More Stupid Govt Spending for those who think the DoD Budget can't be trimmed

[tooqk4u22]

http://news.yahoo.com/high-tech-cargo-airship-being-built-california-100513071--finance.html

[Jamesqf]

Stupid?  Seems pretty darn smart to me.

[tooqk4u22]

The practical applications for this are so few this makes no sense.  Also, something like this will move so slow that in a combat environment it will be easily shot down and in a non-combat environment it will take too long to get the cargo there.  A cargo plane doing air drops is just as effective and quite a bit faster. 

Oh year, there are also these things called helicopters.

[James]

Mixed feelings.  At first glance, it does appear to be a massive waste of money.  On the other, I was in Haiti when the earthquake hit.  I couldn't leave because the airport was packed with planes.  Supplies couldn't get in, people couldn't get out, and people died from lack of food and water.  A ship that could set down in a soccer field and deliver 66 tons of supplies sure does sound good, whether that is in the states or somewhere else around the world.

Whether this experimental plane is worth the expense is what we elect and hire people to figure out.  Based on our current mission of being everything to everyone, we need massive ways to get stuff done.  I'm all for cutting budgets, but I have no idea if this is something in particular to be cut or not.

[James]

The practical applications for this are so few this makes no sense.  Also, something like this will move so slow that in a combat environment it will be easily shot down and in a non-combat environment it will take too long to get the cargo there.  A cargo plane doing air drops is just as effective and quite a bit faster. 

Oh year, there are also these things called helicopters.

No, air drops and helicopters are not just as effective as cargo planes.  Faster maybe, but I assume the advantage of a rigid frame on this airship would be much higher speeds.  Air drops around a population have limited success and are dangerous, and helicopters are very limited in cargo, extremely expensive to fly, and have very short range.  I agree that it could be a crazy idea, or it could just save a ton of lives some day.  But we pay experts tons of money to figure these things out, I'd want to hear what they had to say before giving any real opinion.

[tooqk4u22]

No, air drops and helicopters are not just as effective as cargo planes.  Faster maybe, but I assume the advantage of a rigid frame on this airship would be much higher speeds.  Air drops around a population have limited success and are dangerous, and helicopters are very limited in cargo, extremely expensive to fly, and have very short range.  I agree that it could be a crazy idea, or it could just save a ton of lives some day.  But we pay experts tons of money to figure these things out, I'd want to hear what they had to say before giving any real opinion.

Granted there are limitations - and for this notwithstanding a rigid frame/shell it is still a glorified blimp and will be slow. 

Mobilization would be the main issue, which was the case for Haiti ad Katrina for that matter - airdrops may be dangerous if dropped in the middle of a population but drop zones are typically established or minimimally the pilot's drop in clearings.  The cargo plans will certainly deliver far more and far faster. 

I am sure there is far more wasteful things than this but this IMO has limited utility - so while it might be the right tool for the job its not cost effective if the job is only need once every so often, and that is before you compare it to the pros and cons of other methods.

[Jamesqf]

The practical applications for this are so few this makes no sense.  Also, something like this will move so slow that in a combat environment it will be easily shot down and in a non-combat environment it will take too long to get the cargo there.  A cargo plane doing air drops is just as effective and quite a bit faster.

No, it won't be easily shot down, because it's mostly empty space.  Unlike a plane or helicopter, where one shot hitting a critical part of structure can cause it to stop flying, you could shoot at this all day and probably do nothing more than increase gas leakage.
 
Others address some aspects of air drops, but I'll also point out that anything you air drop tends to come down pretty hard.  For a lot of cargo, that means either broken equipment or a lot of extra weight/expense in shock protection.

Oh year, there are also these things called helicopters.

Now if you wanted an example of really stupid government spending, it'd be hard to find a better.  Engine fails, you stop flying.  If you're lucky, you autorotate to a survivable crash.  If not, goodbye!  Power transmitted to main & tail rotors by complex gearing, expensive to construct and subject to usual failures, typically fatal.  Rotor blades under extreme stress, failure of one means fatal crash.  And that's before people start shooting at the darned things!  Then there's the high fuel consumption, the logistics train needed to provide the fuel & specialized maintenance support...

[destron]

The practical applications for this are so few this makes no sense.  Also, something like this will move so slow that in a combat environment it will be easily shot down and in a non-combat environment it will take too long to get the cargo there.  A cargo plane doing air drops is just as effective and quite a bit faster. 

