Making America great again may require foreign-made weapon systems, a possibility that would contravene the Trump administration's stated goal to "buy American and hire American." A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published last week, "Selected Foreign Counterparts of U.S. Army Ground Combat Systems and …
It's not because someone who's willing to throw absurd amounts of money at the military has just got the job? I'd have thought they'd have just said, "no thanks, we're good after 60 years of military industrial complex, spend it on people who need it like the unemployed".
Or we could spend it on the children! Think Of the children!
In any case, unemployment in the US is - barring some "emergency bill" - paid by the individual states, not the federal government.
Perhaps they should consider buying the Su-35 from Russia, it already works and apparently doesn't need a patch Tuesday each month.
Perhaps they should consider buying the Su-35 from Russia, it already works and apparently doesn't need a patch Tuesday each month.
And in case of a conflict, be dependent on your adversary for munition and parts supply?
Not to mention the phone-home telemetry.
Wow, it does sound like windows 10, MS isn't the prime contractor for the software is it?
"Wow, it does sound like windows 10, MS isn't the prime contractor for the software is it?"
BREAKING NEWS: F35 falls out of the sky after being unable to reach a licensing server.
With Trump as Putin's sock puppet, I don't think we'll be opposing Russia for at least the next four years.
The military procurement system is based on waste. If there is no waste, then corruption can't be sustained. The procurement model isn't geared for getting the most bang for the buck, but to move money in a system of under-the-table deals. The Pentagon spends money, and then makes up excuses for its expenditures.
Sure, it would be nice to have sensible military spending. Unfortunately, we get things like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, $165 billion over budget.
The UK's system is far simpler and more transparent: BAE Systems tell us what we want and we pay them huge amounts of money for it. Sometimes they might suddenly tell us they need even more money to finish a job, and often the end product doesn't actually work, but it's OK because it's a British company.
If you don't like it, start your own Military contractor.....
With hookers and blackjack...
Hell, forget the military contractor
F-35? I though we were talking GROUND combat systems. Those of us in the engineering trenches are doing what we can with Abrams and Stryker upgrades, and rather cheaply, thank you. (Although I will admit we BLED cash on the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicle program, and some were proud of that.)
Some history from the last 2-3 decades: European Piranha 8x8 --> Canadian LAV --> US Stryker. And all (now) owned by the same US corporation. Taxes go to Uncle Sam -- that makes it okay, right? (Never mind it's publicly traded so profits go to ALL shareholders, regardless of country.)
Well, they still give a Fokker.
(yeah, yeah, I know, but they *started* in Germany and who cold forget the Red Baron and his Fokker Dreidecker?)
It never ceases to amaze me how Europeans denegrate the military-industrial complex, without really understanding why it exists or what fuels it. Who supplies most of the EU in weapons? We do. You're paying for our industry. Yes, we have the largest military in the world; Beating out the next ten combined. But we're the biggest because of economy of scale; We have surplus upon surplus because it's *inventory*.
And war makes for good business. It also has knock-on effects: The factories that build humvees also build automobiles. When we make advances in tank warfare because of metallurgy, we advance the state of the art in other areas like lighter-weight vehicles (the unibody design common to almost every car since the late 90s came from this) and lighter weight spacecraft. We have a budding private industry for launching satellites because of our military. We landed on the moon because the same technology that can launch ICBMs can launch people too. There is a multiplicative effect, a reciprocity, between military advances and private sector advances. The internet was created out of military need; It was not, contrary to popular opinion, slapped together by academics in a garage. Things like WiFi and spread-spectrum signalling came out of rapid-frequency shifting systems put on our stealth bombers that would resist jamming and tracking. The encryption that makes eCommerce possible was pioneered by us during WWII when we cracked the German enigma cipher.
So understand that when you complain about the military-industrial complex... your country helped make America what it is today.
er, who cracked the enigma code? ivory tower academics and employees of govt owned utilities come to mind.
minor snits apart, reading what the first supreme commander of allied expeditionary forces in Europe had to say regarding the military industrial complex is interesting and educative.
The encryption that makes eCommerce possible was pioneered by us during WWII when we cracked the German enigma cipher.
Sorry to break it to you but U-571 was not historically accurate.
<<we cracked the German enigma cipher>>
Strange. I always thought Bletchley Park was in England.
"The encryption that makes eCommerce possible was pioneered by us during WWII when we cracked the German enigma cipher."
Erm...wot?
"Erm...wot?"
Does sound rather nonsensical, doesn't it?
Even ignoring the historical accuracy of the statement.....
We landed on the moon because the same technology that can launch ICBMs can launch people too at the end of WW2 we grabbed a stack of really clever Germans who showed us how to do it.
There, fixed that for you.
Strange. I always thought Bletchley Park was in England.That's because it was. Until the Merkins invaded...
Orrrrr. You could have spent a lot of that money directly on developing those things, and had change over to develop more. The 'military spending promotes non-military development' is, while true as far as it goes, a myth in terms of monetary efficiency. At best, civilian spin-offs help ameliorate only a smallish portion of the costs.
Things like WiFi
You mean WiFi as invented by the Australian CSIRO.....
Things like WiFi and spread-spectrum signalling came out of rapid-frequency shifting systems put on our stealth bombers that would resist jamming and tracking.
