[AT] OT Right to repair

[James Peck]

I am sure that Little Rocket Man read the New York Times (NYT) article with interest. When Little Rocket Man sends a 1 gazillion man army into S. Korea and the finicky Abrams tanks can’t be repaired because all the generators are down, is someone going to call him up and ask for a timeout. That NYT article is a wakeup call.

This maintenance publication does not really talk about keeping hands off of items that are under warranty.
https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publications/MCTP%203-40E.pdf?ver=2017-03-27-080524-963


Bradford AT List Member <bloomis at charter.net>; I certainly agree that with highly classified items such as battle tanks and other arms the sense in such protocols. From what I recall they were talking about generators. Hardly an item with the tech that an Abrams has, sure tech but to the point of returning to the States for repairs? Maybe I missed something. And yes, agreed with SO’s sentiments, Thanks for the information Carl. 

Steve Offiler AT List member Mechanical Engineer <soffiler at gmail.com>; Thank you Carl.  I think you lend a good perspective to counterbalance that NYT article.

Carl Szabelski AT list member and tank knowledge resource <szabelski at wildblue.net>; Not all equipment can be fixed in the field. Some of it takes specialized equipment/hardware to repair, and some of that repair equipment stuff is very expensive. It also doesn’t make sense to have one of those pieces of repair equipment in the field just because it might be needed to repair something. Then there is the training that is needed to use that equipment properly as well as the cleanliness of the repair area. Next is the fact that some things are classified and you don’t just open them up in the field where anybody can get a look at the technology. Some equipment can only be serviced by people (soldier or civilian) who have special clearances, and then only in secured rooms/areas.

During Desert Storm I was part of a team that was modifying two Abrams main battle tanks for a special purpose. This was being done in parallel with an Israeli team of engineers who were putting some systems of theirs on our tanks. Even though we are allies, they were never allowed to look inside our tanks, were never allowed to see what we were putting in the tanks, or ask any questions. They were also never left alone with our tanks. Likewise, we could not ask them anything about their stuff, even though we had an understanding of what it was and why we're installing it. They told us what we had to install and we did the figuring of how to get it in. If something didn’t work correctly in the trial runs they could only tell us what to check. If we couldn’t get it to work, we removed it and they would have to test it on a bench to figure things out.

During both wars in Iraq we, as did other military suppliers, sent our mechanics to the field to do most of the maintenance/repair on the equipment. Even then we would swap items out instead of repairing them, and have the items needing repair sent back here for repair and possible upgrades. This significantly reduced the down time.

Working in places like Iraq, especially in wide open areas, is really difficult to do. Some of the sand there is so fine that the slightest breeze will deposit a coating on everything. It’s finer than talc and would get into everything. Not a good thing for precision made bearings and other highly sensitive parts. Even trying to do repairs in tents and huts does not help.

James AT List Member and advocate of upgradeable tractor vocational training <jamesgpeck at hotmail.com>; I am suspicious that this article is not  truly "rogue", but reflects chafing under an official policy.

I speculate that this problem is caused by a number of different factors. I would ask, did anyone on the project team who selected the equipment represent the people who had the responsibility to maintain the equipment?

Bradford AT List Member <mailto:bloomis at charter.net>; Not being a farmer but a maintenance mechanic who repairs all manner of items I've read with interest the comments on this list about "Right to repair" and the big manufacturers. Today's NY Times has an editorial on just that as it relates to the military. Our tax dollars at work, against us. Not sure, you may need a subscription to read but jeez, what a mess. Send equipment back to the States from the battlefield because the Marines can't repair their equipment. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/opinion/military-right-to-repair.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_191121?campaign_id=2&instance_id=13923&segment_id=18966&user_id=57181594d83579e309e3a0907875e753&regi_id=26359631121