loumeinhart 0 #26 March 1, 2008 QuoteThe US doesn't NEED to spend 50% of the entire world's military budget on defense. The only reason I can see that the US does this is to keep defense contractors fat and happy What?? I didn't realize we had the power to spend other country's money on our own defense? How much do we get from China and Russia? And why 50%? Why not just 15 or 20% to try and keep it inconspicuous? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 March 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Ive worked with more than one system that was chosen more for political reasons than performance and system requirements. Ah, you've worked on the Stryker project, huh? My son was in the unit that did the initial field testing My condolences!! (can you tell I'm not a fan of the Stryker? )Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #28 March 1, 2008 Quotedeliberate push by corporations company A and company B make baseball hats company A can make them cheaper by cutting labor costs and sell for a lower price. company B has 2 options... Dude what about the the hundreds of corporations who have adapted and reformulated their business models to stay competitive and keep production here? Quoteadvantage of the stockholders Uhh.. Yes, thank you. Quotedismay of shoppers looking for "Made in the USA" in Wal-Mart. Right because walmart is FULL of customers complaining that they cannot find goods made in the USA. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #29 March 1, 2008 Quote The only reason I can see that the US does this is to keep defense contractors fat and happy This was always a big mystery to me too. Sooo what happens if the Gov't says "No more spending big money on defense!" or "No more money goes to the contractors!" Will the defense contractors retaliate?? Will they be angry at the Gov't? I just wish I understood how all this worked . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #30 March 1, 2008 QuoteThis was always a big mystery to me too. Sooo what happens if the Gov't says "No more spending big money on defense!" or "No more money goes to the contractors!" Will the defense contractors retaliate?? Will they be angry at the Gov't? I just wish I understood how all this worked Can you think back to what JFK was doing in regards to Vietnam??? Johnson was much moreemenable to the people who mattered who wanted to go to war... RFK.. same thing...... If you do not play the way they want... you will die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #31 March 1, 2008 Quote (can you tell I'm not a fan of the Stryker? ) Why? I'm genuinely asking. Most of the guys w/whom I've spoken from Ft Lewis & Ft Wainwright loved the Stryker. Were they just telling me what they thought I wanted to hear? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #32 March 1, 2008 Quote Quote (can you tell I'm not a fan of the Stryker? ) Why? I'm genuinely asking. Most of the guys w/whom I've spoken from Ft Lewis & Ft Wainwright loved the Stryker. Were they just telling me what they thought I wanted to hear? VR/Marg My son was at Lewis. He didn't like it much, but I'm not sure why.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #33 March 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe US doesn't NEED to spend 50% of the entire world's military budget on defense. The only reason I can see that the US does this is to keep defense contractors fat and happy What?? I didn't realize we had the power to spend other country's money on our own defense? How much do we get from China and Russia? And why 50%? Why not just 15 or 20% to try and keep it inconspicuous? I guess you mis-read what I wrote. Want to try again?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #34 March 1, 2008 >If a Soldier Sailor Airman or Marine uses it.. it needs to have a very >large MADE IN THE USA on it.. period and it needs to be made by >Amerricans.... ALL of it. By far our biggest risk in that arena is oil. Our military runs on oil, and most of it comes from foreign sources. Compared to that risk, the risk of getting military hardware from another country is negligible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #35 March 1, 2008 Quote>If a Soldier Sailor Airman or Marine uses it.. it needs to have a very >large MADE IN THE USA on it.. period and it needs to be made by >Amerricans.... ALL of it. By far our biggest risk in that arena is oil. Our military runs on oil, and most of it comes from foreign sources. Compared to that risk, the risk of getting military hardware from another country is negligible. Not to forget the chromium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, vanadium, tungsten, molybdenum and other strategic minerals that are needed to make the weapons in the first place.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #36 March 1, 2008 We do have domestic sources for almost all of those commodities..they would be more expensive to produce here.. hence our buying them on the world market.. BUT... if needed they could be utilized. We also have HUGE reserves of oil tied up in the oil shales of the west. At some point.. those will be economically viable. In times of war.. its best to not rely on ANYONE else...let alone.. fairweather "friends" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #37 March 1, 2008 QuoteThe US doesn't NEED to spend 50% of the entire world's military budget on defense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm clueless dude, sorry! So we use other nations military money on our own defense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #38 March 1, 2008 Quote Can you think back to what JFK was doing in regards to Vietnam??? Johnson was much moreemenable to the people who mattered who wanted to go to war... Where can I read up on this and learn more? Quote If you do not play the way they want... you will die Who dies??? The contractor? The politician? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #39 March 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe US doesn't NEED to spend 50% of the entire world's military budget on defense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm clueless dude, sorry! I don't think agreeing with you counts as a personal attack Quote So we use other nations military money on our own defense? NO. Try again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #40 March 1, 2008 QuoteThe US doesn't NEED to spend 50% of the entire world's military budget on defense Ok define ''entire world's military budget'' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #41 March 1, 2008 I don't think that it's a trick question. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #42 March 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe US doesn't NEED to spend 50% of the entire world's military budget on defense Ok define ''entire world's military budget'' The total military expenditures of the nations of the world seems a reasonable definition, don't you think? See attachment for a breakdown.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #43 March 2, 2008 QuoteQuotedismay of shoppers looking for "Made in the USA" in Wal-Mart. Right because walmart is FULL of customers complaining that they cannot find goods made in the USA. That was Sam Walton's business model. He'd be rolling over in his grave if he saw what happened to his company. WalMart used source about 65-70% of its products from US companies, now that number is somewhere under 15%. The transition was unavoidable once NAFTA took hold and China was granted favored nation status.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #44 March 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe US doesn't NEED to spend 50% of the entire world's military budget on defense Ok define ''entire world's military budget'' The total military expenditures of the nations of the world seems a reasonable definition, don't you think? See attachment for a breakdown. That may be, but China get's more bang for the buck...er slavery... That's just "Standing Army". That does not include air, naval or marine forces. Edit to add navy...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #45 March 3, 2008 Since P&W is not supplying the engines for this aircraft, who is? My guess is GE, a US company. Also, regarding spare parts for the future - next 30-50 years. These will probably be manufactured in the US by the lowest bidder. This is HUGE business. Either the Air Force will get the drawings for US manufacturers to quote on or US companies will reverse-engineer the various spare parts. I wouldn't think that spares will be coming from Europe unless the part is propietary."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #46 March 3, 2008 QuoteSee attachment for a breakdown. A jpeg. Thanks, I'm sold. I'm gonna call my congressman and say "Let's spend less because china spends less...." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 March 3, 2008 Quote Quote (can you tell I'm not a fan of the Stryker? ) Why? I'm genuinely asking. Most of the guys w/whom I've spoken from Ft Lewis & Ft Wainwright loved the Stryker. Were they just telling me what they thought I wanted to hear? VR/Marg Oh, let's see.... it's not worth a damn on soft ground (ground pressure too high). If more than 1 wheel is shot out it's a mobility kill. It's not transportable as was specified... Everything the Stryker was supposed to do, the M113 could do for, what? 1/50th the cost, maybe? Put on band tracks and an armor upgrade that would make it MORE resistant than the Stryker and still C-130 transportable (which, if I recall correctly, the Stryker isn't).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #48 March 4, 2008 Quote Well, with Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions on the Armed Services Committee, it's unlikely he would want this to go under review, since the final assembly point will be Mobile, AL. However, Sen. McCain is the ranking member, and this is not going to bode well for his campaign if he doesn't look into it. It doesn't look good for Sen. Clinton either, as she's on the committee. So, in the end, the Senate has the final say, and I'm betting in this election year, they will definitely have to face the issue. I hate being right all the time...http://business.maktoob.com/News-20070423142839-US_Congress_to_examine_EADS_air_tanker_deal_speaker.aspx http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29314.html Although, it was Speaker Pelosi that took the lead in this, along with Senators from Kansas and Washington. I will be very curious as to how the USAF decision survives. Secretary Gates has to be scratching his head as well.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adriandavies 0 #49 March 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe US doesn't NEED to spend 50% of the entire world's military budget on defense Ok define ''entire world's military budget'' The total military expenditures of the nations of the world seems a reasonable definition, don't you think? See attachment for a breakdown. That may be, but China get's more bang for the buck...er slavery... That's just "Standing Army". That does not include air, naval or marine forces. Edit to add navy... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7276277.stm China to increase defence spending by 18%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #50 March 4, 2008 Quote I hate being right all the time... You'll get used to it. I did.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