Quite sorry, but no. Austrian actress Hedy Lamar invented spread-spectrum technology. Yes, a movie actress, whose U.S. patent was awarded in 1941. She was finally awarded for her inventions in 1997.
The Merkins tried but got lost in the Roundabout(rotaries for you left ponders) maze that is Milton Keynes.
when we cracked the German enigma cipher?
Stop watching Hollywood garbage, the UK cracked the code and used it to draw the USA into the war.
As far as I remember, Polskie Biuro Szyfrow was in Warsaw. And yes, (polish) government employees and ivory tower academics...
Who supplies most of the EU in weapons? We do.
It is less and less actually. With the exception of fighter aircraft and some of their armament where the idiotic F35 programme is a political issue most other continental Eu weapons are now locally supplied.
If memory serves me right, nobody in NATO imports USA tanks and fighting vehicle. It is either indigenous for the countries which have own designs or Leopard 2E which is German. Same for fighting vehicles - indigenous, German or Austrian. Small arms - indigenous, German or Austrian. Artillery - indigenous, German, Austrian or Swedish (Bofors). Missiles - same as last one + French and Italian (Finmechanica). Ships - nobody in his sane mind outside USA will buy a US built ship today.
Compare this to 30-40 years ago when most of NATO was using USA tanks, fighting vehicles, etc.
Those who fail to learn from history tend to sound rather silly when they spout off about it..
And don't forget who supplies the main gun for the venerable M1 Abrams (A1 and upwards) - that's right, the Germans.
Some of us Europeans still build out own fighter aircraft too (Sweden and France)...
Don't forget the Poles, who did the earliest work on cracking Enigma (before they were invaded)
"the unibody design common to almost every car since the late 90s came from this"
I could call you on that one then lay down the Trump card of the 1959 Mini ... not only 'unibody' but also a massively successful car with a transverse engine configuration which didn't have tracks, weighed less than 30 tons and, forgetfully, omitted a large turret ... Issigonis will be turning in his grave ...
True.
Most Merkins think IED's kill most of them abroad.
In fact it's traffic accidents.
They're not very good at driving on anyone elses roads but their own.
I wonder if that's sign those are the roads they should stick to?
Unibody is American through Joseph Ledwinka (Austrian) Citroen went to them for its Traction (1934).
Umm you are claiming credit for some British things there.
Leader in tanks, that is us
Bletchley Park is here
Mini wasn't the first unibody car, by a long way..
Honours for developing the unibody are split between Lancia of Italy and US automotive contractor Budd (who provided designs to first Citroen for the Traction Avant, and then Chrysler for its Air-Flow). Lancia used the techniques first, but as their application was an open-cockpit racing car ("torpedo"), there was never an opportunity to create a fully closed cell.
Mini also wasn't the first transverse, front-engine, front-drive car, as this configuration dates from the late 1940s, with DKW and SAAB both using this layout. Issigonis's design was revolutionary for combining many modern design ideas into a single, affordable and usable car. Unfortunately, some of these didn't really work out, and later Mini models moved away from them (going back to steel-spring suspension, for instance). The honour of "creator of the modern front-drive car" probably has to be shared with Dante Giacosa at FIAT, who developed the Autobianchi Primula, then the FIAT 127 and 128, which between them set down the architectural pattern for nearly every FWD car that followed afterwards. But these designs built on what Issigonis had done with the Mini (as well as his earlier work on the FIAT 500 of 1957)
"Who supplies most of the EU in weapons? We do."
Where do you get that idea, Junior?
The all-American Eurofighter? The all-American SAAB Gripen? The all-American Rafale? The all-American Eurocopter? The all-American Leopard MBT? The all-American Challenger II MBT? The all-American C1 Ariete MBT? The all-American B1 Centauro tank destroyer? The all-American Heckler and Koch MP5? The all-American Airbus A400M Atlas transport? The all-American Goalkeeper CIWS? The all-American Starstreak MANPADS? The all-American Rapier SAM?
"Some of us Europeans still build out own fighter aircraft too (Sweden and France)"
Dont forget the Eurofighter, the worlds most advanced combat aircraft, BAE systems has a big chunk of that! (so Us brits still build fighters!)
While it is well known that the Poles, and subsequently the British 'cracked' Enigma, what is not so well known is that the Americans manufactured 120 (!!!) of the 'Bombes' and used them at the United States Naval Computing Machine Laboratory, Dayton Park, Ohio to decode Enigma-encrypted messages during the Atlantic (U-boat) war.
http://daytoncodebreakers.org
http://daytoncodebreakers.org/brief/bombe/
The enormous amount of resources the USA could deploy made a significant difference.
It's also instructive to read about the 'Tunny' code and the development of the Colossus; some information about which was not declassified until June 2000 in the UK. It's a long read, but well worth it if you are interested in the history of cryptanalysis and computing.
http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article030109.html
"I could call you on that one then lay down the Trump card of the 1959 Mini ... "
Whereas you are right to call him on his stupidity, the 1959 Mini wasn't the first or even an early unibody car.
The first unibody car was the 1922 Lancia Lambda, Citroen were also pioneers in unibody construction with the Traction Avant in 1934.
"Unibody is American through Joseph Ledwinka (Austrian) Citroen went to them for its Traction (1934)."
No, unibody is Italian, starting with the 1922 Lancia Lambda.
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech sector. Part of Situation Publishing
Join our daily or weekly newsletters, subscribe to a specific section or set News alerts
Subscribe
