±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 986
Total: 986
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Home
03: Photo Gallery
04: Community Forums
05: Photo Gallery
06: Home
07: Member Screenshots
08: Downloads
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Home
13: Member Screenshots
14: Photo Gallery
15: Home
16: Your Account
17: Community Forums
18: Photo Gallery
19: News Archive
20: Community Forums
21: Member Screenshots
22: Community Forums
23: Member Screenshots
24: Home
25: Photo Gallery
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Home
29: Home
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Home
34: Community Forums
35: Photo Gallery
36: Home
37: Community Forums
38: Home
39: Community Forums
40: Home
41: Home
42: Home
43: News Archive
44: Home
45: Home
46: Community Forums
47: Photo Gallery
48: Downloads
49: Home
50: Community Forums
51: Home
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Photo Gallery
55: Home
56: Photo Gallery
57: Community Forums
58: Home
59: Downloads
60: Home
61: Photo Gallery
62: Photo Gallery
63: Community Forums
64: News Archive
65: Community Forums
66: Home
67: Home
68: Photo Gallery
69: Photo Gallery
70: Home
71: News Archive
72: Member Screenshots
73: Member Screenshots
74: Home
75: Home
76: Community Forums
77: Community Forums
78: Photo Gallery
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Your Account
82: Home
83: Home
84: Community Forums
85: Home
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Home
89: Photo Gallery
90: Community Forums
91: Home
92: Downloads
93: News Archive
94: Photo Gallery
95: Community Forums
96: Home
97: Community Forums
98: News
99: Home
100: Home
101: Member Screenshots
102: Community Forums
103: Home
104: Home
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Home
108: Community Forums
109: Photo Gallery
110: Community Forums
111: Home
112: Home
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Home
116: Home
117: Home
118: Community Forums
119: Member Screenshots
120: Community Forums
121: Member Screenshots
122: Photo Gallery
123: Community Forums
124: Photo Gallery
125: Photo Gallery
126: Home
127: Photo Gallery
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Photo Gallery
132: Statistics
133: Community Forums
134: Photo Gallery
135: Home
136: Photo Gallery
137: Downloads
138: Community Forums
139: Community Forums
140: Photo Gallery
141: Home
142: Home
143: Home
144: Home
145: Home
146: Photo Gallery
147: Photo Gallery
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Home
151: Photo Gallery
152: Home
153: Home
154: Home
155: Photo Gallery
156: Home
157: Home
158: Home
159: Home
160: Member Screenshots
161: Community Forums
162: Member Screenshots
163: Home
164: Community Forums
165: Home
166: Community Forums
167: Photo Gallery
168: Community Forums
169: Photo Gallery
170: Home
171: Home
172: Community Forums
173: Home
174: Home
175: Home
176: Home
177: News
178: Photo Gallery
179: Home
180: Home
181: Home
182: Home
183: Home
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Photo Gallery
187: Downloads
188: Community Forums
189: Home
190: Member Screenshots
191: Home
192: Photo Gallery
193: Community Forums
194: Member Screenshots
195: Home
196: Statistics
197: Home
198: Member Screenshots
199: Home
200: Home
201: Member Screenshots
202: Photo Gallery
203: Community Forums
204: Home
205: Home
206: Photo Gallery
207: Statistics
208: Home
209: News
210: Community Forums
211: Home
212: Photo Gallery
213: Home
214: Home
215: Community Forums
216: Home
217: Your Account
218: Photo Gallery
219: Home
220: Home
221: Home
222: Home
223: Home
224: Home
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Your Account
228: Statistics
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: Home
232: Community Forums
233: Member Screenshots
234: Home
235: Photo Gallery
236: Community Forums
237: Home
238: Home
239: Home
240: Downloads
241: Home
242: Community Forums
243: Home
