*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
-----Original Message-----
From: LEEnCALIF@aol.com <LEEnCALIF@aol.com>
To: Military Vehicles List <mil-veh@uller.skylee.com>
Date: 05 March 2000 07:51
Subject: [MV] Simple verses sophisticated
Well, nice to see Jack has used "sophisticated" in its correct manner, not the
apparently now accepted and wholly incorrect usage.
>
>That was then and this is now....and boy has time changed all that! One has
>to look pretty hard to find anything remotely simple about todays vehicles,
>especially military vehicles which ought to be incredibly simple. It's
>almost conspiratorial how complicated our mil-vehs have become, referring to
>the United States. Bradley,s, Humvees, etc. they are all extremely
>sophisticated things with millions more parts than a grunt in the field would
>ever know what to do with!
>
Sophisticated: deprived of natural simplicity, over complicated; that they are
and seem to be in the western world. It doesn't seem to be a unique US ailment
and Jack has obviously not had the joys of trying to maintain that epitome of
inaccessible complexity otherwise masquerading as a HMLC FV 620/2/3/4 Stalwart,
or indeed the delights of a Centurion plug change, officially booked as an 11
hour job necessitating the total removal of V12 Meteor (non-blown Merlin) carbs,
inlet and exhaust headers. We know what the exhaust fasteners will be like. . .
. . . .
>The Humvee for instance seems incredibly complicated compared to the old
>Jeep, but is it that much more mission capable? Aside from costing as much
>as 4 Jeeps, it requires special mechanical training over and above the norm
>to properly service.
>In the design area it's chasis breadth defies understanding. There are a lot
>of european mountain roads and city back streets that this thing is not going
>to fit!
>
We seem to do quite well with the off-the shelf, bog standard bar a re-spray,
windmilled diesel Land Rover, however, there is a lot to be said for real volume
production to iron out the bugs, most MV's are relatively tiny production runs
for a customer who will pay for continual design short comings. Mind you there
is a slight foo-bar here too; you notice the spare is carried high on the left
side. It was intended for run-flats but, oh dear, far too expensive and really
the suspension can't handle the unsprung RF weight, the hood wasn't made to take
a spare now and the interior space is all spoken for.
We'll just add a bit of reinforcing and put it outside, oh, and watch out for
easy sharp turn rollability. . . . . . . . . . .
>Awhile back our so-called advanced engineering led to some pretty serious
>mission failures. Case in point U.S. helicopters in the Iranian desert...the
>Iranian hostage rescue. Those sophisticated turbine engines didn't like the
>ultra fine arabian sand and were quickly ruined. Mission scrubbed. There
>were more problems, but that is another story. The British had the proper
>rugged helo's for the job... so did another half dozen countries, but we were
>just a little too naive and too confident with our technology, then again we
>did ok with our planes against Iraq. But, I am not talking about jet
>fighters... I can understand how technology could make them survivors. I am
>talking about something on land with wheels that is suppose to get from point
>A to point B that will always be vulnerable to the most basic weapons.
>
There is a specific historic element here likely overlooked in the US because of
an "infamous" chronological difference. The western desert focused a lot of
minds on filtration with the typical engine life-span of two weeks at best,
there was no time to address the shortcomings but you do see at least some
effective work was done for aircraft and the huge "chin" filters seen on desert
airforce Hurricanes and the like.
Shortly after the sad debacle at Kasserine Pass the problem largely went away
but was not forgotten here and a substantial research programme was started post
war to develop effective fighting vehicle filtration and the result can be seen
as the alloy coffin that serves a Ferret for instance and is used as parallel
duals on the larger engines.
But we now have a worrying crop of equipment failures in the Balkans, rifles
that don't go bang, wireless sets that don't talk and "fighting" vehicles that
don't fight. "Scandalous" screams the media just before the Official Secrets
Act kicks in.
>Wondering what is it then, this penchant among mil-veh builders for making
>the simple complicated? They can't even write a manual in simple terms... a
>spark plug might be called a primary ignition combustion initiator or
>something like that! We've all seen the dumb examples. It's like a mass
>conspiracy to endulge in verbose pedanticism (too many big words).
>
>Who is to blame? Do you think the manufacturers are the ones who secretly
>write the mil-specs so they can charge more? lol Do they make the simple
>complicated for the same reasons? Money? Does that make a mil-spec bolt (or
>special aircraft toilet seat) at 500% markup work any better than one off the
>shelf?
>
This is a combination of all things surely. The mil work through a non tech
committee blinded by science and deceived by promised technology as the panacea
to multi mission capability and continually fed updated "wouldn't it be nice if.
. . . ." requirements from the interested user arms.
The manufacturers rub their hands in glee, before one bit of swarf comes off a
lathe, millions are spent in bumf generation against govt specs affording
several tons of weasel-word engineering designed to give the greatest confidence
and maximum profit with total absolution of any responsibility for the fitness
of the final product. (I've had 18 years in the defence industry and on several
anglo-US projects.)
>I've wrenched on two British and French military vehicles over the past few
>months and they don't seem to share this U.S. compulsion for stupidity in
>design. They are by contrast quite the opposite, being basic and functional.
> It was almost a pleasure to work on them when thinking back to the
>nightmarish adventures I've had on our U.S. vehicles, requiring uncommonly
>specialized wrenches, parts, etc.
>
You really, really do need a Stalwart you do :-)
>To me, refinement should logically mean to gradually make the complicated... s
>impler. That a refined part should become less expensive, more effecient and
>easier to use. Since when have we in the U.S. ever gone that direction? lol
>
>
>That's my rant... but, am I wrong?
>
Probably not.
AM General and Vickers will be round in the morning for a friendly chat. . . . .
. .
Richard
(Southampton - England)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:06 PDT