練習機総合スレッド69

練習機総合スレッド69 (634ﾚｽ)
上下前次1-新
通常表示 512ﾊﾞｲﾄ分割ﾚｽ栞
抽出解除必死ﾁｪｯｶｰ(本家) (べ) 自ID ﾚｽ栞あぼーん

ﾘﾛｰﾄﾞ規制です｡10分ほどで解除するので､他のﾌﾞﾗｳｻﾞへ避難してください｡

546: ! 警備員[Lv.18] [sage] 2025/09/20(土) 23:36:10.09 ID:hLq25L0X

$$$$

That’s it. That’s the answer. Their economy has passed the toilet bowl and is wallowing around in the septic tank. Also, the terms “easy to service” or “cheap to operate” are relative terms. Yes, they might be both of those things. For fighter aircraft. Aircraft, all aircraft, require constant, mind-boggling, expensive, and time-consuming maintenance to keep flying no matter where they rate on the easy-to-service/cheap-to-operate scale. Which, once again, are relative terms.

F-16s are considered easy to service and cheap to operate. I still spent the better part of 7 years working 14-hour days in a shop of a hundred maintainers (one of dozens of shops of different specialties) to keep a couple of squadrons flying. Even with the almost limitless budget the US can afford, it was an exhausting, expensive battle to keep them mission-ready, and still a good chunk of them weren’t most of the time. It’s that difficult and expensive for the US to do it with its ginormous budget and sprawling maintenance and logistics networks.

“Can be serviced by 3 conscripts” usually means even more $$$$ to keep them going as anything beyond basic maintenance items means it likely has to get sent back to the factory/company to fix anything technical, or you have to shell out the cash to have SAAB specialists come out and do it. That’s fine if you’re operating them just down the road and around the corner from the SAAB factory. It’s a whole different and more expensive ball game when you’re flying them down on the dick tip of Africa.

http://mevius.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/army/1755031936/546

上下前次1-新書関写板覧索設栞歴

ｽﾚ情報赤ﾚｽ抽出画像ﾚｽ抽出歴の未読ｽﾚ AAｻﾑﾈｲﾙ

ぬこの手ぬこTOP 0.028s