Hello strangers! I'm working on an article you lot might enjoy and have something to contribute.
What post-WWII military programmes have proven the most spectacular and expensive design mistakes?
This comes off the back of the US Navy spending $400,000 on a chemical flush for poorly-designed heads on two aircraft carriers. https://www.naval-technology.com/news/carrier-toilet-problems/
The Zumwalt class destroyers probably top the list.
The B-58 Hustler is probably a good one to research, as it was famously expensive and never really panned out, being taken out of service after less than 10 years. The B-52 was introduced five years earlier than the B-58 and lasted (so far) fifty years later in service.
Oh, and US Navy shitters have been problem children since they went away from the salt-water flush type. Just a complete story of those debacles would be a long article or short book.
Welcome back :hug:
Brazen! :)
I humbly contribute the Spanish sub that couldn't float.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/spain-military-submarine.html
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2020, 09:42:18 AM
Oh, and US Navy shitters have been problem children since they went away from the salt-water flush type. Just a complete story of those debacles would be a long article or short book.
IIRC there was a very costly program for the toilet in I thing the A6 Prowler* navy jet, or at the least the toilet seat itself was Very expensive.
* Not totally sure it was the prowler, but I think was some naval EW/recon jet, probably not the E2 and I don't think the S3.
Sgt. York air defense and SA80.
No one has said the F-35 yet? :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2020, 09:55:01 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2020, 09:42:18 AM
Oh, and US Navy shitters have been problem children since they went away from the salt-water flush type. Just a complete story of those debacles would be a long article or short book.
IIRC there was a very costly program for the toilet in I thing the A6 Prowler* navy jet, or at the least the toilet seat itself was Very expensive.
* Not totally sure it was the prowler, but I think was some naval EW/recon jet, probably not the E2 and I don't think the S3.
Have you seen Flight of the Asstruder?
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2020, 09:55:01 AM
IIRC there was a very costly program for the toilet in I thing the A6 Prowler* navy jet, or at the least the toilet seat itself was Very expensive.
* Not totally sure it was the prowler, but I think was some naval EW/recon jet, probably not the E2 and I don't think the S3.
Pretty sure that was the P-3 with the toilet seat thing. Couldn't have been the A-6 or S-3 as those didn't have toilets.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2020, 10:00:06 AM
No one has said the F-35 yet? :hmm:
Yeah, that would be the one for us.
That and the new base for the Marine Corps. The Navy kept pushing ahead with a new base even though it became clear the marines resisted the move. The plan was finally axed in February, after a sizeable fraction of marines quit over having to move 200km. Close to a hundred million was spent, and the marines still need a new base. But it doesn't need to be as big anymore, I suppose.
Won't be most expensive by total dollars, but I thought I'd throw out a couple Canadian examples:
-Upholder/Victoria class submarines. Built by the Brits in the 70s, only in service for about a decade. Then sold to Canada, where they've been nothing but trouble.
-the 30 year saga to replace the Sea King helicopters
-and yeah, the F-35
Is the F35 a true failure, or just much more costly and functional than most countries want/can afford right now?
Honest question.
MBT-70
That time when Olaf the Hairy, high chief of all the vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.
Quote from: Maladict on April 20, 2020, 12:52:53 PM
That time when Olaf the Hairy, high chief of all the vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.
^_^
But not post-WW2. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2020, 12:37:23 PM
Is the F35 a true failure, or just much more costly and functional than most countries want/can afford right now?
Honest question.
It's still under development (even as it is under production, which is by itself kind of insane) so maybe they'll be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat, but it seems like it's going to be a failure.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2020, 01:02:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2020, 12:37:23 PM
Is the F35 a true failure, or just much more costly and functional than most countries want/can afford right now?
Honest question.
It's still under development (even as it is under production, which is by itself kind of insane) so maybe they'll be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat, but it seems like it's going to be a failure.
Not sure why you think it is a failure. It is late and more costly than planned, but has the capabilities the buyers wanted.
The Zumawalt class destroyers cost as much as a Nimitz class carrier (including R&D) but don't work.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2020, 09:40:53 AM
The Zumwalt class destroyers probably top the list.
The B-58 Hustler is probably a good one to research, as it was famously expensive and never really panned out, being taken out of service after less than 10 years. The B-52 was introduced five years earlier than the B-58 and lasted (so far) fifty years later in service.
internment
But the B-58 is cool looking... :mad:
The F-35 (which I would say is still a bit early to say if/how much of a failure it is) might be all flashy and headline-grabbing, being a fighter jet and all. But how about that KC-46 Pegasus...
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 20, 2020, 06:28:51 PM
The F-35 (which I would say is still a bit early to say if/how much of a failure it is) might be all flashy and headline-grabbing, being a fighter jet and all. But how about that KC-46 Pegasus...
Not sure why you rate the KC-46 a failure. It's had some teething problems, but nothing extraordinary.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2020, 11:07:17 AM
Won't be most expensive by total dollars, but I thought I'd throw out a couple Canadian examples:
-Upholder/Victoria class submarines. Built by the Brits in the 70s, only in service for about a decade. Then sold to Canada, where they've been nothing but trouble.