244: Community Forums
245: Photo Gallery
246: Community Forums
247: Community Forums
248: News
249: Home
250: Photo Gallery
251: Photo Gallery
252: Community Forums
253: Community Forums
254: Home
255: Home
256: Downloads
257: Member Screenshots
258: Community Forums
259: Home
260: Home
261: Home
262: Home
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Home
266: Statistics
267: Community Forums
268: Photo Gallery
269: Home
270: Member Screenshots
271: Home
272: Community Forums
273: Home
274: Home
275: Statistics
276: Home
277: Home
278: Photo Gallery
279: Home
280: Community Forums
281: Home
282: Home
283: Home
284: Home
285: Home
286: Home
287: Home
288: Home
289: Photo Gallery
290: Home
291: Photo Gallery
292: Community Forums
293: Home
294: Community Forums
295: Community Forums
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Community Forums
299: Home
300: Home
301: Home
302: Home
303: Home
304: Home
305: Home
306: Home
307: Home
308: Home
309: Home
310: Home
311: Home
312: Home
313: Home
314: Home
315: Home
316: Home
317: Home
318: Home
319: Home
320: Home
321: Photo Gallery
322: Home
323: Home
324: Home
325: Home
326: Home
327: Home
328: Home
329: Home
330: Home
331: Home
332: Home
333: Home
334: Home
335: Home
336: Home
337: Home
338: Home
339: Home
340: Home
341: Home
342: Home
343: Home
344: Home
345: Home
346: Home
347: Home
348: Home
349: Home
350: Home
351: Home
352: Home
353: Home
354: Home
355: Home
356: Home
357: Home
358: Community Forums
359: Home
360: Home
361: Home
362: Home
363: Home
364: Home
365: Home
366: Home
367: Home
368: Home
369: Home
370: Home
371: Home
372: Home
373: Home
374: Home
375: Home
376: Home
377: Home
378: Home
379: Home
380: Home
381: Home
382: Home
383: Home
384: Home
385: Home
386: Home
387: Home
388: Home
389: Home
390: Home
391: Home
392: Home
393: Home
394: Home
395: Home
396: Home
397: Home
398: Home
399: Home
400: Home
401: Home
402: Home
403: Home
404: Home
405: Home
406: Home
407: Home
408: Home
409: Home
410: Home
411: Home
412: Home
413: Home
414: Home
415: News Archive
416: Home
417: Home
418: Home
419: Home
420: Home
421: Home
422: Home
423: Home
424: Home
425: Home
426: Home
427: Home
428: Home
429: Home
430: Home
431: Home
432: Home
433: Home
434: Home
435: Home
436: Home
437: Home
438: Home
439: Home
440: Member Screenshots
441: Home
442: Home
443: Home
444: Home
445: Home
446: Home
447: Home
448: Home
449: Home
450: Home
451: Home
452: Home
453: Home
454: Home
455: Home
456: Home
457: Home
458: Home
459: Home
460: Home
461: Home
462: Home
463: Home
464: Home
465: Home
466: Home
467: Home
468: Home
469: Home
470: Home
471: Home
472: Home
473: Home
474: Home
475: Home
476: Home
477: Home
478: Home
479: Home
480: Home
481: Home
482: Home
483: Home
484: Home
485: Community Forums
486: Home
487: Home
488: Home
489: Home
490: Home
491: Home
492: Home
493: Home
494: Home
495: Home
496: Home
497: Home
498: Home
499: Home
500: Home
501: Home
502: Home
503: Home
504: Home
505: Community Forums
506: Home
507: Home
508: Home
509: Home
510: Home
511: Home
512: Home
513: Home
514: Home
515: Home
516: Home
517: Home
518: Home
519: Home
520: Home
521: Home
522: Home
523: Home
524: Home
525: Home
526: Home
527: Home
528: Home
529: Home
530: Home
531: Home
532: Home
533: Home
534: Home
535: Home
536: Home
537: Home
538: Home
539: Home
540: Home
541: Home
542: Home
543: Home
544: Home
545: Home
546: Home
547: Home
548: Home
549: Home
550: Home
551: Home
552: Home
553: Home
554: Home
555: Home
556: Home
557: Home
558: Home
559: Home
560: Home
561: Home
562: Home
563: Home
564: Home
565: Home
566: Home
567: Home
568: Home
569: Home
570: Community Forums
571: Home
572: Home
573: Home
574: Home
575: Home
576: Home
577: Home
578: Home
579: Community Forums
580: Home
581: Home
582: Home
583: Home
584: Home
585: Home
586: Home
587: Home
588: Home
589: Home
590: Home
591: Home
592: Home
593: Home
594: Home
595: Home
596: Home
597: Home
598: Home
599: Home
600: Home
601: Home
602: Home
603: Home
604: Home
605: Home
606: Home
607: Home
608: Home
609: Home
610: Home
611: Home
612: Home
613: Home
614: Member Screenshots
615: Home
616: Home
617: Home
618: Home
619: Home
620: Home
621: Home
622: Home
623: Home
624: Home
625: Home
626: Home
627: Home
628: Home
629: Home
630: Home
631: Home
632: Home
633: Home
634: Home
635: Home
636: Home
637: Home
638: Home
639: Home
640: Photo Gallery
641: Home
642: Home
643: Home
644: Home
645: Home
646: Home
647: Home
648: Home
649: Home
650: Home
651: Home
652: Home
653: Home
654: Home
655: Home
656: Home
657: Home
658: Home
659: Home
660: Home
661: Home
662: Home
663: Home
664: Home
665: Home
666: Home
667: Home
668: Home
669: Home
670: Home
671: Home
672: Home
673: Home
674: Home
675: Home
676: Home
677: Home
678: Home
679: Home
680: Home
681: News Archive
682: Home
683: Home
684: Home
685: Home
686: Home
687: Home
688: Home
689: Home
690: Home
691: Home
692: Home
693: Home
694: Home
695: Home
696: Home
697: Home
698: Home
699: Home
700: Community Forums
701: Home
702: Home
703: Home
704: Home
705: Home
706: Home
707: Home
708: Home
709: Home
710: Home
711: Home
712: Home
713: Home
714: Home
715: Home
716: Home
717: Home
718: Home
719: Home
720: Home
721: Home
722: Home
723: Home
724: Home
725: Community Forums
726: Home
727: Home
728: Home
729: Home
730: Home
731: Home
732: Home
733: Home
734: Home
735: Home
736: Home
737: Home
738: Home
739: Home
740: Home
741: Home
742: Home
743: News
744: Home
745: Home
746: Home
747: Home
748: Home
749: Home
750: Home
751: Home
752: Home
753: Home
754: Home
755: Home
756: Home
757: Home
758: Home
759: Home
760: Home
761: Home
762: Home
763: Home
764: Home
765: Home
766: Home
767: Home
768: Home
769: Home
770: Home
771: Home
772: Home
773: Home
774: Home
775: Home
776: Home
777: Home
778: Home
779: Member Screenshots
780: Home
781: Home
782: Home
783: Home
784: Home
785: Home
786: Home
787: Home
788: Home
789: Home
790: Home
791: Home
792: Home
793: Home
794: Home
795: Home
796: Home
797: Home
798: Home
799: Home
800: Home
801: Home
802: Home
803: Home
804: Community Forums
805: Home
806: Home
807: Home
808: Home
809: Home
810: Home
811: Home
812: Home
813: Home
814: Home
815: Home
816: Home
817: Home
818: Home
819: Home
820: Home
821: Home
822: Home
823: Home
824: Home
825: Home
826: Home
827: Home
828: Home
829: Home
830: Home
831: Home
832: Home
833: Home
834: Home
835: Home
836: Home
837: Home
838: Home
839: Home
840: Home
841: Home
842: Home
843: Home
844: Home
845: Home
846: Downloads
847: Home
848: Home
849: Home
850: Home
851: Home
852: Home
853: Home
854: Home
855: Home
856: Home
857: Home
858: Home
859: Home
860: Home
861: Home
862: Home
863: Home
864: Home
865: Home
866: Home
867: Home
868: Home
869: Home
870: Home
871: Home
872: Home
873: Home
874: Home
875: Home
876: Home
877: Home
878: Home
879: Home
880: Home
881: Home
882: Home
883: Home
884: Home
885: Home
886: Home
887: Home
888: Home
889: Home
890: Home
891: Home
892: Home
893: Home
894: Home
895: Home
896: Home
897: Home
898: Home
899: Home
900: Home
901: Home
902: Home
903: Home
904: Home
905: Home
906: Home
907: Home
908: Photo Gallery
909: Home
910: Downloads
911: Home
912: Home
913: Home
914: Home
915: Home
916: Home
917: Home
918: Home
919: Home
920: Home
921: Home
922: Home
923: Photo Gallery
924: Home
925: Home
926: Photo Gallery
927: Home
928: Home
929: Home
930: Home
931: Home
932: Home
933: Home
934: Home
935: Home
936: Home
937: Home
938: Home
939: Home
940: Home
941: Home
942: Home
943: Home
944: Home
945: Home
946: Home
947: Home
948: Home
949: Home
950: Home
951: Home
952: Home
953: Member Screenshots
954: Home
955: Home
956: Home
957: Home
958: Home
959: Home
960: Home
961: Home
962: Home
963: Home
964: Home
965: Home
966: Home
967: Home
968: Home
969: Home
970: Home
971: Home
972: Home
973: Home
974: Home
975: Home
976: Home
977: Home
978: Home
979: Home
980: Home
981: Home
982: Home
983: Home
984: Community Forums
985: Home
986: Home