Oh year, there are also these things called helicopters.

The military could have bought less than 2 blackhawk helicopters for the price of the research to build this, but much closer to 1 when you account for maintenance over the life of the helicopter.

Also, what is the most dangerous thing in a non combat environment? Roadside bombs. This seems to address that issue pretty well.

Developing new technologies that can save the US government money. This $35 million is nothing.

For comparison, the government plans on spending $396 billion on the F-35. That is for only 2,443 planes. Cost per plane: $162 million

[lauren_knows]

I think that it's easy to be an armchair aerospace engineer and forecaster, but you have to realize that a lot of the DoD programs like this are just for developing new technologies that might be useful down the road.  Consider it R&D.  DARPA is a huge contributor research that has led to some amazingly beneficial things for society, and the military does a lot of research outside of DARPA.

I know that it's en vogue to vilify military spending, but I don't see the issue here.  As Destron said, this is a drop in the bucket.

[tooqk4u22]

I know that it's en vogue to vilify military spending, but I don't see the issue here.  As Destron said, this is a drop in the bucket.

Actually if you look at many of my comments - I villify ALL spending and moreso on the entitlement/social programs than anywhere else, but defense can also be cut.  I am all for new technology and better ways of doing things but at some point you either have to stop spending on the things that these technologies are replacing or trim back other areas, neither ever happens. 

I am tired of the "drop in the bucket argument" that is used for everything in government spending because every fucking individual thing is a drop in the buck compared to the total budget.  The adage of don't sweat the small stuff is BS - because the small stuff adds up real quick.  Will a $2 starbucks fuck up a MMM budget - hell no....but with a couple of dinners out, starbucks, a few target trips, a little bling for the car, a video game or two for the kid, a couple of fancypants shirts, driving a 10 mpg car....it all adds up real quick and will destroy a budget but any individual thing is just a drop in the bucket.

DoD/Contractor employees responding to this thread?

[lauren_knows]

I don't feel like a $2 starbucks "drop in the bucket" can be anywhere close to an apples to apples comparison to "drop in the bucket" military research spending.

I'm a DoD contractor, but I'm not specifically tied to research or any of the large production contracts (like planes, tanks, etc).  I feel like those large production contracts are by far the easiest targets to cut spending, but you're right, no one has even touched them with a 10ft pole.

It's funny, because I'm often pretty torn by the fact that I'm a DoD contractor, but I feel like we spend way way too much on military spending.

[tooqk4u22]

It's funny, because I'm often pretty torn by the fact that I'm a DoD contractor, but I feel like we spend way way too much on military spending.

I can see how that can be conflicting.   Spending on defense and entitlements (does not include SSI or the consequences of Obamacare) have both more than doubled since 2000 and both need to be trimmed. 

[lauren_knows]

It's funny, because I'm often pretty torn by the fact that I'm a DoD contractor, but I feel like we spend way way too much on military spending.

I can see how that can be conflicting.   Spending on defense and entitlements (does not include SSI or the consequences of Obamacare) have both more than doubled since 2000 and both need to be trimmed.

I don't disagree with you there.

[sibamor]

I agree with military cuts (which is counter intuitive because both my spouse and I are sucking at the DOD teat). For operational draw downs, BRACK realignments, new purchases acquisitions, troop strength, and contract negotiations.  The one area I do not agree with military cuts is research with things like DARPA, Air Force Research Labs, etc.  These places gives us great things like the internet, automated robotics, mechanical prosthetics, etc.  THe research arm of Government Defense and other government research is great at paving the way for technology that is cost prohibitive to the private market to start on the ground floor for.

[SwordGuy]

The airship being built would be a very useful asset to our military.  Large cargo payloads delivered by air, with very low fuel costs, without requiring an airfield.     Not only could it be used for anti-submarine warfare surveillance (because it can stay aloft for a very long time), it could deliver supplies to our fleets at sea whilst doing so.  It's not a waste of money.  It actually has the potential to save us money if it's unit cost is low enough.

As for the main premise, that the DOD has plenty of fat in its budget that it could trim, that's an absolute certainty.  I'm a DOD contractor.  There's plenty of fat in the budget.

That's also true of most federal agencies.  Most of them could do with a 20 % to 30% belt tightening.