Originally posted by Tarek Morgen
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Rumsfeldian Revolution is Over !!!
Collapse
X
-
All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
-
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
-
Originally posted by skytowerBut what about reverse engineering?
Edit: Excuse me, I mean licensed production. It worked (sorta) for the Northrup Grummann/EAD tanker bid.
Originally posted by daleI think there are some systems or parts of systems (120mm Rheinmetall, Minimi/SAW, M2 Beretta) that we can shop for.All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by dalem View PostOoo, and I forgot about the Harrier. The Brits made the Harrier, but we made them better. ;)
-daleSemper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post...Just to name a few more."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
-
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.
Comment
Comment