Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Military hardware

Years ago I had it carefully explained to me that the most important things about military hardware were not superior quality or efficiency, but reliability, ruggedness, and ease of repair in the field. You wouldn't repair the jet's engine, but yank it and stuff a new one in to get the thing back in the air quickly. The sine qua non--can you use it for its job? If not, you don't really have it. By that rule our navy is quite a bit smaller than we say it is.

Cheaper things than jets--jeeps, guns, radios--were supposed to be easy to get back in working order while in the field.

I was never in the military, much less in combat, but the priority makes sense to me--even when you have to pay a premium for the product as a result.

It seems that principle is no longer a priority: "Increasingly, Captain Ekman argues, the Department of Defense is signing procurement contracts for equipment from generators to trucks to MRAPs that not only cover the purchase of the vehicle but strict maintenance regimens as well. These contracts often place restrictions on the maintenance of the equipment, requiring manufacturer-affiliated contractors to perform maintenance and repair instead of enlisted Soldiers."

Apparently we have no "right to repair" important chunks of gear. I'm trying to imagine the "return-to-factory." Or will Oshkosh field its own armed repair teams? I remember some sci-fi positing that corporations would field their own armies. This wasn't the way they described it.

Probably rules about repairs and warranties get waived in combat zones. But in the meantime our mechanics have no experience on the equipment. They'd be learning on the fly.

If the Pentagon decides to change course and force a "right to repair" in the contracts, maybe some of the rest of us can get it too--a lot of farmers are unhappy with John Deere.

at

3 comments:

  1. Christopher B7:28 AM

    As a counterpoint, nominal civilians doing combat support jobs isn't exactly a new idea. The Military Telegraph service, and I think the military railroads in US Civil War were contract civilian operations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Assistant Village Idiot1:45 PM

    My understanding is that this is part of the popularity of the AK-47, and this lack of field repair was one of the huge problems of Vietnam. The brass liked weapons that had great range, like the M-16, which is not a significant advantage in a jungle.

    Just what I read somewhere. People who know more can correct and improve on this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. james2:39 PM

    I've heard all sorts of things about the M-16, and am not sure what weight to give different explanations. But yes, that's what I've heard about the AK-47--cheap to make and tolerant of dirt, so long as you didn't need long range accuracy, which you almost never did. (I've never fired either even at a range, much less in the field.)

    Even at this distance I can see that many of our brass like shiny things they can clamp their names to.

    ReplyDelete