms initially.
We could put all the branches in Multicams and save a lot of money across the board.
Granted each branch has specific needs but that does not mean a modular air frame could not be built as to be adaptable to cover most any needs, such as the F35? Of course it cannot fulfill all roles required, such as bomber but a modular frame like this would be a better investment for the Pentagon than a dozen or so different platforms. The same could be said with the Navy's ships ... why not develop a modular platform like they have with the submarine or carrier fleets? This allows them to swap whole compartments at a time.
Like with the uniforms a lot of modularity could be achieved and thus streamline the Pentagons operations and free up even more capital and resources for even more development.
Member: NRA GOA
Est sularas oth mithas
"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD