Why Do So Many US Military Projects Fail?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Go to nordvpn.com/co... and use code COVERT to get a 2-year plan plus 1 additional month with a huge discount.
It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 days money-back guarantee!
We started a Podcast - Tac Ops - / tacops - or find it on any typical podcast location
For Business Inquires - CovertCabal@ellifyagency.com
If you'd like to help support me continue to create videos, you can do so here...
Patreon (Monthly) - / covertcabal
PayPayl (One Time Donations) - www.paypal.me/...
Discord - / discord
Names at the end are of supporters at Silver Level on Patreon, and $10 or more on PayPal
If you would like to have your name kept private, feel free to send me an email, or contact me through Patreon
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommon...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
Go to nordvpn.com/covert and use code COVERT to get a 2-year plan plus 1 additional month with a huge discount.
It's risk free with Nord's 30 day money-back guarantee!
ayoooo nice vid man
Littoral Combat Ship,THAT is a dud program.
Watching from Uganda🇺🇬 Kampala
Because too many Gerbil Abusers are in Government
Nobody cares, quit being communists and selling us crap. Advertising is for communists.
5:20 "Defense contractors can't sell their guided missile destroyers to the general public"
No no no. They WON'T sell their guided missile destroyers to the general public. I tried to buy one and they said no and hung up on me. Fincantieri still haven't returned my emails. It's bullshit!
I think we have a clsss action here. My experience is the same. It is one thing Pepsi reneging on delivering a Harrier. We are paying costumer and demand good services.
If nothing Amazon should be in the guided missle business They could even deliver directly to the target and not to the buyer, saving shipping expenses..
If you can afford it you should be able to buy it
[Privateers intensify]
@@chilbiyito lol ok isis gooo on lol 😂
Everyone is crying over ar’s and y’all want smart bombs 😂 murica!
If I could, I'd totally buy a submarine off the navy. If Lockheed could, they would totally sell civilian F-22 Raptor s. I'm betting that every defense contract has legalese out the ass forbidding the sale of those toys to non military entities.
"Defense contractors can't sell their latest guided missile destroyers to the general public." So much for the Second Amendment...
You're right
🤣🤣🤣🙌
A man could hope
Imagine if they could?
@@theJellyjoker then we would see the quiet kid calling missile strike on his school
When you have no corruption because you call it lobbying
MURIKA!
@@downwithputinsaveukraine1313 FUCK YEA!
America is probably the most corrupt of all developed countries, because there corruption is just legal. It is built-in in the system.
@@bellezayverdad Not even close. Greece and Italy are definitely worse. While lobbying does have an impact, there are economical metrics to estimate corruption without even knowing how much corruption there really is.
@@ivanlagrossemoule but devolved means many things oil rich gulf is devolved even though they are 0 in manufacturing agriculture and fighting wars and stem. I think he means real devolved countrys like those of northern Europe or Japan and South Korea Taiwan Singapore Canada Australia countrys with 35k 40k per capita income at least.Greece and Italy do not count
I guess I never realized that Russia and China never actually reveal their failures.
If it fails it never existed.
Well, there was one time in Nagorno Karabakh, all Russian Anti aircraft systems, both old and new, purchased from Armenia were pummeled by cheap Turkish and some Israeli drones from Azerbaijan. They failed to detect the incoming drones. So to me, that counts as a Russian failure
@@woodonfire7406 Way too easy to blame the equipment, considering training of soldiers determines weather or not, the weapons are used to its best ability
@@G_Flash84625 No its not. In perfect test scenerios with perfect conditions a weapon system may be great. But wars like in Syria or Karabakh show actually, how good systems are.
@@G_Flash84625 a Syrian defector revealed that in training one of their helicopters with a North Korean jammer was able to jam a modern Russian SAM manned by Russian crews. Blaming the end user is the go to excuse but let's face it, it's not just the users.
Great vid, but the Commanche did not “fail”. The Army felt that the need for it died with the cold war.
Drones took their place for RECON and CAS.
It did. It never made it out of the prototype stage.
A failed project is one that gets cancelled.
It doesn't nessasarily have to not work... Plenty of these systems were functional, but cancelled on cost/requirement grounds.
yeah, the real loss was the Cheyenne
@@sergarlantyrell7847 i would argue that a project is a failure if it is unable to meet requirements, or it is cancelled because of unacceptable cost overruns because of poor management.
If the reason for acquiring the helicopter goes away, its not a failure of the project, its just surplus to requirements.
Semantics but accurate.
they used the data to stealth the Blackhawks used in the Bin Laden operation
I think it’s also worth mentioning when you’re pioneering new military tech it’s much much more expensive than just stealing it or reverse engineering existing tech like many other countries do.
And Joel gets it! Might be the dumbest tile for a video I seen today!
The whole point of the military industrial complex is to spend money.
Waist money
Pentagon also gives all the project's costs + 5-10 % to the contractor. That encourages contractors to use as much money as it's possible; the more you spend, the more you get as profits.
Except that only cost - plus contracts work that way. The government acquisition process is so complicated, There’s an entire university dedicated to teaching people how to do use it.
Because the goal isn't building equipment, it's to funnel as much money as possible to defense contractors
Well, more precisely, to funnel as much money as possible to defense contractors that will kick some of it back in the form of campaign contributions and donations to elected officials' "charitable funds." And don't get me started on the "employee PAC" sham.
Someone gets it
Sounds like OCP got some money for ED 209 program.
1. military industrial complex
2. the US wants cutting-edge to the point of science fictions
For what? Fighting aliens? A nation so overkill, it's best suited for something extra terrestrial
But seriously, something too advance needs more time and money to perfect it. But it looks like America wants to rush things quickly, and making more advanced machines. And look what they got into now?
Unlike Russia, they like to take their time and in the best suited era than something more futuristic. They have good capability, but money is not on their side
@@woodonfire7406 there is always somebody out there to eat ya. You have to be on top of your game to survive. That's what US is doing.
@linkzable
In some top secret base
Part of the reason for failure must be because they are often trying to do so many unprecedented things.
@Jeffery Nelson I agree, in a way. Personally, I think that they have been using the lack of a peer rival to develop new technology. They are spending lots of money to come up with new ideas, even though they don’t get much practical hardware out of it. After they push the boundaries for a while, a genuine threat will appear. Once that happens, they can go back to more proven technology and produce it easily. That “old” technology should still be capable of fighting, but handling it will be a piece of cake compared to the razor edge stuff from before. Does that make sense? What is your opinion on that?
@@frederickwood1384 makes sense to me
Is 22$ billion to develop an innovative small radar cross section guided missile destroyer a lot of money when the US gives away 40$ billion to foreign nations every year for virtually nothing in return? I’d rather spend the 22$ billion and get something in return, idk
@@dr.j5642 The giving away of money to other countries in the form of aid does serve a practical purpose. The people associate America with wealth and security, so the US government is buying a positive opinion. Also, if the country is reliant on the US for certain things, then that gives influence. Naturally, one can argue that those benefits are not worth the money. However, the return is not nothing. Does that make sense? I think that you were saying military hardware is a better investment than soft power.
EDIT: grammar and clarification
@@frederickwood1384 we've given away a lot of money to countries who hate us, to countries that mock us, and to organizations who favor our enemies rather than us who bankrolls the majority of their operations. Yeah, a lot of good all that is doing this country. The best soft power this country has is its culture, entertainment, the ideals and opportunities this country has to offer, and the respect its military receives without having to fire off a single shot. I hear you, but at the same time, this country gives away 2 Zumwalt programs every year, or 10 Zumwalt class ships. Every. Single. Year. And we're complaining this program costs too much? We think it costs too much because 22$ billion seems like a lot of money, but in relative terms, its not.
You really are good at this stuff. One thing I would add though is a comparison to other democracies, and when you look there I think you'll find one big additional compelling reason: the US can afford to waste tons of money on this stuff and be super ambitious and then just keep on rolling like nothing happened when a program faceplants, others don't have the cash to be able to make so many mistakes so they tend to plan programs more carefully.
This kind of thing happened with naval technology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Changes and improvements in the technology of guns, engines, hulls and armour meant that some ships were obsolete before they were launched.
this video can be summed up into one acronym SAP. The militiary is a giant funnel for special access programs. - budgets are black - overruns are no accident - “parallel construction”
I won't equate "fail" to "useless". The failure is also a lesson to learn.
I wonder if a lot of this is also due to the military and the contractors exploring new avenues and going to places that have not been visited with technology and weapons. There’s little baseline to build off of when you need to create a gen 5 fighter from the ground up.
Interesting to know you live on the other side of the river from me. I'm in Niagara Region Canada. Keep up your good videos
"The road to success is paved with failure."
There, answered it for you.
So in a way, China is giving the US directions, to use the defense budget more efficiently. Thank you China.
Well, US always help China to figure out what worths their investment such as GPS, F-22, AEGIS destroyer and drones, so they are actually helping each other.
The roots have rotten. The US empire is on a Downslope, nothing gonna stop it
The RAH66 Comanche would have been a badass on the Battle field
You leave out the most important thing----The USA spends 730 billion on defense and Russia spends about 60 billion annually!
I would've guessed it was because the goal isn't military effectiveness (tactical, strategic, or logistical) but rather to pay back donations from 'defense' corporations with contracts- _who cares if it works?_
The current failures of becoming successors were due to the immense success of their predesessors.
It's because the US has a Military-Industrial Complex.
There's 3 different forces pulling any new program in diametrically opposed directions.
Industry: wants the government to buy as many expensive (to purchase, not necessarily make) weapons as possible, and then want to replace those weapons ASAP.
Military: wants superlative levels of capability without really knowing why or what it wants to do with those capabilities. And they simultaneously want everything to last forever and draft plans for replacement 5 minutes after adoption.
Government/Politicians: Really don't know what they want, why they want it, or how to do it if they really wanted it. Which they aren't sure that they do. All they really do want is that sweet, sweet corporate lobbying money.
I remember all hype around the SEAWOLF , damn that sub is craziest thing the US has built
Then came the so-called "Peace Dividend" and the guns and butter theory.
Correction the Zumwalt main guns works but Congress decided not to buy the special ammunition
Wasn't each round gonna cost several million bucks or something ridiculous?
Yes that is what happened went orders are cut back . R&D kick in!
You should probably be aware that final tests of nearly all leading edge RU kinetic systems are published in video form. There's also a TV channel that does hands on demos with various systems from self-propelled artillery to MLRS to.. whatever, complete with cabin tours, footage of the things in action, interviews with design engineers who explain the method of operation, the difficult bits and so on. You can see the inside of the huge new early warning radar systems *and* the lab they were developed in *and* hear the engineers talk about them. Certain sensitive things like targeting systems or shots of the exact moment a munition leaves the barrel for a leading-edge artillery piece are blurred out, but it's pretty rare. Video tours of subs, footage of acceptance test voyages for new navy vessels and so on are all available, including on YT. The only things you can't see are EW (likely because they're not fun to show as they don't do anything visible) and deep sea submersibles (because they're under a special department within the department of military intelligence of the general staff and you're sort of not supposed to know it actually exists). Tenders for R&D contracts are specified, published and so on, within reason obviously. I don't know what timezone you're in, but it seems you're about 30 years late on the transparency of RU military development. It's this transparent for two reasons: a) taxpayers want to know their money is being spent reasonably, and b) there is more value in verifiable capabilities being a deterrent than there is in having lots of secret, or less than credible capability. It should also be noted that the US, at the very least, is perfectly capable of verifying a final 400km hypersonic missile test even without public disclosure. There's a reason RU does them on clear, cloud-free days - we seem very keen for our US friends to see our successes and celebrate them with us :)
The proper format for making machines of war is easy to mass produce, ridiculous reliability, effective enough, easy to use, easy to fix.
In the case of the Zumwalt and the Littoral Combat Ships it’s simple; they designed ships to fight the coastal army of weaker opponents. Now that the PLAN has emerged as a major naval power, the US Navy has very clear objectives on ship procurement. Because they desperately need hulls, they are taking less risks, and are only including mature technologies in the current generation of ships.
You will always need to be prepared to fight of the coast of weaker opponents.
@@TheBooban that's great, until you have a fleet and manpower you can't use because the weaker enemy purchased defenses from a stronger one
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD you can always use it. US always unleashes heavy conventional weapons at the onset of war. Then it degenerates to an insurgency. In Iraq they had to re create brown water riverine forces (disbanded again now) and enlist the help of the coast guard. Need full spectrum capabilities.
@@TheBooban of course but you also need to Maintain your proficiency in engaging near peer threats
The DOD's primary mission is as a technology driver; it subsidizes development that markets can't. Therefore failed projects don't entirely fail, for they give technicians practice. Those millions of lines of code were written by people who now know how to write millions of lines of code. That those lines fail is irrelevant, for the mission was impossible from the start, but now the coders can succeed at _possible_ missions.
It's corrupt, of course. Those coders could have been trained at lower cost. Behold the course of empire.
I know EXACTLY what you're talking about!!!! I live in Rochester NY!!!!!
To be fair the Comanche was not a complete waste. we applied the Stealth Tech and noise reduction technology to the modified Blackhawks for Operation Neptune Spear.
US : Were developing new weapons
China : Sure, when can we copy that?
about the F35, if you remove the OVL requirement (and on on a small scale, the passive stealth), you could replace it with the Rafale and have working and constently improving aircraft, in addition with being eye candy...
I have a feeling it has something to do with money.
Like everything else in America, money is always involved.
@Ninjafish No, I meant that these projects most likely exist solely for the purpose of benefitting shareholders and the companies/contractors involved, at the expense of taxpayer money.
Do tell me, where is money _not_ always involved?
First iPhone was developed for around $120 million... they literally used old computers wired to projectors (simulating a touch screen).
Moral of the story... Minimum viable product/ prototype first then big budgets to scale up.
Always fascinating how the U.S. has mega money for weapons but hardly anything for its own poor.
For the Navy's part we got people who knew nothing of shipbuilding or design armed with PowerPoint and a vocabulary including words such as "transformative" "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking". Results...LCS...Little Crappy Ships...and Zumwalt.
the f-35 is a present-day classic on how you should not put all your proverbial eggs in one proverbial basket (i had to emphasize 'proverbial' cuz in the real world, putting all eggs in one basket can be very efficient, and you don't have to look at, say, 2 basket-fuls of eggs to keep either from falling).
just to add hilarity, only lockheed martin got what it wanted. the us gov didn't really get an all-in-one plane, but lockheed martin guaranteed itself to have constant government funding. it's like if a game company promised the fans so many things but not only hardly delivered on those promises, but broke the game, called it early access, and added microtransactions.
There have been loads and loads of failed and/or canceled military projects during the cold war, also.
that happens everywhere around the world
Finally, a new video has been uploaded. And I realized that Covert Cabal only makes a video if there is a sponsor, but If I have a Big Company, App, Service, etc. I would frequently sponsor Covert Cabal just to watch his videos.
Good one! Very informative. Thanks!
The Commanche didn't really fail, the military just decided they didn't want it. That's true of a lot of programs, some more troubled than others. For those the military does want the cost will just be paid and the kinks worked out (F-35).
A lot can be said about contract structure and program management, politics, corruption, ineptitude, etc... in procurement, but in the end it's just political will and doctrinal need that determines what programs fail or not.
Because they try to do things before the technology is complete.
I remember someone saying before the USSR collapsed,they could see the day that NATO launches it's single interceptor to intercept the single Russian bomber.
Just the then escalating cost of military equipment.
World Class #CORRUPTION
Actually, those dollars aren't all wasted. A large part goes into the pockets of the designers and craftsmen who construct the items. Also, failed projects can and do teach you about which path is the correct one to take. In that sense they aren't really failures, they're learning experiences.
If there are no followup-projects, this learnin experience is gone after a couple of years. It's all top secret, after all, not much which could be taught at universities.
Maybe the true capacity of those equipment is classified, if strong appear weak, if weak appear strong!
Great video, great channel. You have lots of subscribers but definitely deserve more! I hope you blow up soon in popularity
In my opinion, it's because they're too far ahead and the technology just isn't there, and when it is there it is usually too expensive to mass produce
The only positive side is shelved projects and technology already researched do get incorporated to future projects
Its a matter of scale - corruption is significant problem when a large money allocation system exists, like how the covid relief fund was partially a political payout
I would rather have the build fail in the project phase than on the battlefield when lives are on the line.
As the video points out, the US MID is profit driven, not performance-driven. Why Putin has hypersonic missles but our panicked military is still trying to make one.
They are extremely ambitious and cutting edge. They are really not fails in a traditional sense, as most of the “failed” projects make for platforms to do further works. Lasers, stealth ships and planes even if the initial projects fail to provide efficient prototypes, in the coming decade, they will provide “what not to do” for successive projects
They are just wasting money lol
And shortcuts too, research never goes to waste I mean look at all the WW2 German advancments they all went to help the US and Russia modernize war.
@@japutaruko8052 hahaha for the most part, YES
10:48 wth, why are their chairs so small? Contractor cut corners.
If failure is using a small sample under real, adverse conditions to test, evaluate, refine and finally having the flexibility to cancel, delay, or reduce a project if the usefulness of the project becomes non-existent? Is that failure?
You call 500 billion dollars a small sample?
@@rick7424 for the Military Industrial complex you don’t?
Politics and corruption are synonymous. The age of digital engineering will assuredly help to make projects more successful, less time consuming, more cost prohibitive, help to fuse the engineering of now with the engineering of the future with open systems architecture, or perhaps more module based, plug-n-play systems.
We're from the same area! nice.
the faster you can put an idea to its true test.. the more effective and less expensive a potential real solution will be.
1:53 ad ends
We have created a professional military class, separate from the general population, one that is skeptical if not antagonistic to American political traditions. We need to reinstate the draft and end our all-volunteer military. We don't need Marriott Corp to manufacture meals when G.I.s are perfectly capable of peeling potatoes.
Restore conscription and the draft!
also it's the country that tries everything first. All the other countries respond or copy those that succeed.
🇺🇸 USA is numeral 1 on weapon exporting."yes failure "
How many comanchees has the US build and exported?
I have a novel idea ? Since the project has ended and assuming its all paid up todate- why shelve all that research and tech behind locked doors ? Why not make all that time, money and advancements available to another Tech company to see if they can solve the issues ? I'm thinking of course of the Rail Gun and the YF-23 but could easily apply to many others.
Also- Wealthy people and Politicians no longer face any real punishment like a common criminal. Back in the day the higher your status in the community the further the fall and punishment. No longer the case. Until that's rectified nothing will change with corruption.
When you have too much money all you can think of is spending
I wonder what impact that Kamikaze Drones might have on this. The cost and complexity of modern weaponry is a huge problem for all countries. Most of them can't have strengths in many areas and modest ability to project their power very far.
Then suddenly, Kamikaze Drones present a low cost alternative to traditional weapon systems. These systems are shown to work in Syria, Libya and Armenia. The primary suppliers are not traditional large scale arms exporters. You can't spend millions upon millions to shoot them down. They can theoretically show up in swarms to overwhelm defenses. They are very deployable and do not require a huge logistics tail.
The US Army is the US branch with the lead on drone defense. And remember these systems can (again theoretically) attack civilian targets (imagine one of these Kamikaze drones say at LAX). This is going to have to drive a low cost response. I can imagine that it might or might not impact other designs and procurement methods.
The natural state of things is dissipation, disorder and chaos. So we should rather be surprised about success, and try to find the force behind it (typically, competition for a resource, directly or indirectly, in some form or other).
The military higher ups use them to get a top position in the companies that have been doing the project.
Did these projects fail? Or were they actually intended to prove or disprove a concept?
In cooking, testing ideas is somewhat hit and miss. I bought a chuck pot roast. I intend to add a new ingredient, ground horseradish to the recipe. I normally use only flour, ground yellow mustard, salt. and pepper. Is cooking ground horseradish powder going to be a good thing or a bad thing... I'll find out.
Either way, it won't be a "failure". In order to learn, I need to build one. A failure would be to not test the theory in reality at all.
nr1 money or green paper , chemical laser on boing with efic.range 20 miles , should circeling around enemy start.rockit base freely and nice weather,costs 60 billion ,why they just print green paper and bump into their a-hull
You're from the City of Good Neighbors?! WOW - really is a small world!! Do you live there now or did you grow up there and then move?
US Military isn't using NordVPN is why
Most of the issues here are complicated... And each issue may require an entire documentary to correctly representt the points. For example the comment on the F35 as a failure because at the time it wasn't needed. This is not quite true, the program took so long to develope that the world and military needs changed. And it is still needed and is still relevant, to a certain extent. Again even this is a simplification.
Or, you know, what you stated but think in reverse
They're complicated not due to demand by the users (armed forces) but because the projects were made to bleed money. Defense contractors lobby the project managers from the armed forces side to move the goal post so projects go on. And the relationship goes both ways with congress as well. Its not just building a facility on their states so their program gets approved, but also as threat should said senator vote no, they'd have to face the repurcussions of losing jobs. Also, this is why, i.e the F-35 "needed to do everything". The "replacement for everything" is basically codeword for "reliance to Lockheed Martin" for at least the next 3-4 decades. Fuck even LM got on to the "subscription model" products-as-a-service bandwagon by offering a worldwide F-35 "maintanence program".
While I don't think these problems are exclusive to the US, its more probable to happen in the US due to the (pardon the overused word) military industrial complex. The US defense industry learned since ww2 that nothing else created "demand" like war or the threat of war. I'd like to argue that the cold war's 'severity' was over hyped up by the defense industry so the US would be more reluctant to sign these blank checks. But Its just that as you said, the cold war actually required these projects to be battle proven. And ofc, once the threat of USSR gone, the defense lobbyists now need to write up bogus requirements for "do-all" weapons because they really don't want to lose their way of life of having constant multi billion dollar defense projects.
Event the "successful" ones. I.e: Can I ask why the USN needed 10x 90-plane capacity 100kton nuclear powered Ford-class CVs? On most tours they're only outfitted with 40-50 planes. The USN has admitted they don't have the funds and need to fully outfit a carrier to its max capacity. Say if really want to fulfill a 10-carrier fleet, does it make sense to have half of them as smaller / lighter CVs (i.e the QE-class) for low-intensity campaigns and the other half with something akin to a Ford-class? We're just going to fucking load 40 aircraft per ship anyways.
Fuck y'all (no not you reader, its an expression) for insistent on saying "we cant pay for social welfare lmao"
Great job Great topic
watch the movie Pentagon Wars it'll show you a hindsight on whats happening in the background on every military acquisition.
The F-35 and Zummwalt will go down as successes. Not through their own feats but in their legacies. They both have changed ship and aircraft design forever
F35 is already a success.
@@sankujamatia525 The F35 will be painfully average. It wont have the service life of the F15 or F16, wont be as revered as the A10 or as storied as the F18. It will be a footnote that gave away to better things.
I don't doubt that Russia and China screw up projects, making this stuff is complex and difficult. But Russia in particular has demonstrated modernisation and bringing new leading-edge technologies into active service. -All at a significantly lower cost. Now, whether it's all a bluff and both sides go to war with a bunch of hardware that doesn't work, well, time will tell.
I think they jump into most of their proposals wayyyy tooo hard without planning long and hard enough. It's not really their fault though. Thats an effect of when you have too much money to spend. You can afford to lose to a certain amount. Kinda like over-spending in the mall.
Edit: Wow i forgot to take into consideration something Covert cabal said once. Its much easier to make a new defensive weapon than an offensive one. This makes it very challenging for new offensive weapons to compete nowadays. By the time a new strike aircraft has finished design, testing and is about to reach production, an enemy could have developed 2-3 new defense systems to counter it making that aircraft obsolete.
Actually the us needs to track down those that are selling high tech weapons and information to foreign countries.
So is China Military not a benchmark for USA Military to compare/compete against?
Throw money at the wall and see what sticks...on our damn dollar.
Just read the comments, because people allow!
Can you comment on the new Cold War between the USA and China?
The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried.
Thomas Edison failed 10,000 times before he developed the incandescent electric light bulb. He is quoted here: “Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results! I know several thousand things that won't work.”
Albert Einstein also said, “I have tried 99 times and have failed, but on the 100th time came success.”
Those who do the most, will also see the most failure, especially when you’re developing weapons that have never existed before. That doesn’t mean we aren’t acquiring the weapons we need, especially in regards to remaining the most potent military power the world has ever seen.
The reality is, many military projects fail worldwide. Besides, I wouldn’t call the Zumwalt a failure. It isn’t a completed project, but the ship can still be an asset once its outfitted with the right weapons. They are considering hypersonic missiles for these destroyers, so lets not act like these ships are useless.
Also, the knowledge gained from this program is invaluable. A ship like this has never been made, and it makes a lot of sense to build ships with a smaller radar cross section. As of now, the US is the only nation who has hands on experience with this tech, so I’d call it a positive, not a negative. Besides, the US can afford a program like the Zumwalt, which ended being around 22$ billion, and 4 billion per ship. Thats less than .5% of the total US expenditure in a single year. This countey GIVES AWAY more money than that every single year. Think about that. The US gives away close to 40$ billion to foreign nations for free, year after year. At least with the 22$ billion we spent on the Zumwalt program, we have two awesome, but yet unfinished, small cross section guided missile destroyers, and a ton of invaluable research. I’d say that’s not too bad.
The F-35 is akin to a aircraft of the second world war. This aircraft was the brainchild of someone you might have heard of, his name was Hermann Göring and the name of the first aircraft was the Messerschmidt-110, later followed by the ME-210 and ME-410. These aircraft was truly the F-35 of the day. Göring wanted an aircraft that could both engage in dogfights, perform close air support and to some extend deliver bombs on target. The 110 performed well in the early stages of the war, Poland, France, but later it and it's derivatives would face mayor problems. Why? Well since they were designed to do everything they excelled at nothing and was easily outmaneuvered by other aircraft and shot down in dogfights because of the compromises required to allow them to perform all of the combat roles desired. They were built with the same engine as the ME-109, which was an excellent aircraft that performed just as well as any allied aircraft throughout the entirety of the war. Although Germany probably never could have won the war this is just one of many examples where over engineering caused them to be at a disadvantage compared to the Allies and the Soviets. Each 110/210/410 was built with 2 of the same engine that single-handedly powered the 109 and also every other resource used to build smaller but more specialized aircraft. It is funny how we never learn from history and always repeats the mistakes of the past. The F-35 might be worth 3 enemy aircraft but what if the enemy has 4?
If you ain't failing, you ain't testing.
Research
Because America thought it would be good to bring the market economy into the public sector
Simple, no accountability
Funding + 50 states.
They don't, they make many people very rich
I don;t know about Chinese but Russians could not afford to cancel expensive projects of national important / priority. Yes they have failed projects nut the reason why you don't hear about them is because they aren't as expensive and as numerous as those in USA.... In US they have no problems flushing down the drain billions of dollars because they can simply print the money. Russia and China cannot do that so they have to be more effective and efficient at spending money on projects that will deliver...
Zumwalt class... build back better... missile platforms
failure is Easy Money
US military wants Apple solutions, while Russia and China use Android...
They need to start awarding projects to Elon Musk.
too arrogant to admit that they got it wrong and then they covered it up or called it an upgrade.
We have a failed state