Buy Russian! (We don't make helicopters in America)

[notquiteright]

I wondered about that myself and I'll guess that these items were supplied through overseas contractors who were able to buy Iron Curtain products and sold them to the US military as the item, regardless of origin. I'll try to post my letter to LBJ if this thread is still around in the next couple of days. I have a poor quality scan sent me by an old friend from that era. I'll try to clean it up, black out my personal info.

Since we Americans are the World Police, we should be making cheaper, more basic weapons to sell to our future enemies. Or give away as gifts to the Dictator-Of-The-Month Club. It's ridiculous that the worlds largest arms makers can't be competitive. Of course, I don't know who owns the Russian manufacturers, maybe it's an American company.

I'd much rather a pic of that Commie generator!

I prefer Happy Junta Club! Well when it comes to largest, sometimes large gets in the way. Leupold is a HUGE firearms optic company and the list of complaints against them from the high end user crowd is intense. The list of complaints from the low end user crowd is intense. I hear it this way- Leupold is so big they don't have to worry about smaller niche markets, sorta like American automobile makers in the 60's and 70's when the foreign guys first started to make inroads.

Why should I make 100,000 scopes with a 10 dollar profit margin when I can make 1,000 with a 150 dollar profit margin?

Perhaps the biggest problem with being the Costco of killing is in the mid and low end fields there are many corporations outside our defense industry that built lower sophistication weapon systems so we would be in a crowded field.

Dunno who owns the armament plants in Russia but I tend to lean toward transnational concerns rather than national ones. Your always a winner if you have a stake in every hand dealt...

 

[Fisher]

Why do you assume that the relative price of all military hardware is the same as helicopters?

Another possible reason for this decision could simply be availability.

More likely availability of replacement parts, expertise, access to training etc. There are a lot of interesting not made in america helicopters out there.

 

[Diving Mullah]

U.S. says it will buy Russian helicopters for Afghan military | Reuters

Half a billion headed for our good buddies in Russia. I'm somewhat mystified. Can someone explain this?

Easy.... you know the old story of NASA spent million upon million to develop a a pen which can write upside down in Space?? But then they found out what Russians use.... A pencil!!!

Diving Mullah

 

[specklebang]

I completely understand you well made points. It certainly answers the OP question. Now, I'm just expressing disappointment that you figured this out while all these 300 million a year CEOs didn't. Why aren't we more competitive? Why don't we build indestructible, low maintenance weapons and vehicles? We;ve been at war in the desert for over 20 years now. Where is that capitalistic market spirit?

No, that is wrong. Better price yes, but "better" product ... not exactly. US weapons are better than Russian... IF you have the money and education to maintain them.



And here comes the issue. A Russian tank, gun or helicopter is technically far behind most similar US weapons, but what the Russians understood long ago based on their experience in WW2, is that when fighting a war you need firepower not technology and certainly not technology that needs maintenance constantly.

Listen the Germans in WW2 had the best tanks on the planet. They had the most armor, best guns and so on, but they were also heavy and required quite a bit of technical knowledge to run and maintain and on top of that they required quite a lot of materials to make.. quality materials. Put such a tank in the muddy or dusty plains of Eastern Europe, and you have a problem.

On the flip side, you had the Russian tanks, which were inferior in pretty much every single aspect to the German tanks. But they did not require much maintenance and were easy to fix. They were also not as heavy, required less fuel, and could work in all sorts of weather. And on top of that they were easy to manufacture so they Russians out produced the Germans quickly. So what if Russian tank crews died far more often than Germans... plenty more where that came from... unlike the Germans.

And this is the attitude you need to have in a place like Afghanistan. You need machines that can easily be fixed by practically anyone with a little knowledge and machines that dont need 30 people to keep it going in a dust storm. This is the problem with the US military machine.. it is expensive because it is high tech and requires a lot of maintenance... something the Afghans cant afford or frankly due (lack of qualified people). A good example is the Apache helicopter. Fearsome piece of machinery, but when it went to Saudi Arabia in the first gulf war, they basically were grounded for weeks because the dust got into the filters and broke them. Once they got the right filters then they were fine for a while, but still required regular maintenance because of the dust. You see the Apache was designed for non-dust areas of Europe... not the dusty Middle East. Russian helicopters dont have that problem, because they were designed to fight in whatever area of the world that the Russians needed.



