Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Rumsfeldian Revolution is Over !!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
    is there a reason why an existing system like the AS-90 or the PzH 2000 won't be bought? They don't fulfil the requirement afaik named above, but so far no one has come up with a system that did. And both systems are available and tested (and there are surely a few others I did not think of right now).
    Not built in the USA. IMHO no country that can achieve military self-sufficiency should EVER rely on foreign-made weapons, no matter how convient. Their interests will not always agree with yours, and when it happens, guess who gets the shorter end? The supplier who have all the production lines? Or the client, who will be left in the cold and can can do nothing about it? If anything Americans absolutely need for the Iraq War is built in France or Germany, can this war go on?
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

    Comment


    • #17
      Don't we have some specialty AFV for NBC work that are Canadian or French? Not entirely your point, know, becasue even if true they are specials, but I think there are some systems or parts of systems (120mm Rheinmetall, Minimi/SAW, M2 Beretta) that we can shop for.

      -dale

      Comment


      • #18
        But what about reverse engineering?

        Edit: Excuse me, I mean licensed production. It worked (sorta) for the Northrup Grummann/EAD tanker bid.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by skytower
          But what about reverse engineering?

          Edit: Excuse me, I mean licensed production. It worked (sorta) for the Northrup Grummann/EAD tanker bid.
          LoL! That brightened my day. But it actually leads to Dale's comment:

          Originally posted by dale
          I think there are some systems or parts of systems (120mm Rheinmetall, Minimi/SAW, M2 Beretta) that we can shop for.
          I believe that the US purchased most of those weapons on the condition that manufacturing plants to build the weapons will be opened on American soil, to be owned and operated by a subsidary beholden to the American government and law. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.
          All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
          -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

          Comment


          • #20
            Ooo, and I forgot about the Harrier. The Brits made the Harrier, but we made them better. ;)

            -dale

            Comment


            • #21
              Good call! I was thinking about the Harrier after reading your comment. The 120mm L/44 is produced under licensce by GD and FN-USA makes the M249 SAW stateside.
              All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
              -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
                I though the crusader was going to have a 54 cal barrel?
                It was. And that was one of the reasons given for canceling it.

                Lack of Strategic mobility.

                Comment


                • #23
                  After reading all this i feel Indias DRDO is alright. They always have cost overruns.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    You guys left off lots of foreign made weapons.

                    Just to name a few more.

                    The M252 81mm mortar used by Army/MC is British L-16. We do make them at Watervliet though.

                    the M120 120mm mortar is from Israel

                    The AT-4 came from Sweden.

                    The Smaw is a Israel Military Industries product.
                    Also the SMAW--D that the Army uses.

                    Talley Defense Systems, in Arizona manufactures lots of systems for the US Military. they are owned by Norway NAMMO AS. And one of the recent decisions made by the company is that they will no longer manufacture cluster bomb systems. This includes their Talley operation.

                    These are the cluster bomb units used in the Tomahawk Cruise missile, the CBU-87 bomb and the JSOW.

                    And people say we only buy American

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by dalem View Post
                      Ooo, and I forgot about the Harrier. The Brits made the Harrier, but we made them better. ;)

                      -dale
                      FACT. The Brits designed and made the Hawker P.1127. Ditto for the Kestrel. Ditto for the early Harriers which were also bought by the USMC. Improving the type was a joint British and American effort and production lines were set up in both countries.
                      Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
                        I though the crusader was going to have a 54 cal barrel?
                        The XM297 cannon developed for Crusader was 56 calibers in length.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by dalem View Post
                          Don't we have some specialty AFV for NBC work that are Canadian or French?
                          M93/M93A1 Fox, based on the German TPz Fuchs.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                            Not built in the USA.?
                            BAE owns United Defense now. No reason it can't be.
                            F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                              ...Just to name a few more.
                              I'll add LAV-25 made by GDLS Canada. :)
                              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Yet another GAO testimony highlighting the appalling downside legacy of the Rusmsfeldian Revolution :

                                Defense Acquisitions: Fundamental Changes Are Needed to Improve Weapon Program Outcomes

                                US Government Accountability Office (GAO);
                                Sept. 29, 2008

                                DOD is not receiving expected returns on its large investment in weapon systems. Since fiscal year 2000, DOD significantly increased the number of major defense acquisition programs and its overall investment in them. During this same time period, the performance of the DOD portfolio has gotten worse. The total acquisition cost of DOD’s 2007 portfolio of major programs under development or in production has grown by nearly $300 billion over initial estimates. Current programs are also experiencing, on average, a 21-month delay in delivering initial capabilities to the warfighter—often forcing DOD to spend additional funds on maintaining legacy systems.

                                Systemic problems both at the strategic and at the program level underlie cost growth and schedule delays. At the strategic level, DOD’s processes for identifying warfighter needs, allocating resources, and developing and procuring weapon systems—which together define DOD’s overall weapon system investment strategy—are fragmented and broken. At the program level, weapon system programs are initiated without sufficient knowledge about system requirements, technology, and design maturity. Lacking such knowledge, managers rely on assumptions that are consistently too optimistic, exposing programs to significant and unnecessary risks and ultimately cost growth and schedule delays.

                                Our work shows that acquisition problems will likely persist until DOD provides a better foundation for buying the right things, the right way. This involves making tough decisions as to which programs should be pursued, and more importantly, not pursued; making sure programs can be executed; locking in requirements before programs are ever started; and making it clear who is responsible for what and holding people accountable when responsibilities are not fulfilled. Recent congressionally mandated changes to the DOD acquisition system, as well as initiatives being pursued by the department, include positive steps that, if implemented properly, could provide a foundation for establishing a well balanced investment strategy, sound business cases for major weapon system acquisition programs, and a better chance to spend resources wisely.

                                At the same time, DOD must begin making better choices that reflect joint capability needs and match requirements with resources. DOD investment decisions cannot continue to be dictated by the military services who propose programs that overpromise capabilities and underestimate costs to capture the funding needed to start and sustain development programs. To better ensure warfighter capabilities are delivered when needed and as promised, incentives must encourage a disciplined, knowledge-based approach, and a true partnership with shared goals must be developed among the department, the military services, the Congress, and the defense industry.
                                Full GAO testimony can be found here

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X