MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[JMA]

To call a company "mediocre" or "not top-notch" is no criticism. Assuming non-mediocrity without evidence is prejudice.

I'll leave it at that, for every reader can form his/her own opinion based on what was already written. I'm sure that non-U.S. readers will on average have a very different impression than U.S. readers.

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.

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!

The soldiers deserve better.

[Fuchs]

Actually, JMA, you should google which companies won U.S. contracts for 9mm pistols, 5.56mm light machine guns, 7.62mm medium machine guns, 25mm grenade weapons, designated marksman rifles and the new USSOCOM assault rifles.

All that foreign small arms suppliers need to do to win against U.S. bidders is to set up a subsidiary in the U.S..They do not only win tenders - they appear to win most tenders that are not merely about producing yet another batch AR-15s.

[JMA]

Actually, JMA, you should google which companies won U.S. contracts for 9mm pistols, 5.56mm light machine guns, 7.62mm medium machine guns, 25mm grenade weapons, designated marksman rifles and the new USSOCOM assault rifles.

All that foreign small arms suppliers need to do to win against U.S. bidders is to set up a subsidiary in the U.S..They do not only win tenders - they appear to win most tenders that are not merely about producing yet another batch AR-15s.

I did mention "personal weapons" didn't I? That's the big one, the must have one for a US company.

[Fuchs]

What's impersonal about the M9 pistol?

Did you really narrow it down to the M1 Garand - M14 - AR-15 line?

Well, the U.S. government gave a contract to HK for the XM8 - just not a production contract. The contract was nevertheless substantial enough that it was together with OICW remains into the XM25 contract (HK already had legal claims from the earlier contracts, so the programs were replaced and HK simply got its turnover from a new project).


Besides; no country with a reputable assault rifle producing company buys less indigenous assault rifles for its whole armed services than license-productions.
Finland, Russia, UK, France, Italy, Brazil, India, Austria, Germany ... there's always a national component at least.

[Ken White]

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.

[JMA]

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.

Exactly.

[Ken White]

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.

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.

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... ).

The soldiers deserve better.

Yes. They always do, always did. Worldwide...

[Fuchs]

The rationale for US production is not emotional but practical.

A state which buys a 100 € tool from a domestic manufacturer can expect about 40-60 € returns in taxes. This halves the price effectively in comparison to an import.
Subsidiaries and component imports complicate the topic, of course..

Many small countries compensate for their inability to buy everything at home by agreeing on offset purchases. They buy a tool for 100 € in another country, but that country pledges to buy tools for typically 80-180 € in return.

Large weapons net exporter countries often reject such deal conditions - and get away with it because of oligopoly market structures (there are only so many fighter jet and SSK designs on the world market...). The U.S. is such an example.

[JMA]

You're shooting at the wrong target.

Yet again.

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... ).Yes. They always do, always did. Worldwide...

Always seems to be someone else to blame I notice.

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?

Can these accessories before and after the fact ever be forgiven or their conduct condoned in any shape or form?