Not really. Russian "tech" is not bloated per say... the American is though.



That is a good point. Look at Iran, they bought American weapons... had a revolution and had problems getting spare parts cause they hated America now. However chances are those "jobs" you think you are creating are not actually there but around the world.



A very good question. You are forgetting the cold war. One of the main ways the US fought the cold war was via trade. By building up the allies economically, they kept those allies "in the bag" so to say. They pushed trade into countries, that also benefited US companies. Coca Cola is only big today because of it. Had Coca Cola not had a military contract to supply their stuff to US troops, then Coca Cola would have been nothing. They basically got cheap factories world wide on the US tax payers dime.



Look at the M16. Why did the AK-47 become the gun of the world? Because the M16 (early on) was unreliable and expensive. The AK-47 was made to last, easy to clean and repair ... and cheap.

American's tend to think that expensive = great product... and that is often far from the truth.

Yeah, I wish I had pictures from my younger years but unfortunately, I wasn't smart enough to think I would want them 40 years later.

"Why should I make 100,000 scopes with a 10 dollar profit margin when I can make 1,000 with a 150 dollar profit margin?". Why not both? Don't you want to grow your scope business? Make one for the poor guys and 1 for the rich guys?

I'd much rather a pic of that Commie generator!

I prefer Happy Junta Club! Well when it comes to largest, sometimes large gets in the way. Leupold is a HUGE firearms optic company and the list of complaints against them from the high end user crowd is intense. The list of complaints from the low end user crowd is intense. I hear it this way- Leupold is so big they don't have to worry about smaller niche markets, sorta like American automobile makers in the 60's and 70's when the foreign guys first started to make inroads.

Why should I make 100,000 scopes with a 10 dollar profit margin when I can make 1,000 with a 150 dollar profit margin?

Perhaps the biggest problem with being the Costco of killing is in the mid and low end fields there are many corporations outside our defense industry that built lower sophistication weapon systems so we would be in a crowded field.

Dunno who owns the armament plants in Russia but I tend to lean toward transnational concerns rather than national ones. Your always a winner if you have a stake in every hand dealt...

 

[specklebang]

There is no invention I appreciate more than the ball point pen. It might have been invented anyway since erasable pencils are flawed for long term documentation. But you know they sell pens AND pencils at Office Depot.

Easy.... you know the old story of NASA spent million upon million to develop a a pen which can write upside down in Space?? But then they found out what Russians use.... A pencil!!!

Diving Mullah

 

[Porchev]

Easy.... you know the old story of NASA spent million upon million to develop a a pen which can write upside down in Space?? But then they found out what Russians use.... A pencil!!!

Diving Mullah

That is not true. NASA didn't spend any money developing that pen. It was developed independently by the inventor (who then asked NASA to try it), and Russia even ended up buying them since they didn't want broken pencil lead and dust floating around in zero gravity.

 

[notquiteright]

Yeah, I wish I had pictures from my younger years but unfortunately, I wasn't smart enough to think I would want them 40 years later.

"Why should I make 100,000 scopes with a 10 dollar profit margin when I can make 1,000 with a 150 dollar profit margin?". Why not both? Don't you want to grow your scope business? Make one for the poor guys and 1 for the rich guys?

In Leupold's case I think it was just like the US auto guys of the 60's and 70's. if you want 'junk' go elsewhere. You can either have quality or quantity. in production line terms if you have to employ the same number of man hours per scope, just not the same in quality control why make the barely profitable ones when a dozen much smaller or where labor is far cheaper can build them. What many tacti-cool shooters wanted was a mildot scope with solid repeatable knobs with the reticle on the front focal plain for about half the cost of a MKIV. Leupold balked and SWFA bought up a rather poor scope and made it a very good but cheaper tacti-cool scope... the Super Sniper.

When you dominate a market like Leupold what exactly is growing the market?

 

[PeteEU]

I completely understand you well made points. It certainly answers the OP question. Now, I'm just expressing disappointment that you figured this out while all these 300 million a year CEOs didn't. Why aren't we more competitive? Why don't we build indestructible, low maintenance weapons and vehicles? We;ve been at war in the desert for over 20 years now. Where is that capitalistic market spirit?

Long dead.. because of the corporatism that has consumed America. Eisenhower feared the military industrial complex, and he was right. They have created a system where the government pays whatever they want for gear they often dont need. That is why stuff is so expensive. This has also spread to other industries like telecoms, cable tv and so on. The ironic thing is, that Americans think they have a "free market" and in some cases it is about as free as the market was in the Soviet Union.

"Why should I make 100,000 scopes with a 10 dollar profit margin when I can make 1,000 with a 150 dollar profit margin?". Why not both? Don't you want to grow your scope business? Make one for the poor guys and 1 for the rich guys?

I agree, but that is how it is. The world is strange sometimes.

 

[Cyrylek]

The only country where everybody can buy a gun - a huge market - a huge military - and we can't come up with a decent gun? What's wrong with us?

We make plenty of decent guns. It doesn't mean - and it shouldn't mean - that what we make will be always optimal for every kind of customer, in every corner of the market.

I honestly do not understand what is the problem here. This is not some neighborhood pride parade. Sure, it is nice when our own makers of helicopters (or pistols) benefit from any such deal. But they are not the only Americans involved. Taxpayers are also Americans. Policemen and soldiers who will have risk their lives if the PDs or the allied Afghan military are underpowered - they are also Americans. We have more soldiers and taxpayers than gun- or helicopter-smiths.

If we have to buy the machines for Afghanistan (it is a big "if", but let's not go off topic here), of course it should be done on the basis of open bidding in the widest possible market, to get the best value and the most fitting product.

 

[specklebang]

Growing the market is perfectly exemplified by my brilliant OP.

If I had a tank factory making super-dooper ultra complicated tanks I sold 10,000 of and made $1million each, I wouldn't mind getting an orde for The Gremlin model tank and making a measly $100K a piece. Despite world-wide competition, more = more.

Look at Boeing. They just peddled $10B worth of civilian aircraft. Why even bother making them in the US? It seems automation/technology makes it worthwhile to do so and they still try for government contracts. So, growing is growing and there's no such thing as too much money.

I can see that a scope is specialized and you make one or the other. You try to address the market. But weapons are a sure thing - we'll be wupllying the whole ME for decades and we shouldn't just go "no big deal, the Russians can have the other trillion dollars worth of business. "

In Leupold's case I think it was just like the US auto guys of the 60's and 70's. if you want 'junk' go elsewhere. You can either have quality or quantity. in production line terms if you have to employ the same number of man hours per scope, just not the same in quality control why make the barely profitable ones when a dozen much smaller or where labor is far cheaper can build them. What many tacti-cool shooters wanted was a mildot scope with solid repeatable knobs with the reticle on the front focal plain for about half the cost of a MKIV. Leupold balked and SWFA bought up a rather poor scope and made it a very good but cheaper tacti-cool scope... the Super Sniper.

When you dominate a market like Leupold what exactly is growing the market?

 

[specklebang]

I don't understand what you don't understand

We are paying for this. Why wouldn't we keep the money "in country". It's out taxpayer dollars, can't we at least see some benefit from them?

We make plenty of decent guns. It doesn't mean - and it shouldn't mean - that what we make will be always optimal for every kind of customer, in every corner of the market.

I honestly do not understand what is the problem here. This is not some neighborhood pride parade. Sure, it is nice when our own makers of helicopters (or pistols) benefit from any such deal. But they are not the only Americans involved. Taxpayers are also Americans. Policemen and soldiers who will have risk their lives if the PDs or the allied Afghan military are underpowered - they are also Americans. We have more soldiers and taxpayers than gun- or helicopter-smiths.

If we have to buy the machines for Afghanistan (it is a big "if", but let's not go off topic here), of course it should be done on the basis of open bidding in the widest possible market, to get the best value and the most fitting product.

 

[Cyrylek]

We are paying for this. Why wouldn't we keep the money "in country". It's out taxpayer dollars, can't we at least see some benefit from them?

We are supposed to see the benefit in improved security and suppression of terrorism. If that is not the case, the money should not be spent at all. If that is the case, it should be spent in the manner most conducive to achieving the goal. Shoveling pork toward American military contractors is not the objective here (and when it is, we call it corruption).

 

[specklebang]

Which brings us full circle to shoving pork to other countries who fund those that oppose us. What objective is that?

We are supposed to see the benefit in improved security and suppression of terrorism. If that is not the case, the money should not be spent at all. If that is the case, it should be spent in the manner most conducive to achieving the goal. Shoveling pork toward American military contractors is not the objective here (and when it is, we call it corruption).

 

[notquiteright]

Growing the market is perfectly exemplified by my brilliant OP.

If I had a tank factory making super-dooper ultra complicated tanks I sold 10,000 of and made $1million each, I wouldn't mind getting an orde for The Gremlin model tank and making a measly $100K a piece. Despite world-wide competition, more = more.

Look at Boeing. They just peddled $10B worth of civilian aircraft. Why even bother making them in the US? It seems automation/technology makes it worthwhile to do so and they still try for government contracts. So, growing is growing and there's no such thing as too much money.

I can see that a scope is specialized and you make one or the other. You try to address the market. But weapons are a sure thing - we'll be wupllying the whole ME for decades and we shouldn't just go "no big deal, the Russians can have the other trillion dollars worth of business. "

Actually funny you should mention less sophisticated tanks and world wide competition. USofA companies have routinely produced 'proof of concept' less expensive armored vehicles in an attempt to expand into the 3rd world market. Take the tale of our Stryker AFV. Iraq requested 400 for it's new army. Guess who built them? General Dynamics- Canada! :shock:

United Defense Industries tried to peddle the XM8 light tank to the world after the USofA Army declined to adopt it as a replacement for it's ancient M551's.

Cadillac Gage built the Stingray, another light tank, it sold 100 to Thailand, order completed in 1990 and no further sales.

Now on who supplies the ME-

Our noble friends in Pakistan are license building Chinese tanks. The Ukraine is producing it's T84 for UAE, Thailand, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh and apparently Pakistan. India uses the Russian T90, Algeria has 305. The UAE uses the French AMX-56. Russian BMP3 used by UAE, India, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, Cyprus. Jordan fields 175 British Scimitars. Saudi Arabia uses a mix of french and american tanks/APCs. Kuwait operates a true hodge podge of systems from Yugo, Russia, USofA, Eygpt, Croatia, Austria, UK, and China. UAE has a strong french showing in it's armored forces with Turkish, Italian, Russian and UK vehicles in it.

So the point is we do supply armor, but we are by no means THE supplier and when costs count we lose, even in our dear allies forces. many other countries work very hard to make the sale, many countries in the ME and SA simply don't want the very complex and expensive to maintain weapon systems world power nation's operate.

Boeing- The airplane industry is very competitive and losing ANY contract can be a hard blow to swallow, both the the company and it's stock holders. Boeing by the very nature of it's industry must compete across a wide spectrum of niches. I do note American Airlines operates a regional jet fleet, the so-called RJ's, that are foreign made. A chart of planes made by the huge two, Airbus and Boeing shows just how wide and fierce the competition is. Both in size of plane and range. The battle over the replacement tanker fleet is as bitter as any soap opera with 35B on the line.

Pistols- Glock had an excellent LE marketing plan, sort of like Remington 700 with LE tactical marksman. American pistol makers sorta sat on their collective butts while Glock was hungry to break into the USofA market. The Beretta winning the USofA Army pistol competition was puzzling- not a whole bunch of soldiers love the M9, but it is a done deal.

So the USofA has tried to do the lower cost option, but the competition seems very adept in that field and our own Military is not impressed with KISS.

 

[specklebang]

When our "allies" buy equipment from other sources, it is well within their right to operate in their budget. If we weren't paying for these Russian tanks, I would not have had anything to say about it.

But from what you're telling me, we have designed and produced budget weapons. So, if we taxpayers are footing the bill, I'd like to see some of that go back to us. Aren't I a selfish prick?

OTOH, my car was made in Japan so I'm just as guilty. It was the only car that exactly met my needs at the time. Now, there is an Americn "version" so if I buy another car, I would have to decide. OTOH/OTOH, I used my own money for my purchase. I didn't get a free car like everybody else:roll:

Actually funny you should mention less sophisticated tanks and world wide competition. USofA companies have routinely produced 'proof of concept' less expensive armored vehicles in an attempt to expand into the 3rd world market. Take the tale of our Stryker AFV. Iraq requested 400 for it's new army. Guess who built them? General Dynamics- Canada! :shock:

United Defense Industries tried to peddle the XM8 light tank to the world after the USofA Army declined to adopt it as a replacement for it's ancient M551's.

Cadillac Gage built the Stingray, another light tank, it sold 100 to Thailand, order completed in 1990 and no further sales.

Now on who supplies the ME-

Our noble friends in Pakistan are license building Chinese tanks. The Ukraine is producing it's T84 for UAE, Thailand, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh and apparently Pakistan. India uses the Russian T90, Algeria has 305. The UAE uses the French AMX-56. Russian BMP3 used by UAE, India, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, Cyprus. Jordan fields 175 British Scimitars. Saudi Arabia uses a mix of french and american tanks/APCs. Kuwait operates a true hodge podge of systems from Yugo, Russia, USofA, Eygpt, Croatia, Austria, UK, and China. UAE has a strong french showing in it's armored forces with Turkish, Italian, Russian and UK vehicles in it.

So the point is we do supply armor, but we are by no means THE supplier and when costs count we lose, even in our dear allies forces. many other countries work very hard to make the sale, many countries in the ME and SA simply don't want the very complex and expensive to maintain weapon systems world power nation's operate.

Boeing- The airplane industry is very competitive and losing ANY contract can be a hard blow to swallow, both the the company and it's stock holders. Boeing by the very nature of it's industry must compete across a wide spectrum of niches. I do note American Airlines operates a regional jet fleet, the so-called RJ's, that are foreign made. A chart of planes made by the huge two, Airbus and Boeing shows just how wide and fierce the competition is. Both in size of plane and range. The battle over the replacement tanker fleet is as bitter as any soap opera with 35B on the line.

Pistols- Glock had an excellent LE marketing plan, sort of like Remington 700 with LE tactical marksman. American pistol makers sorta sat on their collective butts while Glock was hungry to break into the USofA market. The Beretta winning the USofA Army pistol competition was puzzling- not a whole bunch of soldiers love the M9, but it is a done deal.

So the USofA has tried to do the lower cost option, but the competition seems very adept in that field and our own Military is not impressed with KISS.

 

[notquiteright]

When our "allies" buy equipment from other sources, it is well within their right to operate in their budget. If we weren't paying for these Russian tanks, I would not have had anything to say about it.

But from what you're telling me, we have designed and produced budget weapons. So, if we taxpayers are footing the bill, I'd like to see some of that go back to us. Aren't I a selfish prick?

OTOH, my car was made in Japan so I'm just as guilty. It was the only car that exactly met my needs at the time. Now, there is an Americn "version" so if I buy another car, I would have to decide. OTOH/OTOH, I used my own money for my purchase. I didn't get a free car like everybody else:roll:

Who was giving out free cars??!! Dammitt I miss EVERYTHING!!!!!

Well considering the entire Afghanistan bill from dead and maimed soldiers to the final bill when the last vet dies will be 4 to 6 trillion, the Russian helicopter deal seems trivial.

As far as who pays for military 'aid' we send a nice check to many of the nation's mentioned and I'll bet you a shiny Bell Chopper a nice slice of that aid is spent on other country's hardware.

 

[specklebang]

First they give you an Obamaphone, then they give you an Obamacar.

Yes, .5 billion is trivial in context. And yes, we hand out Uncle Sugar Money Packets to everyone (except our own middle class) and they buy their stuff elsewhere. But this was a direct deal - our money for Obamacopters and I feel I can make a case that we could have "bought American" being as American dollars were being spent by our own government......but I'll get over it.

Who was giving out free cars??!! Dammitt I miss EVERYTHING!!!!!

Well considering the entire Afghanistan bill from dead and maimed soldiers to the final bill when the last vet dies will be 4 to 6 trillion, the Russian helicopter deal seems trivial.

As far as who pays for military 'aid' we send a nice check to many of the nation's mentioned and I'll bet you a shiny Bell Chopper a nice slice of that aid is spent on other country's hardware.

 

[American]

Why do you assume that the relative price of all military hardware is the same as helicopters?

Another possible reason for this decision could simply be availability.

They have been flying Russian helicopters for many years, and our helicopters are too sophisticated for them to maintain. The Mi-17 is very simple and still uses boiler gages. They simply don't have the expertise to maintain American helicopters or the money for parts.