why is everything in us arsenal so old >f22 20 years old >f18

File: running system.jpg (78KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x600px

>>33357184

>>33357184
Because the military took a lesson from Ivan chesnokov and said FUCK YOU EQUIPMENT IS FINE

? Every military on the planet that isn't complete dog shit has old starting points for their equipment with new upgrades.

Planes, tanks, ships require years of planning, years of testing and then years of production. And after a while the old models sometimes get modifications mostly in electronics.
Show me an army that has only the tech made in last 10 years. You cant

Most of those aircraft and guns have actually either been almost entirely refurbished over time, or are just entirely new production variants from much more recent years. It's like if you said >F-150 42 years old while just about all of the ones actually being used are from the past 10 years.

>>33357184

Look at our competition.

We could sit our hands for the next 20 years and the Russians and Chinks would still be behind, lol.

>>33357184
All out war spurs much faster production in newer, better arsenals. Since we haven't had a big war against a foe to rival us in a while, there is no need to constantly be replacing everything, plus its very expensive. We mostly fight vastly technologically inferior enemies nowadays, so the old stuff still works fine, and old equipment typically gets refitted as it is cheaper than a full replacement in the long run.

We still maintain an edge above everyone else by keeping research going and having the ability to mass produce better armaments, we just don't build a whole lot because its not needed, only enough to replace old equipment as they reach the end of their serviceable lives, or is unfeasible to refit.

>>33357184
You pretend as if none of these things were extensively upgraded throughout their lives. For instance, the following are the actual variants used in overwhelming fraction for some of the platforms you just listed, along with the years they were introduced:
>F-16C block 50/52: 26 years old
>F-18E/F: 22 years old
>F-15E: 31 years old
>M1A2 Abrams: 25 years old
>Nimitz class: of the ten carriers, the average age 26.4 years old (for ships designed to serve 50 years total), every few ships were practically a new class as the designs were updated through the years, and each ship is upgraded every few years with one massive mid-life upgrade during refuel
>Burke class: the most numerous Burke sub-class, Flight IIA, is only 15 years old
>Los Angeles class: there are only 5 baseline 688 boats left in service, all soon to be decommissioned. All of the rest are Flight II (8 boats, about 30 years old) and 688I boats (21 boats, average 25 years old)
>E-2D Hawkeye: 10 years old
>Aegis 7.2B7: 5 years old, and constantly being upgraded

Basically, the US does better keeping their gear upgraded and relevant than just about any other country on the planet. All of the above listings ignore the much more recent and smaller upgrades/modernizations that are constantly rolling on most platforms.

CONT

>>33357184
>>33359381
However, if we wish to look at a comparison to an actual possible adversary, here are the age numbers for the SSN/SSGNs of the Russian Navy for comparison:
Newly commissioned SSN/SSGN submarines since 1991:
United States:
>18 688I/Los Angeles Improved class (last in '96)
>3 Seawolf class (last in '05)
>13 Virginia class (currently building, rate of one per year)
>4 Ohio class SSBN to SSGN conversions completed ('02-'08)

Russia:
>5 Oscar II class minus the Kursk, since lost (last in '96)
>7 Akula/Shchuka class (last in '96 with a single Akula M in 2000)
>1 Yasen (Severdovinsk in '14 after 20 years building. Second in class currently building for 8+ years, just launched this year, probably another two years to commissioning)

Russia currently has 25 SSGN/SSNs in commission, many of which have not been to sea in several years, and the rest of which have an at sea rate which would make the USN or RN faint from shame. Average ages for all active Russian classes:
>7x Oscar II: 24.7 years
>3x Sierra I/II: 26 years
>4x Victor III: 26 years
>10x Akula/Shchuka: 22.9 years
>1x Yasen: 2 years
Average fleet age: 23.44 years

The USN currently has 58 SSGN/SSNs in active service. Average ages for all active classes:
>38x 688/688I: 26.5 years
>3x Seawolf: 16 years
>13x Virginia: 6.1 years
>4x Ohio SSGN: 33.5 years
Average fleet age: 21.9 years

The USN currently has over twice as many SSN/SSGNs, they are on average younger and they have a higher at-sea rate. And that's before we even look at capabilities. Furthermore, the USN is building new boats at a rate of about one per year. Russia has commissioned exactly one new SSN/SSGN in the last 15 years.

>>33359392
Oh, I should note I did this in September 2016, so that is the date this is accurate to.

>>33357184
if it ain't broke, don't fix it

File: 141.jpg (102KB, 1191x626px)

102KB, 1191x626px

Of all the planes I wanted our country to upgrade and hang on to, it was the F14.

The fighter jet of the 80's and 90's.

IMO, this plane is the sexiest plane ever made.

It's too bad they never went through with the modernization's.

>>33357184
>implying they're all the exact same as they were when they were first adopted

because it fucking works

File: cash me ousside.jpg (58KB, 600x315px)

58KB, 600x315px

Russia is worse
>AK system is 70 years old
jesus they just need to switch to some kind of an AR already, this is getting ridiculous

>>33357184
hey
Ticonderogas are fucking awesome. STFU
t. not even American

>>33357184
Ain't broke don't fix it.

>>33357184
End of the Cold War resulting in budget cuts in the 90s and then the GWoT eating up budgets after 9/11.

We don't reveal current tech like our ufos abs half hour anywhere missiles. Bitches. Now bow down and lick that fat American cock and balls

File: 13131756_1139570136106625_3012350781924236199_o.jpg (124KB, 1050x699px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1050x699px

>>33359533
>go from a good 70yr old system to a good 52yr old system

haah waaw

>>33359462
>It's too bad they never went through with the modernization's.
The F-14D variant was an excellent counterpoint to the F-15E. Modernization was not the issue.

The issues were many:
>the incredible logistics nightmare of keeping so many disparate airframes on a single carrier
>the F-14 platforms cost per flight hour, one of the very highest for any TACAIR platform in the entire US military
>advancements in the AMRAAM platform cutting into the unique capability niche the Tomcat occupied
>the F-18E/F being in production, and having much, much lower associated costs across the board plus employing many of the same capabilities as the F-14, plus several more
>severe and continuing reduction in the primary threat level the F-14 was meant to counter; see: state of the Russian military, late 90's to early 2000's, and even today
>new programs coming on line to fully replace that capability (which did not completely materialize)

It was an incredible aircraft, and gorgeous to boot. Yet it was also a very, very expensive tool which had in many ways fallen foul of cost/benefit analysis.

>>33359636
AK a poop

>>33357184
>B-52 63 years old

Because if it works you don't need a bigger better deal.

The arms race was a race. It's done now.

We will have to arms race the chinks but it's not going to be a meatspace war first and foremost but a cyberwar.

>>33357184
The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union collapsed.

File: The Clankening.jpg (279KB, 1920x1080px)

279KB, 1920x1080px

>>33359462
>that variable wing sweep tho
Truly the greatest tragedy of the modern era.

>>33357184
What is the F-35 ? The V-22 ? Drones like the Predator ? The Zumwalt ?

Lots of cutting edge stuff in the US arsenal, but you can't realisticaly expect everything to be brand new in the biggest army of the world.

>why is everything in the us arsenal within their intended lifespans

>>33358830
China

Is there any logical reason to replace the M2?

>>33357184
>Why are we still breathing oxygen, it's been around longer than our species. When will we see it replaced?

That's how dumb these equipment age threads are OP, kill yourself.

>>33359402
Thanks m8

>>33359462
RIP Fokker-san ;-;7

>>33357184
money

costs

cold war over