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jinx
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 186
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- Roy_A_Lingle
The cost of a new tank would possible be far more. There is NO plant, with skilled workers present, that can build new tanks.

You would have to find skilled workers, possible train some of them, check out all the equipment that was placed in storage (that is if any of it was saved), service and repair all of it as needed before restarting production. So less you are planning on building 10,000+ tanks, the restarting process cost would make 7 million per vehicle look cheap.



Thank you for the info. I was not aware that the production facilities had shut down. When the training and tooling-up and plant-building costs are added to the mix, i guess $7,000,000 *does* sound relatively "cheap'.

As for the next generation of fighting vehicles (i am resisting using the word "tank", here, because from what i've heard the resulting product might be something quite different), is this still in the planning phase? Or are there already facilities to build them? (I hate to think what the *new* machines are going to cost.....)
Back to top
View user's profile
SFC_Jeff_Button
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1311
Location: Ft Hood, TX
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

I wasn't aware that the Lima Tank Plant in Ohio wasn't producing the amount of armor that it once did. Below is what I found out about the plant. It's a little long but pretty well covers the use of the plant, past and present.
Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP)
The Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP) manufactures the M-1 Abrams tank. The Tank Plant is a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facility, run presently by General Dynamics. The tank plant has produced more than seven-thousand tanks since opening in the early 1980s. The Tank Plant reduced its workforce from a peak of 3,800 to 450 by late 1996. With few new procurements on the horizon, the tracked armored vehicle segment of the industry is in decline. Upgrades to the M1A1 Abrams tank and the M1A2 System Enhancement Package should keep the Lima, Ohio, plant operating through 2005. The Lima facility is also projected to produce 465 Heavy Assault Bridges. These programs require but a fraction of the production capacity available at the facility. Production of a new light-armored military vehicle should increase the work force at the Lima Army Tank Plant by the end of 2001, and employment levels should exceed 600 workers.

The United States Army purchased the property on which the Lima Army Tank Plant sits in 1942 to manufacture weapons. The Army has contracted since then with private businesses to operate a plant to manufacture combat vehicles on the property. In 1982, General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. agreed to manage the plant, commencing in 1983, and, in a separate contract, to manufacture tanks at the plant. General Dynamics does not pay rent for the plant; the Army has granted it a "revocable license to use" the plant and reimburses it for its expenses in managing the plant. General Dynamics receives its profits on the markup for producing the tanks.

As World War II approached, the U.S. Army developed a plan to utilize industrial firms to manufacture armored vehicles. The urgent need for these vehicles was not fully recognized until the Germans’ Blitzkrieg across Europe in 1939 and 1940. This situation presented a staggering mission for the Army Ordnance Department’s new (1941) Tank and Combat Vehicle Division. In one year, over one million vehicles, including 14,000 medium tanks, were to be produced and ready for shipment.

The Lima Army Tank Plant traces its 55-year history back to May 1941, when the Ohio Steel Foundry began building a government-owned plant to manufacture centrifugally-cast gun tubes. The site was chosen for its proximity to a steel mill, five railroads, and national highway routes. Before construction was completed, the Ordnance Department redesignated the site as an intermediate depot for modifying combat vehicles, to include tanks. In November 1942, United Motors Services took over operation of the plant to process vehicles under government contract. The plant prepared many vehicles for Europe, including the M-5 light tank, the T-26 Pershing tank, and a “super secret� amphibious tank intended for use on D-Day. During World War II, the Lima Tank Depot had over 5,000 employees, including many women, and processed over 100,000 combat vehicles for shipment.

Activity slowed during the post-WWII period, and the plant temporarily became a storage facility. In 1948, tanks were dismantled and deprocessed there. Numerous tanks were “canned� and stored in cylindrical gas containers with dehumidifiers. When the Korean War broke out, the depot expanded and industrial operations resumed. Over the next few years, the facility rebuilt combat vehicles and fabricated communication wiring harnesses. The Korean truce led to the depot’s eventual deactivation in March 1959 with little other activity taking place over the next 16 years.

In August 1976, the government selected Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP) as the initial production site for the XM-1 tank, and Chrysler Corporation was awarded the production contract. The method of production differed from previous armor programs; the hull and turret sections were to be fabricated from armored plate, rather than castings, allowing Chrysler to produce a lighter, stronger tank.

Since this was a government-owned, contractor-oper-ated (GOCO) manufacturing facility controlled by the Army’s TankAuto-motive and Armaments Command (TACOM), the installation was expanded and specialized industrial plant equipment purchased. A sister plant was established in Michigan, the Detroit Tank Plant, to assist with the assembly of M1 sections fabricated at Lima.

On February 28, 1980, the first M1 tank rolled out of LATP. It was designated the M1 Abrams, in honor of General Creighton W. Abrams. The name, Thunderbolt, recalled the name Abrams gave to each of his seven tanks in WWII. One of the original XM-1 prototype tanks is permanently on display in front of the Patton Museum of Armor and Cavalry at Ft. Knox.

In 1982, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) bought Chrysler Defense Corporation and began producing the M1 at a rate of 30 tanks a month. By January 1985, the last M1 had rolled off the assembly line, and production began on the improved M1 (IPM1) the following October. The plant later transitioned to manufacture the M1A1, with the first pilot vehicle built in August 1985. By the end of 1986, the plant’s equipment was increased to meet a maximum monthly production capability of 120 M1A1 tanks. At that time GDLS employed over 4,000 workers in Lima with over 100 TACOM personnel monitoring the production and facilities contracts.

In June 1990, all government contract administration services at Lima were placed under the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management Command, with TACOM as the procuring activity. During this period, the Marines received over 200 M1A1 tanks, and the first Abrams foreign military sales occurred. The plant supported Desert Storm by sending technical experts to Saudi Arabia for M1A1 fielding to units previously equipped with M1s.

The 1990 DOD base closure plan ordered the Detroit tank plant to reduce its operations, and in August 1991, the Lima Army Tank Plant became the only facility in the U.S. that is a hull/chassis/turret fabricator and final systems integrator of the M1.

The first M1A2 tanks rolled out of LATP in 1992 with upgrade versions produced in 1994.

The installation includes 370 acres and 47 buildings, it’s own railroad network, and two government-owned railroad locomotives. There is also is a 2-mile test track, steam plant, deep water fording pit, 60% and 40% test slopes, and an advanced armor technology facility. The main manufacturing building has over 950,000 square feet of enclosed space, equivalent to approximately 30 football fields. The government owns all of the real property and over 96% of the plant equipment, to include com-puterized machines, robotic welders, plate cutters, large fixtures, and special tooling. General Dynamics is under contract to operate the facility and produce the Abrams with government oversight.

The commander of the Lima plant, a government-owned, contractor-operated facility, is an Army lieutenant colonel. The government and contractor managerial staffs work together monitoring monthly production requirements while maintaining quality control. A partnership environment ensures the highest quality equipment is produced at a fair cost to the government. LATP is operated under the direction of an installation commander who is responsible for the efficient and economical operation, administration, service and supply of all individuals, units, and activities assigned to or under the jurisdiction of LATP. General Dynamics manages the tank plant in which it manufactures tanks. It pays no rent for the plant, and receives reimbursement of its costs in managing the plant. General Dynamics also may manufacture, subject to written approval of the Army, products for others at the plant; in fact, General Dynamics manufactured tanks for the government of Saudi Arabia at the plant. Furthermore, General Dynamics is responsible for security at the plant, securing it according to Army regulations. This security includes counterterrorism, crime prevention, and security of the property.

