So trump says AF1 is over priced at $4B and taunts “Cancel Order!” Then the white House Bid comes in at a bid of $3.9B a measley amount less and the the actual projection is $5.3B. Oh Lordy! Will Republicans ever learn?
So much winning.
Just curious why that link didn’t embed.
.^
Not to worry.
Part of the $5.3B is for new hangars and upgrades to infrastructure to support AF1.
Since Trump wants to build the wall using the Military Construction Budget as a source of funds, I’m sure that that money will be diverted to build his wall.
.
.
.
.^^^^
I had the same thought in another thread:
1 Like
Isn’t that how military pricing works. You want something more…they add some minor bells and whistles and jack things up 25%. They got a newbie by the short hairs and they’re sticking it to him. Donald the sucker.
1.4Bn in savings is not “measly”.
No, that isn’t how it works.
Military purchasing history would suggest otherwise. 
1 Like
No it doesn’t, and the more you post on the subject the more obvious it is you have no clue about the subject.
The original Bradly concept was to have an m2 jut like the 113.
It was replaced with the Chain gun and full turret added to the same frame.
That’s what I said it started cheap and got progressively more and more expensive. How do you not get that .
1 Like
You said it was a completely different vehicle and you were flat wrong.
The concept was good, the original model fielded had some issues that required upgrades.
Adding the modern tech will always dramatically increase the per unit cost but it also requires far fewer be fielded since they will be more lethal and more survivable.
All versions of the Bradly put into production were built on the same vehicle body.
That’s just bunch of bull ■■■■ and spin and you know it. The Israelis never accepted the original Bradly as built to US spec., it was too likely to explode.
2 Likes
according to the Pentagon the full price tag is 5.3B
The lack of survivability in the original version is why the armor was upgraded.
The goal wasn’t to sell them to the Israelis, the goal was to provide US troops with the best IFV in the world and the goal was met.
Every time we create a completely new vehicle, aircraft, rocket etc there is an evolution between concept and the first units fielded, then we have a learning curve with the first version. If that version survives, it is upgraded to modern standards and if it doesn’t we scrap it and move on to the next vehicle.
The original IFV concept vehicle was just an upgraded 113 which was rejected because of all of it’s flaws. The same Bradly frames that were originally introduced are sill being used, they have just been upgraded with modern tech.
Hell the original concept specs from the sixties didn’t even call for a gun larger than 20mm and the M2 was the most likely candidate for main guns. As we learned more and the chain gun was perfected we went from the M2 to the 20mm and finally to the 25mm which has far greater penetrating capability than either and the ability to fire multiple types of ordnance depending on the target.
The addition of the TOW II and III missiles gave it a significant anti tank capability and it’s survivability even in the original form was far superior to the 113’s.
All you’ve accomplished here is to show how little you know about the program or the process.
No, that includes much more than just the plane.
The point being:
Ca Ching
You’re such ■■■■■■■ it’s unbelievable. You’ve started in the 80’s and worked backwards instead of the logical way of starting in the mid 60’s at the start of Bradly development and moving forward when it was a meant a response to the BMP-1. You’re 20 years behind the developmental history by the time you get into the military. Take a couple of hours out and educate yourself.
2 Likes
The original design for an IFV was not the Bradley. Why would I start with anything other than the Bradly which is what we were discussing?
