Both the 9mm Pistol and the SOCOM rifle cited by Fuchs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
I did mention "personal weapons" didn't I? That's the big one, the must have one for a US company.
are personal weapons. The first is a Beretta, the second a FNH product. The M16 and M4 were also produced by FNH who replaced Colt as sole source from 1988 until 1993 and has, along with Colt had additional contracts since then. Several other manufacturers also had or have production contracts, including Sabre Defence, a British Company with a plant in Nashville.
The design home of the weapon is not location sensitive nor is license production a problem. By law, actual manufacture of bulk item defense materiel must be in the US to support and maintain a domestic production base.
You say exactly but your earlier statement said otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
I understand what the story is here and that is that the US would never give the contract to supply personal weapons for the whole military to a foreign manufacturer.
It has to be a US company... if for none other than emotional reasons.
Neither FNH or Sabre are US companies. They do have plants in the US but they are still foreign manufacturers, so that statement by you is incorrect.
The rationale for US production is not emotional but practical.
Quote:
The procurement policy is incompetent and probably as corrupt (as anything out of Afghanistan) but hey... that's the way we do it in the US, right?
Think introduction of the AR15/M-16 and the horror of that!
You're shooting at the wrong target.
Yet again. :wry:
The culprits are the Congress, not the procurement guys who generally aren't corrupt and much of whose seeming incompetence is caused by the plethora of laws and excessively bureaucratic regulations that govern procurement -- most but not all designed to keep the system honest and avoid the corruption (other than that of Congress which is apparently acceptable...:mad: ).
Quote:
The soldiers deserve better.
Yes. They always do, always did. Worldwide...
Nope, that's not correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Always seems to be someone else to blame I notice.
It's not that others always find someone else to blame, rather it is that you always blame the wrong actions or people because you don't know any better. ;)
Quote:
But do tell me what you think of a senior officers who takes up an appointment in procurement knowing full well that the organisation will not serve the best interests of the US fighting soldier... in fact may even be detrimental to his ability to survive a conflict?
Another superficial gem from you. :rolleyes:
Depends on his motive. If he's doing it for the potential of reward, he's criminally wrong. If he's taking a lousy job -- one that I certainly would not want even if the Congress did not interfere so much -- in order to do the best he can and try to ameliorate damage, then I say good for him. Which is he? Or is he someone in between who was not asked if he wanted it but told to do it and is spending his time in that purgatory just waiting to get back to a unit. We do not have solid one job career tracks, people are rotated in and out of various jobs in the foolish attempt to create what the Personnel community calls a 'generalist.' We are large enough that if someone refuses a job or an order, he just gets fired and someone else is moved in; sooner or later, the system finds someone who will comply and not be a rabble rouser. Not a good system but no one has come up with a fix, though many have tried and are trying.
Quote:
Can these accessories before and after the fact ever be forgiven or their conduct condoned in any shape or form?
You wrongly condemn through either ignorance or malice. You accuse people of wrongdoing with absolutely no knowledge of who does what to who or how our procurement system works. It really does a fair job with most things. Its major flaw is simply overbureaucratization induced by Congress and their quest for Jobs for voters. Really, it's surprising that it works as well as it does.