Skip to comments.
Army picks four companies to build tactical truck prototypes
Fox News ^
| Fox News
| Julia Musto |
Posted on 01/28/2023 4:24:59 PM PST by BenLurkin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: BenLurkin
Ah, I got your prototype right here.
21
posted on
01/28/2023 6:09:24 PM PST
by
Flatus I. Maximus
(If Black Lives Matter, how do you explain Chicago?)
To: BenLurkin
Are ESG scores involved in who they chose?
22
posted on
01/28/2023 7:10:00 PM PST
by
HollyB
To: ProtectOurFreedom
Listening to the 1944 World Series.
23
posted on
01/29/2023 3:25:48 AM PST
by
MCF
(If my home can't be my Castle, then it will be my Alamo)
To: MCF
I saw the “Browns” team name on the board. Sounds like a name that would go over well today.
24
posted on
01/29/2023 4:33:25 AM PST
by
ProtectOurFreedom
(Once you get people to believe that a plural pronoun is singular, they'll believe anything - nicollo)
To: SauronOfMordor
I guarantee you that I can find a mud hole they will get stuck in.
25
posted on
01/29/2023 4:38:55 AM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
(Don't rush to your death.)
To: ealgeone
It has been explained to me that this falls into the same general category as making "new" B-52s: The processes and skills no longer exist within industry. This is also why the mighty Saturn V F-1 engines can't be made again: The processes and skills no longer exist.
I think this extends to the parts used to make the old trucks. The manufacturers have discarded the old tooling and moved on to different processes which need different skills.
We could revive all three; but, it doesn't really make sense to do so.
26
posted on
01/29/2023 5:52:23 AM PST
by
GingisK
To: GingisK
If they really were interested in long-term cost effectiveness, they would develop a truck that could be used in civilian rural/construction applications (minus the armor, etc).
Thus the production line could be kept going continuously, churning out civilian/export versions when the US military didn’t need more.
But this way probably generates more bribe money.
27
posted on
01/29/2023 9:08:28 AM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(The rot of all principle begins with a single compromise.)
To: GingisK
>>This is also why the mighty Saturn V F-1 engines can’t be made again: The processes and skills no longer exist.<<
Musk’s Starship booster is comparable to Saturn V, but Biden keeps messing with Musk’s permits.
28
posted on
01/29/2023 9:16:20 AM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(The rot of all principle begins with a single compromise.)
To: SauronOfMordor
Musk’s Starship booster is comparable to Saturn V Not really. The Saturn V used five F-1 engines. Musk's Starship needs 33 of those puny little Raptor things.
Besides, the Saturn V didn't look a big penis.
29
posted on
01/29/2023 4:08:34 PM PST
by
GingisK
To: GingisK
The big factor is not the number of engines, it’s cost per pound to orbit. And Musk is doing very well on that.
30
posted on
01/29/2023 4:16:25 PM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(The rot of all principle begins with a single compromise.)
To: SauronOfMordor
Could be that the mission of the military changes over time. The equipment would need to change as well. If we were to accept your view of things, they would still be making parts for bi-planes and the Model-T trucks.
31
posted on
01/29/2023 4:22:20 PM PST
by
GingisK
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson