US Munitions production
- Thread starter NeilChapman
- Start date
Likely because of Congress, I reckon. Congress's ability to force the US military to implement stupid ideas is a historical constant.
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 4,134
- Reaction score
- 8,877
There's no guarantee the system will work that way. If it did work with a different steel, for a different design of shell, then is that grade of steel available, and is the other machinery capable of the finishing operations needed for that design?
And that wasn't what they were contracted to deliver. Asking them to deliver it would be a contract variance, that they could charge you for, so it's still throwing good money after bad.
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 4,134
- Reaction score
- 8,877
So no one at Repkon would let them see a working production line?
*facepalm*
That's a huge warning flag right there. In fact it's not even a warning flag, it's 'Go to Jail, Do not pass Go, do not collect £200' I'll bet GD's QA guys were screaming at people to get a clue.
*facepalm*
That's a huge warning flag right there. In fact it's not even a warning flag, it's 'Go to Jail, Do not pass Go, do not collect £200' I'll bet GD's QA guys were screaming at people to get a clue.
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 4,134
- Reaction score
- 8,877
"The advantage, Gezen told defense officials, is that the same equipment could produce shells of various calibers."
So exactly what other artillery calibre would the US Army need them to produce?
"the flaming robot arms also kept smashing into things. They slammed into computer numerical control machines, breaking their windows and bending their doors. They knocked over shells. They bashed into safety fences."
You plan for flailing robot arms, you make sure there is nothing in their reach, so that if things go wrong, no one gets hurt and nothing gets broken. Sounds like amateur-hour run amok.
So exactly what other artillery calibre would the US Army need them to produce?
"the flaming robot arms also kept smashing into things. They slammed into computer numerical control machines, breaking their windows and bending their doors. They knocked over shells. They bashed into safety fences."
You plan for flailing robot arms, you make sure there is nothing in their reach, so that if things go wrong, no one gets hurt and nothing gets broken. Sounds like amateur-hour run amok.
Which is why I'm all for effectively removing Congress's ability to dictate much to the military at this point.In that case it works as designed
If I remember right, 105s. The old 105mm howitzers are still used by airmobile and mountain units.
yeetmahboi
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 April 2022
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 1,434
The Army chose the Turkish offer was because they thought the investment would be a high risk high reward option and bit along. Other contractors bid new machine and tooling lines, the Army thought that they could simply re program the existing line to build new items, which would naturally be cheaper, and Repkon-GD followed.
Your attempt to put Congress into a scapegoat skinsuit and absolves the Army of its responsbility is concerning.
... look at what the US military had to do during the Interwar Years to keep as much as it could before FDR showed up (and even then, it was slow going because he needed stupid amounts of political capital to even attempt to work on the problem), and see that this isn't entirely out of place.
It's not really a scapegoat suit when it's historically accurate and has a lot of historical precedent.
This is something that a more in-depth feasibility study would have caught, but the military can't implement such a study because of Congress. It's like why every USN ship program gets so bloated (each modern ship program has to hide a shipyard upgrade program because Congress won't allow such a thing otherwise).
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 6,351
- Reaction score
- 8,226
Rewrite Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
Rewrite Article Two to grant the powers removed from Congress to the Executive branch of government.
Convince Congress and the US states to accept the changes. You may want to discuss the broad outline of the proposed changes with Congress and the states first.
For your next assignment...
Last edited:
... which is, effectively, impossible even if it's absolutely needed.
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 4,203
- Reaction score
- 5,730
There are many reasons why we are where we are vis-a-vis munition funding. Good news first, the few dozen billions included for munitions in the FY'26 reconciliation (OBBBA) bill passed last year is making its way into contracts. Along with elevate levels for several programs in the base budget.That money will continue to be contracted through the end of the decade with those contracts performing through early next decade. Bad news, despite having the same party in the WH, and in control of Congress, we are unlikely to get the 300+ Billion in FY'27 reconciliation funding the administration asked for and the $70-90 Bn in Iran supplemental funding that is now also thrown into the mix on top of all that.
Keep in mind that despite the PR, the administration did not float a $1.5 Trillion base budget but counts the highly risky, and unlikely to be approved, reconciliation request to get to the $1.5 Trillion bumper sticker claim. While the house did pass the reconciliation bill earlier this month, the amount was less than 1/3 of what the admin requested, and the senate has not yet taken it up. There is some hope that this reconciliation bill might pass in the lame duck period but even if it does we'd still be hundreds of billions short from the $1.5 Trillion wish list. There is now a fairly good chance that the composition of Congress in the next term would effectively make the reconciliation process a non starter thus putting the onus back on the WH to float budgets broadly in the 3.5-5% range that NATO alies for example have agreed to pursue.
Keep in mind that despite the PR, the administration did not float a $1.5 Trillion base budget but counts the highly risky, and unlikely to be approved, reconciliation request to get to the $1.5 Trillion bumper sticker claim. While the house did pass the reconciliation bill earlier this month, the amount was less than 1/3 of what the admin requested, and the senate has not yet taken it up. There is some hope that this reconciliation bill might pass in the lame duck period but even if it does we'd still be hundreds of billions short from the $1.5 Trillion wish list. There is now a fairly good chance that the composition of Congress in the next term would effectively make the reconciliation process a non starter thus putting the onus back on the WH to float budgets broadly in the 3.5-5% range that NATO alies for example have agreed to pursue.
Last edited:
I understand the thinking is/was that control of 'the purse' was placed with the House of Representatives because it was the chamber closest to and most directly accountable to the public and that because it would be the public who had to bear the cost (be that financial or otherwise), it was appropriate that their representatives have the greatest say.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
Pentagon Running Out of U.S. Suppliers of Energetic Materials- Started by bobbymike
- Replies: 149
-