-the 30 year saga to replace the Sea King helicopters
-and yeah, the F-35
Yes. All those. And of course the Avro Arrow.
Hey, Brazen good to hear from you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2020, 10:03:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2020, 11:07:17 AM
Won't be most expensive by total dollars, but I thought I'd throw out a couple Canadian examples:
-Upholder/Victoria class submarines. Built by the Brits in the 70s, only in service for about a decade. Then sold to Canada, where they've been nothing but trouble.
-the 30 year saga to replace the Sea King helicopters
-and yeah, the F-35
Yes. All those. And of course the Avro Arrow.
Hey, Brazen good to hear from you.
:cool:
The German G11 is example of costly failure, though the failure was more a result of politics than design.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2020, 10:09:21 AM
Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2020, 09:55:01 AM
IIRC there was a very costly program for the toilet in I thing the A6 Prowler* navy jet, or at the least the toilet seat itself was Very expensive.
* Not totally sure it was the prowler, but I think was some naval EW/recon jet, probably not the E2 and I don't think the S3.
Pretty sure that was the P-3 with the toilet seat thing. Couldn't have been the A-6 or S-3 as those didn't have toilets.
As a reservist I worked maintenance on P3's, and just flew a couple times for short hops but never had to use the toilets. One of those short flights was when we first got the planes and I and another ground crewman went along for touch and go landings. Man, we got so nauseous! :yuk: Still didn't use the toilets and I have no first hand knowledge of how good or bad the things were.
The jury is still out there with the F-35. To be classed as a total failure, imho, a project should never reach operationability or be removed after a short time.
Quote from: celedhring on April 21, 2020, 11:25:28 AM
The jury is still out there with the F-35. To be classed as a total failure, imho, a project should never reach operationability or be removed after a short time.
Yeah, it may stay in service for decades, who knows?
One thing that should be considered is that while a program may fail, the work that went into it might prove useful on another project. An example would be the MBT 70, a Joint American-German effort to build a new tank. The project failed but informed the development of the M1 Abrams and the Leopard II.
The Zumwalt Destroyer program mentioned by Grumbler is the best case study I know of, of a recent military procurement project that ran completely and expensively off the rails.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/12/zumwalt-class-navy-stealth-destroyer-program-failure/
Another one that comes to mind...as I think I played a PC game/simulator for it once. The RAH-66 Comanche.
The Army's FCS comes to mind, it was an utter conceptual fail, though you could broaden the fail to all Army tracked armored vehicle development over the last quarter century, from the Crusader to the GCS, billions of dollars were spent on these platforms without anything to show for it. At least the Zumwalt was actually built, flawed as it is.
The Army Reserve spent over $2 billion on a new web-based personnel system that crashed on day one and was abandoned after a few months as being unfix-able. Not as sexy as a weapon system but an epic fail nonetheless (this happened a year after the obamacare fiasco).
The Navy's LCS was also a huge failure, the Navy wanted it to be a swiss army knife that solved many of its problems, it ended up solving none of them.
The ACU uniform, whose camouflage only worked if you were trying to hide in a gravel pit. Whatever procurement officer signed off on that must have gotten a nice consulting job with the manufacturer afterwards.
Airbus A400M as a non US project that went way over budget with poor outcome.
A nice anecdote for a failed military project may be the renovation of the German tall ship Gorch Fock. Takes years and is hugely over budget.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 21, 2020, 08:33:11 PM
The ACU uniform, whose camouflage only worked if you were trying to hide in a gravel pit. Whatever procurement officer signed off on that must have gotten a nice consulting job with the manufacturer afterwards.
And we USAF folks followed you guys right into that gravel pit...but at least we had chosen sexy tiger stripes. :P
Redundant much?
I'm fairly sure that Ed Anger would have found a way to get Montgomery into this thread :(
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 22, 2020, 08:49:49 AM
I'm fairly sure that Ed Anger would have found a way to get Montgomery into this thread :(
But not into Caen. :(
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2020, 10:42:26 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 22, 2020, 08:49:49 AM
I'm fairly sure that Ed Anger would have found a way to get Montgomery into this thread :(
But not into Caen. :(
Nor Arnhem. :(
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2020, 01:02:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2020, 12:37:23 PM
Is the F35 a true failure, or just much more costly and functional than most countries want/can afford right now?
Honest question.
It's still under development (even as it is under production, which is by itself kind of insane) so maybe they'll be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat, but it seems like it's going to be a failure.
How is that insane? I can't think of a single combat aircraft since WW2 that was not under development while it was under production. For that matter, most weapon systems work that way - I am inclined to even say all of them, but I imagine there are some exceptions that would make "all" technically incorrect.
Thanks, everyone! Writing this up this week, I've got a few choice expert comments too. Navy programmes seem especially prone. I'll posta link for you to criticise everything I got wrong when it's published next month :hug: