Is ingenuity lacking?

[urchin]

I noticed that with most western weapon systems, everybody copys currently used systems, for example once the apache gunship was made then all the gunships now look like replicas of the apache from all over the world- Italian Mangusta, the Austalian tiger etc. Another is the Stryker, now everybody seems to be going "stryker-like" in APC use like Australia, Taiwan, Singapore. There is no more ingenuity. Everything is the same now across the world but with a new name badge. It is just so boring.
The russians in the 80's and 90's were innovative and germans in 2nd world war were.
Having said that, I think the new EFV is fantastic innovation wise and I am keen to see how the Osprey goes!

[EvanL]

Australians didn';t copy the striker. They have Canadian built, aussie redesigned vehicles based on our LAV series of vehicles. As well as our bisons.
The STryker is based off of our LAV series of vehicles made by GM Canada.

[Lazarou]

The STryker is based off of our LAV series of vehicles made by GM Canada.

Which in turn is based on the Swiss Piranha III.

[Dalamara]

Use what works. Why spend hundreds of millions trying to come up with an "innovative" design when you can build something just as effective by copying it?

[Sgt.Axeman1224]

I noticed that with most western weapon systems, everybody copys currently used systems, for example once the apache gunship was made then all the gunships now look like replicas of the apache from all over the world- Italian Mangusta, the Austalian tiger etc. Another is the Stryker, now everybody seems to be going "stryker-like" in APC use like Australia, Taiwan, Singapore. There is no more ingenuity. Everything is the same now across the world but with a new name badge. It is just so boring.
The russians in the 80's and 90's were innovative and germans in 2nd world war were.
Having said that, I think the new EFV is fantastic innovation wise and I am keen to see how the Osprey goes!

The old saying goes: "Aint broke dont fix it"

[Lazarou]

now everybody seems to be going "stryker-like"

More like the opposite.

The US "abandoned" wheeled armored vehicles after WW2 in favor of tracked vehicles (such as the M113) whilst the rest of the world kept designing them. The US military seems to be slowly returning back to the club of wheeled APCs.


the Osprey

Weserflug P.1003/1, Germany, 1938

http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/4843/3bw10030wl.th.gif (http://img276.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3bw10030wl.gif)

[Sgt.Axeman1224]

More like the opposite.

The US "abandoned" wheeled armored vehicles after WW2 in favor of tracked vehicles (such as the M113) whilst the rest of the world kept designing them. The US military seems to be slowly returning back to the club of wheeled APCs.



Weserflug P.1003/1, Germany, 1938

http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/4843/3bw10030wl.th.gif (http://img276.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3bw10030wl.gif)
well if you want to go off of that we all copied leonardo davinchi or whoever that guy was that has drawings of helicopters and planes.

[urchin]

WOH!!! I never knew they had that Osprey type design way back in the thirties!!!

DOES anyone know why the US abandoned wheeled stuff in the first place?? If they did that, why go back to it now??

[OttawaLoneWolf]

Taiwan did not copy the US !

if we do we won't have problems on overweight and turning radius !

[stuntman]

Well I figure since the US/Canada and Europe are involved in NATO/OTAN, spec designs will be similar for various tactical reasons. Just like the standard round and stagnat(I think it's called that) magazines. And not for nothing Europe and the US/Canadians tend to sell weapons to each other with a few exceptions, Japan, Australia, etc...

[BadKarma26]

this thread sucks

[Lazarou]

this thread sucks

No sh*t, Sherlock

[Kilgor]

The russians in the 80's and 90's were innovative and germans in 2nd world war were.
!

Alot of the german luft46 stuff was no more than scribbles on paper and sometimes plain crack pipe stupid. Such as 200 ton tanks, and even the 1000t land crawler.

And the innovations cost them dearly when they needed better standard weapons with long production runs than the stuff they churned out.

[Atlantic Friend]

I noticed that with most western weapon systems, everybody copys currently used systems, for example once the apache gunship was made then all the gunships now look like replicas of the apache from all over the world- Italian Mangusta, the Austalian tiger

The Tiger attack chopper is not Australian, it's made by Eurocopter IIRC.

And don't you think it's rather logical that vehicles which are supposed to do the same task in roughly the same environment end up looking roughly the same ?