The Abrams Tank System Program has been using Depleted Uranium (DU) armor on the Abrams Tank since 1988. The DU is fabricated into armor packages by a contractor to the Department of Energy. The contractor ships the assembled armor packages to LATP for installation in the tanks. At LATP, the armor packages remain in the transportation containers until they are ready to be inserted into the tank. Following installation of the armor package and other tank components, the completed tanks are transported to military units as required for field use.

Abrams production originally occurred with over 9,000 Abrams having rolled off the assembly lines of the production facilities, including those produced for domestic and foreign sales.

The M1’s technological and tactical successes in Desert Storm made the tank the envy of the world armor community and generated foreign interest. Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait now own M1A2 tanks produced at LATP. In a co-production program, M1A1 tank kits (hulls, turrets, components, etc.) are manufactured at LATP and shipped to Egypt for final assembly. Commercially, GDLS also produces “special armor� packages for the South Korean K1 tank.

GDLS is under a multi-year Army contract to upgrade approximately 600 M1/IPM1 tanks to M1A2. The plan is to upgrade 10 tanks a month over a five-year period. The cost of a new M1A2 tank is approximately $4.3 million.

The Army, in conjunction with General Dynamics Land Systems, hosted an acceptance ceremony for the Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) Tank and the Wolverine Assault Bridge Launcher, 01 September 1999 in Lima, Ohio, at the Lima Army Tank Plant.

The General Dynamics Land Systems Division is the system prime contractor for manufacturing and assembly of the XM104 “Wolverine� - Heavy Assault Bridge. Manufacturing and assembly during the EMD phase of Wolverine elements and components (except the engine/transmission) occurs primarily at GDLS, which uses two facilities: Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP), a government-owned, contractor-operated manufacturing facility located in Lima (Allen County), Ohio; and the GDLS Sterling Heights Complex (SHC), located in Sterling Heights (Macomb County), MI. The mission of LATP is to produce the M1 series Main Battle Tank (MBT). SHC serves as the division headquarters and is their engineering and prototype fabrication facility. The scope of the analysis of potential impacts from manufacturing will be limited to GDLS (LATP), and Anniston Army Depot. The analysis will not include investigation of subcontractors to GDLS and Anniston Army Depot.

Lima, Ohio, is a metropolitan community of 83,000 people situated along I-75, midway between Toledo and Dayton. Sundstrand Corporation, formerly Westinghouse, produced electrical systems for military and commercial aircraft, NASA's space shuttle program, and Abrams battle tanks. Sundstrand/ Westinghouse once employed 3,000, but steady lay-offs resulted in the displacement to only about 400 when it completely closed in June 1996. The Airfoil/Textron Company, a fan-blade maker for jet engines, shut its doors in the fall of 1995, laying off the last 300 workers from a workforce that once numbered 1,800. Since the Lima area's peak defense-related employment, Lima has lost in excess of 8,000 high-wage industrial jobs. The financial loss to the local economy between 1992 and 1996 is estimated at $300 million annually.

BRAC 2005
In its 2005 BRAC Recommendations, DoD would realign Lima Tank Plant, OH. It would retain the portion required to support the manufacturing of armored combat vehicles to include Army Future Combat System (FCS) program, Marine Corps Expeditionary Force Vehicle (EFV) chassis, and M1 Tank recapitalization program. Capacity and capability for armored combat vehicles existed at three sites with little redundancy among the sites. The acquisition strategy for the Army Future Combat System (FCS) and Marine Corps Expeditionary Force Vehicle would include the manufacturing of manned vehicle chassis at Lima Army Tank Plant. The impact of establishing this capability elsewhere would hinder the Department’s ability to meet the USA and USMC future production schedule. This recommendation to retain only the portion of Lima Army Tank Plant required to support the FCS, EFV, and M1 tank recap, would reduce the footprint. This would allow the Department of Defense to remove excess from the Industrial Base, create centers of excellence, avoid single point failure, and generate efficiencies within the manufacture and maintenance of combat vehicles.

