Originally Posted by
t43562
What I mean is that the military, when it's not fighting, is a waste of money in a sense but we pay for it because we might need it and it has a deterrent effect.
So it's not a waste of money.
One way to look at your military capability is as a whole life insurance policy.
Term is cheaper, but expires or reduces benefits over time.
Not the best analogy ever, but if what you are staring at is a dollar and sense perspective, that's one way to look at it.
Question:
Why are Apaches so knackered and need replacing so quickly?
Besides the previous answer in terms of how hard they were worked in the 'Stan, if you go back to the original spec, Fulda Gap Tank Warfare requirements driven development, it appears that the US Army bought a 4,000 hour service life originally. (As I have heard it, they didn't expect them to last all that long).
You might say that it wasn't built
beefy in the first place.
Why later editions look like they are showing premature wear and tear may be related to the original design.