[XShipRider]

The Russians copied the US space shuttle. Their logical reasoning was
aerodynamics are universal. The US design was already proven and
glide tested so, why change?

It makes good fiscal sense not to re-invent the wheel.

[Vandervahn]

...There is no more ingenuity. Everything is the same now across the world but with a new name badge. ...
Nope, you are missing a key fact: Every effective design that has EVER been on this world is based on ONE principle: Form follows function (not to be confused with the artistical principle of the same name, though they share basic principles). If you want a submarine, you WONT give it the shape of a horse, its simple as that. The "ingenuity" you speak of can only happen when there is a major technical improvement. For example Assault rifles changed the way of infantry combat. Yet the basic layout hasnt changed in decades, because there are only oh-so-many ways to build a gun that is STILL an Assault Rifle, and not something else.

Lets say you want a weapon that is suitable for slashing AND stabbing at arms length: you will end up with a sword. There have been uncounted different sword designs all over the world and all over history. Yet they still follow the same pattern of a grip at one end, and a pointed blade on the other end. Why? Because this is the only feasible design to achieve the goal of stabbing and slashing at arms length. Certainly there are many ways to combine a grip with a blade (pikes, halberds, axes, daggers etc...) - but all these wouldnt be swords anymore, and are also used differently.

The same is true for the technologies you mention. Lets take the (dedicated) gunship: The initial concept of heavily arming a helicopter was by the French. The form you are talking about was developed by the USA, but it wasnt the AH-64 as you say, it was the AH-1 Cobra (or rather the Sioux Scout if we concentrate on the basic layout itself). Now lets look at the function: we want
a small, fast helicopter which usually implicates a stretched fuselage with a main rotor in front and a vertical rotor in the back, and to make it aerodynamic and fast, we also want a slim fuselage (which also makes it a much smaller target)
good visibility and protection for both of the crew, which leads us to a tandem cockpit
a wide array of weaponry, which leads us to the small stub wings. Wings are very versatile and also enable us to keep the armored fuselage itself very small (contrary to integral weapon bays) - the wings are expendable and arent integrally necessary for the flight function.So whenever you want a gunship with the technologies WE HAVE, it will more or less look like a Cobra. However, there are enough attempts to improve upon this (for example the Kamov and Hokum helicopters), which in themselves are proof that ingenuity is NOT lost, it is only restricted by physical necessities.

And as was said before, the Stryker certainly isnt a model child, the basic concept is old and the modern development certainly can be mostly attributed to the numerous Soviet designs. Furthermore, when you want a fast, cheap, patrol-effective APC, you WILL end up with an angled (to improve armor effectivity), bulky (to accomodate troops) compartment on 4 to 8 wheels (to improve road speed and decrease technical complexity). Still, the wheeled APCs from now are definately lightyears ahead of, lets say, the Sdkfz.´ of World War 2.

Anyway, I have the feeling that, behind your post, what you REALLY want to say is that everyone copies "American", don´t you?

[Hiroshima]

Hmm....why did we abandon the Greyhound and similar vehicles? Maybe it was because tanks had far too much fun popping them, infantry were riddling them full of holes, and they were generally easier to eliminate than those tracked vehicles which could carry heavier armor? Like right now, see all those pictures of Stykers with side skirts? RPGs just cut into them like a knife through hot butter. Side effect of the skirts is they're top heavy and if properly convinced will roll.

Benefits are speed of course, but if your ride suddenly explodes in a fireball, it becomes a mute point.

[XShipRider]

Anyway, I have the feeling that, behind your post, what you REALLY want to say is that everyone copies "American", don´t you?

I got the feeling he was saying something to that effect but tech'
breakthroughs are not nation driven. The US puts serious money
into defense tech' which does allow it to achieve some, keyword: some,
of those breakthroughs. The reality is many, many tech' breakthroughs
are mere accidents, by-products of other research.

Many countries find it much easier on their respective budgets to
share, copy if you will, technology with each other. Again, why
re-invent the wheel when someone else is willing to do it for you?
This is not to say other countries don't spend money on R&D, they
do.

As you suggested, Americans don't have a lock on engineering
ingenuity. I do believe the incentive to attempt new concepts
in America is pretty strong though (read - winner gets a multi-billion
dollar contract).