The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this recommendation would be $0.2M. The net of all savings to the Department during the implementation period would be a savings of $5.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation would be $1.7M with payback expected immediately. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years would be a savings of $22.3M. This recommendation would not result in any job reductions over the period 2006-2011.

_________________
SFC Jeff Button "High Angle Hell"
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:22 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

Hi Jeff! Hi Folks!

The plant is more active than I was thinking. Still the area lost a lot of skilled workers.

"The Lima facility is also projected to produce 465 Heavy Assault Bridges"

Say what?

It is my understanding that is one of the programs that the ex-C of S of the Army, Gen. Shineki killed so the funds could be used to buy Strykers.

Anyone else heard if that program has be refunded?

Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:57 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- Roy_A_Lingle

"The Lima facility is also projected to produce 465 Heavy Assault Bridges"

Say what?

It is my understanding that is one of the programs that the ex-C of S of the Army, Gen. Shineki killed so the funds could be used to buy Strykers.

Anyone else heard if that program has be refunded?


There were a couple of bits in that piece that made me think that it was old info, by about 3-4 years. I believe that early on it mentions 2000 as "next year" or something similar. I've not heard anything to indicate that the bridges have been re-funded.

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:22 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

Hi Folks!

My take on the cost of newer equipment.

I think a large part of the higher cost has more to do with the way a system is being accouted for now days.

Another, I maybe wrong, but I am under the impression that in the passed systems didn't have every possible OVERHEAD expence added into the price of an item.

When you look at wages for people, cost of utilities for the plants, and then tack on every expence that one can get away with, the TOTAL cost of all systems has climbed like a ICBM going up. It is the packing on of OVERHEAD costs. If you could just count the cost of raw materials and the man hours of only the individuals who directly worked on the system, the cost would be a lot lower.

My take of way today's systems cost so much.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Al_Bowie
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- SFC_Jeff_Button
[img][/img][img][/img]
Seems that the F14 costs to much to repair. An F14 requires 50 hours of maint for each 1 hour of flight, versus 5-10 hours of maint for the F18. Also mentioned was the fact that the F14 was aimed at dogfighting, (as in top-gun fame) but that it is no longer needed since jets now shoot missiles at each other from miles away. .


Whoever wrote that was obviously brought up on Top Gun. The F14 was designed to be a Long Range Fleet interceptor using the extremely advanced (then) Hughes AIM 64 Pheonix Missile system originally designed for the TBX (F111 Naval). It was expected to engage enemy bomber fleets at ranges exceeding 100 mile.
Whilst it did possess dogfighting ability and reintroduced an internal gun to the Navy Fighter its primary role was long range interception and NOT Dog Fighting.
Cheers
Spanner
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

"Whoever wrote that was obviously brought up on Top Gun. The F14 was designed to be a Long Range Fleet interceptor using the extremely advanced (then) Hughes AIM 64 Pheonix Missile system originally designed for the TBX (F111 Naval). It was expected to engage enemy bomber fleets at ranges exceeding 100 mile.
Whilst it did possess dogfighting ability and reintroduced an internal gun to the Navy Fighter its primary role was long range interception and NOT Dog Fighting.
Cheers
Spanner"

Spanner - If you look a couple messages below thatone you'll find my defense of the last true dog-fighter the F-15. As an old 'Eagle Keeper' I couldn't do anything else Smile

Oh and the F-11 was the TFX (although calling it a fighter is a whole lot less accurate than calling the F-14 a dog fighter :-))

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
David_Reasoner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 127
Location: South Central Kentucky
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- bsmart

Oh and the F-11 was the TFX (although calling it a fighter is a whole lot less accurate than calling the F-14 a dog fighter :-))


Bob, I assume you're referring to the proposed F-111B, rather than the Grumman F-11 Tiger Laughing The old F-11 (of one-time Blue Angels fame) certainly WAS a dogfighter.

David
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

You got it. finger didn't hit enough 1s and I didn't catch it before it went (Actually I had to leave for a meeting as I sent it so didn't see it until now Sad

I remember when the Blue Angels went from teh F-11 to the F-4. The Air Force Thunderbirds went from the F-100 to the F-4 at about the same time. Both switched to other aircraft very soon. The F-4 for all it's good qualities was not meant to be a tight turning show bird!!

Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- bsmart
"Whoever wrote that was obviously brought up on Top Gun. The F14 was designed to be a Long Range Fleet interceptor using the extremely advanced (then) Hughes AIM 64 Pheonix Missile system originally designed for the TBX (F111 Naval). It was expected to engage enemy bomber fleets at ranges exceeding 100 mile.
Whilst it did possess dogfighting ability and reintroduced an internal gun to the Navy Fighter its primary role was long range interception and NOT Dog Fighting.
Cheers
Spanner"


Oh and the F-111 was the TFX (although calling it a fighter is a whole lot less accurate than calling the F-14 a dog fighter :-))


..a mission which the F111 could have performed....at long range. There was an interesting episode during which the Navy COS or SecNav and Thomas Moorer (then CNO) were being grilled on why there was resistance from Naval aviators about accepting the F111 (marinized) as it's principle fighter in harmony with the Air Force...Moorers' boss being a "yes" man and saying "sure we can...it just needs more thrust to overcome it's mass".
The SecDef (I believe) noted Moorers' qualifications and skeptical look and asked him, in front of his boss, whether he thought more thrust would make the F111 (TFX) platform a fighter acceptable to the Navy. He replied (at some risk to his career) "Sir, in my opinion, all the thrust in Christendom would not make a fighter out of the F111."

It was virtually a dead issue after that....
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
David_Reasoner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 127
Location: South Central Kentucky
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- bsmart
I remember when the Blue Angels went from teh F-11 to the F-4. The Air Force Thunderbirds went from the F-100 to the F-4 at about the same time. Both switched to other aircraft very soon. The F-4 for all it's good qualities was not meant to be a tight turning show bird!!

Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?


Hence my earlier remark about the F-4 and it's Rhino moniker. The "official" reason for the switch from F-4E to T-38A for the T-birds was fuel cost savings. About this time the Blue Angels went from F-4 to A-4 for similar reasons. I have no idea on the answer to your quiz.

David
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- bsmart
Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?


F1015B T'Chief? Transitioned back to the F100 mighty quick....
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
David_Reasoner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 127
Location: South Central Kentucky
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:16 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- Doug_Kibbey
- bsmart
Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?


F1015B T'Chief? Transitioned back to the F100 mighty quick....


I wasn't aware they had gone back to the F-100 after the F-105 (before my time...), but if so that is probably what Bob was referring to. The "Thud" wasn't much on close-in dogfighting, either. Although it did bag it's share of MiG's during the early years of the air war in Vietnam.

David
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- Doug_Kibbey
- bsmart
Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?


F1015B T'Chief? Transitioned back to the F100 mighty quick....
You got it! It appears there were about 6 shows with the F105B when it was decided (after a fatal accident) thet the birds needed extensive modifications. Instead they went to the F-100D (They had used the F-100C before)

I was looking at the Thunderbird web site and it says they used the F-4 for sevral years and transitioned out of it because of the 'Energy Crisis' in the Early 70s. The entire group of T-38s used less fuell than one F-4!

A pilot I knew later on F-15s flew with the T-birds in the F-4 era and told a slightly different story. Although he loved the Phantom no one liked it in the type of flying the Tbirds did. Some of the Tbirds wanted to go to the F-5 but the powers that be didn't want to use a 'second rate fighter' The energy crisis gave them the excuse to go to the lighter airframe but the same powers that be wouldn't step up to the more poerful F-5E/F version that was just becoming available. So they were left with 'standard' T-38s

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

My Google-fu is strong, Master...

"Almost a footnote in the history of Thunderbird aviation, the Republic-built F-105B Thunderchief performed only six shows between April 26 and May 9, 1964. Extensive modifications to the F-105 were necessary, and rather than cancel the rest of the show season to accomplish this, the Thunderbirds quickly transitioned back to the Super Sabre. While the switch back to the F-100D was supposed to be temporary, the F-105 never returned to the Thunderbird hangar. The F-100 ended up staying with the team for nearly 13 years."

www.aviationheritagemu...rbirds.htm


BTW, there is (or was) an F-11 Tiger in Blue Angels colors in the aviation museum outside Topeka, I think it is...indoor...very nice.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 2 of 3
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum