Saving the U.S. Defense Industrial Base

AmericanEconomicAlert.org ^ | Wednesday, November 10, 2004 | William R. Hawkins

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

I recently participated in a panel discussion on the extent to which the United States should outsource defense programs to foreign firms.  The event was sponsored by the libertarian Cato Institute and the other panelists were Daniel Griswold, a trade specialist at Cato; Loren Thompson, a defense expert at the Lexington Institute; and former U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop, a Republican from Wyoming.  

The jumping off point for the discussion was the Marine One helicopter project.  Marine One is the codename for the fleet of helicopters that flies around the President of the United States .  The contract is worth $1.6 billion for 23 helicopters, plus perhaps $8 billion more for additional helicopters for the Air Force, Coast Guard, and Department of Homeland Security.  The two contenders are teams led by Sikorsky, whose helicopters have served as Marine One for the last thirty years, and by Lockheed Martin, whose entry is actually a helicopter design from the British-Italian firm Agusta Westland.  Each team is engaged in a fierce competition to portray itself as being more “American” than the other.

The panel was better balanced than usual for a Cato event.  Griswold reflected Cato´s position that free trade is a one-size-fits-all policy and that national security was no different than shopping at the mall for tennis shoes or microwave ovens.  He even made the specious argument that the U.S. needed to buy weapons from Europe so that the Europeans could afford to buy American systems.  Yet the European Union runs a trade surplus with the United States.  Indeed, the dollar has been dropping in value against the euro because the world is awash in dollars from years of huge, and growing, U.S. trade deficits.  There is clearly no lack of dollars around with which to buy American products.

Wallop advocated the Sikorsky helicopter on its merits, and also because it would support an important component of the U.S. defense industrial base.  Thompson took a middle position, arguing that the Augusta Westland entry was the best airframe, and that pressure would force most of the work to be done in the United States so as not to harm the economy.  However, on other projects such as the large program to replace the nation´s air refueling tanker fleet, Thompson argued against giving the contract to the European Airbus consortia because it would weaken the American contender Boeing, whose health was vital to national security.

I thought the Marine One competition is an odd choice for opening a debate on “Buy American” provisions.  Both teams have international components, but both also promise to keep 90% of money spent on the project in the United States.  This is an important consideration: When the government takes money out of the American private sector through taxation, it should return it to the American private sector when it spends the money.  Whichever team wins, most of the production work is slated for Texas.  The pressure both teams have been under to meet “Buy American” standards is a proper use of America´s near monopsony market power.  This is especially true in regard to forcing Sikorsky to bring home its production of horizontal stabilizers and tail rotor supports, which it has outsourced to the People´s Republic of China.  

In its posted announcement on the event, Cato asked whether “buy American” factors are a sound approach in a “globalized” economy.  This question gets to the philosophical heart of the matter.  A world where national security concerns and the need for a strong military are still important is the antithesis of a world based on “globalization.” Globalization was part of the nonsense of the 1990s, when in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, many liberal commentators declared that history was at an end.  The future would be one of international cooperation and amity.  The Cold War had been the war to end all wars, and the world was now safe for “free trade” and economic interdependence.  

Yet, as we enter the 21st century, in the wake of 9/11 and all the diplomatic upheaval that has followed, it is clear that the utopian vision popular in the early 1990s does not match reality any better now that it did when similar sentiments were expressed after the world wars or the Napoleonic Wars or the Seven Years War for that matter.  Many of the classical liberal theories about trade and international harmony took root in the decades following the defeat of Napoleon when there were several decades of relative peace in Europe.  Such times never last, however, and by the mid-19th century the “great game” of power politics was back in style.  A series of regional wars of unification and imperial expansion accelerated into the global wars of the 20th century.

As Kipling put it, “the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.” And the lessons of history will continue to apply in the decades ahead.

Another consequence of the nonsense of the 90s was the “military procurement holiday,” which saw American forces shrink by a third.  Hundreds of firms and hundreds of thousands of highly skilled employees, from production workers to engineers, left the defense industry due to lack of work.  

The United States is now embarked on an across-the-board transformation process that will see new fighters, warships, and armored vehicles roll out of American factories over the next decade.  These rearmament programs should be directed towards the rebuilding of the nation´s defense industrial base.  We should not be building foreign dependence and vulnerability into systems that will be around for the next 20-30 years.  No one can predict what will happen to the political makeup of the world over such a long time horizon; what changes may occur in alliances and alignments; or what new powers may arise to threaten American interests.  To reduce the risk, Americans must keep their fate in their own hands.  

Similar concerns have been expressed by other governments.  In England, Lord Bach, the defense procurement minister, has called for studies on the “vital capabilities that we need to keep in this country.” The UK´s Defence Industries Council has warned that if London´s “open market” policies continue, Britain would “lose almost completely the strong industrial base that has supplied our armed forces.  UK sovereignty could be threatened.”

At their summit last May, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder plotted how to advance European industrial policy.  Heavy engineering, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, shipbuilding, and other strategic manufacturing sectors were at the core of their discussion of how to create “national champion” industries that can challenge American firms in critical markets.  

Turkey has shelved major tank, helicopter, and unmanned aerial vehicle projects.  Its Defense Procurement Executive Committee has stated, “It has been decided to meet the needs of the Turkish armed forces with new models based on domestic production and original designs and by making maximum use of national resources.” The Turks see defense as a leading edge of industrial/technological, and hence economic, development.

The problem for these European countries is that they do not have a large enough domestic defense market to sustain their ambitions.  European Union defense spending in 2002 (the most recent year for which data is available) was only $137.2 billion or 1.8% of GDP.  Compare this to the U.S.  military budget of $329.7 billion or 3.4% of GDP.  The gap is even bigger in spending on research and development.  In 2002, the EU spent on $ 9.1 billion on R&D, whereas the U.S. spent four times as much or $39.4 billion.

The Europeans need to tap into the American defense market because they are doing so little themselves at home.  They want the American taxpayer to bail them out and keep them in business.  It is not in the long-term U.S. interest to let this happen.  European defense firms are not just competitors in the American market, but in third-country markets as well.  And some of those markets are places where we do not want the local regime to be able to buy high-tech capabilities.  EU member states, especially France and Germany, have been rather incautious in their eagerness to do business with rogue states.  And there is a debate going on within the EU about lifting the arms embargo on China.  Washington should not want to spend its money supporting EU capabilities that might be turned against it in the future, either in commerce or war.  

The guiding paradigm of U.S. military-industrial base planning should be the maintenance of American superiority into the far future.  That means creating a high-tech base that is without equal anywhere in the world.  A base that can supply American forces with weapons, support systems, and other capabilities that will allow them to perform missions no one else can attempt.  Rather than prop up foreign weapons producers with orders, we should welcome their decline to second rate status.

This kind of superiority is far more important than saving a few dollars on this or that individual project.  It should be remembered that when money is spent on a weapons program, much of it goes to fund the underlying advances in technology embodied in the system.  It is thus an investment in the expansion of science – an investment that should be made in American, not foreign, efforts.  

William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.

[Willie Green]

US Likely To Lose Tech Edge To India: Expert
Bush Economic Polices Threaten National Security

[Willie Green]

ping

[snowsislander]

We cannot ship all of our industry to China and remain a viable military power, much less a superpower. We cannot ship all of our research to India or China, and remain a military leader. Even if we still have a lead, it will erode as we lose our technological base, both human and industrial.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

India has a far better educational curriculum than we do. Why should this surprise anyone.

We are more concerned with teaching kids to put condoms on bananas and to acccept homosexuals than with teaching them the fundementals of math, engineering, and science.

[riri]

Washington should not want to spend its money supporting EU capabilities that might be turned against it in the future, either in commerce or war

Or, when they go fully Islamic and use the weaponry against us.

[oceanview]

20 years from now, the defense department is going to have to keep major parts of what once was the US technology base, running as a cottage industry in this country. to serve the specialized needs of the military. especially semiconductors.

did you notice that the new Intel CEO named today is a salesman - the first intel CEO to not be an engineer. that alone tells you something, the american part of Intel is mostly going to be a sales and marketing company, the technology part of the company will be china-centric in the future.

[oceanview]

no they don't. we have more then enough smart american kids to be engineers.

what India has - is people willing to work for $15K per year and live in near third world conditions. that's what we don't have in America - yet.

[12 Gauge Mossberg]

India has a far better educational curriculum than we do.

Then how come there are thousands of Indians living in poverty on the streets in hell-holes like Calcutta and Delhi?

[oceanview]

because US companies haven't offshored enough jobs there to employ them. give it time.

[Willie Green]

Then how come there are thousands of Indians living in poverty on the streets in hell-holes like Calcutta and Delhi?

Because they have a population of over a billion people.

[quadrant]

I agree the best policy would be to purchase arms from US suppliers.
But if that is going to happen, US companies have to start producing top of the line products at comparable prices.

Without the "but", then the US has no choice but to purchase products from other countries.

If you are unwilling to do this, are you advocating the US should purchase second rate, over-priced products just to keep US companies operating?

[Willie Green]

If you are unwilling to do this, are you advocating the US should purchase second rate, over-priced products just to keep US companies operating?

Even if "over-priced", that money stays within our domestic economy, "tickling down" to those businesses and industries that help service and support the defense industry. "Cheap" foreign procurement does not provide this domestic economic bonus.

[Willie Green]

BTW, your allegations of "second rate" is a bunch of hogwash.

[BenLurkin]

bttt

[A. Pole]

Griswold reflected Cato´s position that free trade is a one-size-fits-all policy and that national security was no different than shopping at the mall for tennis shoes or microwave ovens. He even made the specious argument that the U.S. needed to buy weapons from Europe so that the Europeans could afford to buy American systems. Yet the European Union runs a trade surplus with the United States.

Are freetraders really so stupid, or do they pretend?

[RockyMtnMan]

Yes and yes they pretend to be intelligent.

[Sam the Sham]

Outsourcing the security of this nation will end up costing you more than money.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Because 2/3+ of the children don't go to school.

[quadrant]

The examples of shoddy US equipment are many but two come to mind.

Perhaps you've forgotten the Sherman tank.
It was called the Ronson, after the cigarette lighter that was supposed to light up every time. The Sherman lit up every time it was hit by German shells.

Perhaps you've forgotten the problems with the M-16. How many troops died in Vietnam because of the M-16? If you doubt my word on this, read THE HILL FIGHTS.

Frankly, I don't care whether the money stays in the US economy or not, if the troops have to use second rate equipment.
Why don't you tell a wounded soldier, "I know you're in pain but you have the consolation of knowing your sacrifice helped the US economy."

If you want the Defense Department to purchase US made products, then tell the people who run those companies to get off their rear ends, stop thinking about their bonus and fringe benefits, to quit playing accounting games, and design the best equipment in the world.

[lucysmom]

Outsourcing the security of this nation will end up costing you more than money.

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." Thomas Jefferson

[Paul Ross]

But if that is going to happen, US companies have to start producing top of the line products at comparable prices. Without the "but", then the US has no choice but to purchase products from other countries.

??? Complete and stark ignorance. You know nothing of the superior manufacturing of our aviation and defense groups. The ones who invented the "state of the art."

[Willie Green]

Perhaps you've forgotten the Sherman tank. It was called the Ronson, after the cigarette lighter that was supposed to light up every time. The Sherman lit up every time it was hit by German shells.

Perhaps you've forgotten that it was America's vastly greater manufacturing capabilities that eventually won that war.

Or perhaps you DO remember, and are desperately attempting to erode that superior capability and avoid a recurrence.

[ninenot]

HermCher,

The US has a surfeit of MS/PhD ME's and EE's, all native-born.

Demand is low, which is why kiddies are going into other areas--same-o with Computer Science types.

You're reading propaganda from the colleges (and other self-interested parties, such as immigration lawyers) if you really believe that we "have" to import talent from India (or export projects TO them) because of a dearth of talent and capability.

You do understand that grad-student types and H1B's work for cheap dollars, no? Now think again: who SAYS that there's a "shortage?"

[ninenot]

the US should purchase second rate, over-priced products just to keep US companies operating?

Maybe you'd like to tick off a short-list of US military equipment which is "second-rate" and is manufactured domestically.

Go ahead. We'll wait.

[Paul Ross]

Ping

[ninenot]

Perhaps you've forgotten the problems with the M-16.

I'll ignore the Sherman--as well as the Monitor and the Merrimac.

Perhaps YOU have forgotten Robert MacNamara, another Intellectualoid who personally f*(&^ed up the M-16's design.

Pinging a Freeper who actually KNOWS the story on the M-16 from the factory's point of view...

[RogueIsland]

what India has - is people willing to work for $15K per year and live in near third world conditions.

The problem is that you can live pretty well on 15K in India, from what some of them have told me. There's a big cost of living disparity, and the only way that gets "rebalanced" via free trade leads to some very ugly times for the U.S.(remember, if you have a mortgage, your cost of living can't come down much -- so if the economy radically re-adjusts to bring us on a par with Indian wages, and you try to sell your 250K house because you are now suddently earning 15K a year, you will take a huge loss if housing prices have collapsed to accommodate the new wage scales and you'll be deeply in debt with no hope of digging out).

And yes, there are plenty of very smart, well educated Americans in the university system. One needs only spend time in a university to see that. But they won't go into fields that they perceive as dead ends unless they have a particular passion for a field and don't care about material success in it. They'll go into law and business school instead.

[oceanview]

and a chinese made M16 is going to be top quality, is this your assertion? or software for a fighter jet written by some guy in Bangalore in a 6x6 room squinting into a 14 inch monitor. this is what you want for the military?

[oceanview]

and education - its amazing how many young people I hear who want to be teachers. what is the class size ratio going to be to support all these teachers, 5 to 1? and where is the tax base to pay their salaries?

[tonycavanagh]

As a third world nation Indians are cheaper, yes there are those who are well educated but as someone in the IT industry who deals with Indian outsourcing companies they are good workers as long as you plan the whole project out for them.

The problem is that if there is something wrong with a component they wont flag it up they will build that component to the spec.

They always say yes even if they don’t fully understand, they feel it is rude to question, so there is no real two way feedback.

Tony

[Paul Ross]

The examples of shoddy US equipment are many but two come to mind. Perhaps you've forgotten the Sherman tank.

Okay, I'll play. You need a history lesson. First you ignore who won the Cold War, and with what, and then Second, reach way back to World War II, which we also won by the way. Let's take a hard look at your first example, The Sherman Tank. Shoddy? I think not.

The History of the M4 Sherman 105mm Howitzer

Though the U.S. was decisively winning in the latter stages of WWII, there remained concern about the inferiority of the Sherman tank in firepower and armor protection to the German Tiger and Panther. It was said that the U.S. had matched the superior quality of the German tanks only by superior quantities of American tanks. And this was largely true. The Sherman did not fare well in tank-to-tank slugging matches with their giant German counterparts-shells often harmlessly bounced off the thick German armor. Interestingly enough, before entering the war, the U.S. did develop some extremely heavy tanks, but later switched to lighter tanks for the following reasons.

The U.S. tanks had to be transported by ship from Detroit, across a vast ocean to land amphibiously on enemy shores. This reality placed great limitations on the size and weight of the tanks. Especially with the frequent U-boat sinkings, the number of U.S. ships was dropping, and the bigger the tank, the fewer a ship could carry.

Another factor that faced the U.S. was moving their armor over bridgeless streams. The U.S. Air Force was targeting enemy bridges as a means of disrupting enemy supply lines, etc. Once these bridges were destroyed, U.S. tanks would have to cross the streams on temporary bridges. Heavy tanks could not have crossed, but the lightweight and nimble Shermans could.

Also, while the Tiger and Panther were made bigger and more powerful than the Sherman was, they were comparatively slow and ponderous. The German tanks were often used as pill-boxes, forced to become immobile and fire at oncoming armor. On the other hand, the Sherman was designed for deep thrusts into the enemy's rear, where it would destroy supply installations and communications. This demanded great speed and minimal fuel consumption.

But perhaps the greatest reason behind the success of the Sherman was its reliability-maximum performance and minimum care and replacement. General George Patten recognized this when he declared, "In mechanical endurance and ease of maintenance our tanks are infinitely superior to any other". This factor played out on the battlefield, allowing the Sherman to out-run, out-maneuver, and ultimately out-fight the Tiger and Panther.

With about 50,000 produced in all variations, the Sherman was the most widely produced tank during the war. The five major variants of the M4 to the M4A4 were designated by the hull and engine used. Although powerful and proven, its high center propeller shaft gave the hull a tall profile. Suspension was a rugged and simple design, known as VVSS (Vertical Volute Spring Suspension), with three units (or bogies) on each side, and each with two road wheels. The transmission was 5-speed forward plus reverse. Early production M4's had a 3-piece front transmission cover, and a cast one-piece steel turret mounting a 75mm main gun. For added protection, oblique armor plates were added to the turret, hull sides and just in front of the forward hull hatches. Production of the M4 began in July 1942, five months later than the cast hulled M4A1. One of the most powerful variants of the M4 Sherman was the 105mm howitzer equipped version, which provided valuable fire support for the U.S. Army and Marines as well as extensive use in anti-tank operations.

Specifications for M4 Sherman 105mm Howitzer
Overall length: 6.197m
Overall width: 2.67m
Overall height: 2.94m
Weight, Combat Loaded: 31.48t
Weight, Unstowed: 28.486t

Actual Thickness, Angle w/Vertical

Hull Thickness:
Front: 63mm/47 degrees
Sides: 38mm/0 degrees
Rear: 38mm/10 degrees
Top: 19mm/83-90 degrees

Turret Thickness:
Front: 76mm/30 degrees
Sides: 51mm/0-5 degrees
Rear: 51mm/0 degrees
Top: 25.4mm/90 degrees
Gun Shield: 91mm/0 degrees

Armament: M4 105mm howitzer (X1), M1919A4 7.62mm machine gun (X2), M2 12.7mm heavy machine gun (X1).
Ammunition: 66 rounds 105mm, 4,000 rounds 7.62mm, 600 rounds 12.7mm.
Engine: Continental R975-C4 9-cylinder 4-cycle radial air cooled (15,945cc displacement, 460hp/2,400rpm output)
Maximum speed: 38.6hm/h, Cruising Range: about 161km, Crew: 5

---

Back to 1/16 R/C M4 Sherman Information

---

HOME

[Paul Ross]

Pinging armor guys.

[Sam the Sham]

Frankly, I don't care whether the money stays in the US economy or not, if the troops have to use second rate equipment.

There is no category of military equipment on this planet in which the US is not undisputed leader. So dredging up ancient history about the inadequacies of the Sherman vis a vis the Panther is ridiculous. Your main point is a foolishly doctrinaire adherence to free trade that does not have the basic common sense to understand that a sovereign state is sovereign only to the extent that it depends upon no one's continued goodwill for advanced arms.

Do you comprehend that you cannot just switch advanced arms suppliers ? Do you comprehend that parts for high tech weaponry are NOT interchangeable ? That if you buy, say, an F16 you will depend on McDonnell Douglas for spare parts, upgrades, training, and such for the operational life of that plane ? So if you are a foreign country you had better stay on good terms with the US or your F16 will rust on the runway ? Sure, you can maybe scrounge on the black market like Iran does but that is no way to maintain a military.

Why don't you tell a wounded soldier, "I know you're in pain but you have the consolation of knowing your sacrifice helped the US economy."

Why don't you tell a carrier crew, "Gee, I'm sorry about those incoming 300 Chinese cruise missiles, but it was more cost effective to outsource our anti-missile systems development and chip production to China so I guess we have anti-missile systems that we can't even maintain or replace. Sorry but your sacrifice insures the purity of free trade at all costs theory." ?

[r9etb]

Are freetraders really so stupid, or do they pretend?

I wouldn't say they're stupid, but they do tend to adhere to a foolish consistency about free trade.

For some folks, "free trade" is ideological -- an absolute principle that is rooted in the libertarian principle that folks aren't supposed to initiate force against others.

While that is certainly laudable, it unfortunately does not account for the reality that some people are actively interested in causing us harm.

As such, "free trade" must necessarily be restricted to the extent that we maintain the capability to defend ourselves against our enemies. That includes the ability to build, maintain, and improve the incredible capabilities our military is currently using to such great effect in Iraq.

[meadsjn]

For want of a nail
the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe
the horse was lost.
For want of a horse
the rider was lost.
For want of a rider
the battle was lost.
For want of a battle
the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want
of a horseshoe nail.

Nursery Rhymes, Lyrics and Origins

Consequences through the words "For want of a nail"
A clever set of lyrics in "For want of a nail" encouraging children to apply logical progression to the consequences of their actions. "For want of a nail" is often used to gently chastise a child whilst explaining the possible events that may follow a thoughtless act. The references to horses, riders, kingdoms and battles in "For want of a nail" clearly indicate the English origins of the rhyme.

[Sam the Sham]

Are freetraders really so stupid, or do they pretend?

When you start with the assumption that everything is for sale and everyone has his price, you do and say stupid things. That kind of thinking feels clever but it is fundamentally ignorant.

[GOPJ]

BINGO:

We cannot ship all of our research to India or China, and remain a military leader. Even if we still have a lead, it will erode as we lose our technological base, both human and industrial.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ARCADIA]

We are more concerned with teaching kids to put condoms on bananas and to acccept homosexuals than with teaching them the fundementals of math, engineering, and science.

There is nothing wrong with that. We no longer produce, design, or make anything; so why should we bother teaching the kids practical skills? Their future is to dig ditches and fry hamburgers anyway, and in that environment the condom skills will be of greater practical use to them then the three Rs. We get what we sow, and our educational system is a reflection of that; if it seems idiotic, it is because that is the state of our economy. The day we once again start recruiting high school students for serious employment is the day when our employers will make make real demands on our high schools; that is when our system will be fixed, and not a day earlier.

[ninenot]

You've hit the center of the issue--and yes, the "free traders" believe as an Article of Faith that money makes people happy.

Therefore, enriching Chinese peasants will prevent war!

Simple, no? All you have to do is completely ignore all of recorded history to come to that conclusion.

[Poohbah]

I've been in the defense business. I left over the readiness of too many contractors to chisel the government out of a few million here and a quarter billion there.

They can either produce the best damn gear anywhere at a price consistent with the US defense budget, or they can starve. Those are the only two choices I would give them.

If the companies entrusted with the sacred duty of equipping our troops are unwilling to do their level best work, and to do that work honestly and honorably...then maybe this country deserves to go down the tubes.

[Poohbah]

There's a big cost of living disparity, and the only way that gets "rebalanced" via free trade leads to some very ugly times for the U.S.(remember, if you have a mortgage, your cost of living can't come down much -- so if the economy radically re-adjusts to bring us on a par with Indian wages, and you try to sell your 250K house because you are now suddently earning 15K a year, you will take a huge loss if housing prices have collapsed to accommodate the new wage scales and you'll be deeply in debt with no hope of digging out).

Debt is a sickness in America. We pile it up WAY too quickly, and we do far too little to pay it off.

[em2vn]

Remember two very important things, tomatoes and laughter. When you hear a speaker cooing over free trade, give him the derisive laughter he deserves and smack him with a tomato. Laugh the clown off of the stage. Make him look like a side salad.
There is only one way for a global economy to work, a global government. In other words, a one world government. I'll have none of that.

[Poohbah]

When you hear a speaker cooing over free trade, give him the derisive laughter he deserves and smack him with a tomato.

Interesting. Engaging in interpersonal violence as a method of debate. Hmm. I seem to recall a political part of peace that recently did that in America.

There is only one way for a global economy to work, a global government.

Governments make economies work? Gawd-DAMN, the s**t you learn on Free Republic.

[Paul Ross]

Perhaps you've forgotten the problems with the M-16. How many troops died in Vietnam because of the M-16? If you doubt my word on this, read THE HILL FIGHTS.

Perhaps you should have finished reading up on the history of the weapon, before you blamed industry for the problems caused by some idiots in the purchasing agencies of the Pentagon:

Here is the history of the development, introduction and the service of the US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16. It is a long and a controversial one. I'll try to cut this story as short as possible, and will highlight only some most important periods and events. So, let's start.

1948. U.S. Army's Operations Research Office (ORO) conducts a research about small arms effectiveness. This research was completed by the early 1950 with the conclusion that the most desirable infantry small arms should be of 22 caliber, select-fire and with high velocity bullets, effective up to 300 meters or so.

1953 - 1957. US DOD conducts the next research, "Project SALVO", that also lead to the desirability of .22 caliber high-velocity infantry rifle

1957. The US Army requests the Armalite Division of the Fairchild Aircraft Corp to develop a rifle of .22 caliber, lightweight, select- fire, and capable to penetrate the standard steel helmet at 500 meters. The Eugene Stoner, then a designer at the Armalite, began to develop this rifle, based on his earlier design, 7.62mm AR-10 battle rifle. At the same time, experts at the Sierra Bullets and the Remington, in conjunction with Armalite, began to develop a new .22 caliber cartridge, based on the .222 Remington and .222 Remington Magnum hunting cartridges. This development, initially called the .222 Remington Special, was finally released as .223 Remington (metric designation 5.56x45mm).

1958. Armalite delivers the first new rifles, called the AR-15, to the Army for testing. Initial tests display some reliability and accuracy problems with the rifle.

1959. Late that year Fairchild Co, being disappointed with the development of the AR-15, sold all rights for this design to the Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company.

1960. Eugene Stoner leaves the Armalite and joins the Colt. The same year Colt demonstrated the AR-15 to the US Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. LeMay. Gen. LeMay wanted to procure some 8 000 AR-15 rifles for US AF Strategic Air Command security forces to replace ageing M1 and M2 carbines.

1962. US DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) purchases 1000 AR-15 rifles from Colt and sends those rifles to the South Vietnam, for field trials. Same year brings glowing reports about the effectiveness of the new "black rifle", used by South Vietnamese forces.

1963. Colt receives contracts for 85 000 rifles for US Army (designated as XM16E1) and for further 19 000 rifles for US Air Forces (M16). The US AF M16 was no more than an AR-15 rifle with appropriate markings. The XM16E1 differed from AR-15/M16 by having an additional device, the so called "forward assist", which was used to manually push the bolt group in place in the case of jams. 1964. US Air Forces officially adopted new rifle as M16. Same year US Army adopted the XM16E1 as a limited standard rifle, to fill the niche between discontinued 7.62mm M14 rifle and the forthcoming SPIW system (which newer got past the prototype and trial stages).

1966. Colt was awarded with the contract for some 840 000 rifles for US Armed forces, worth almost $92 millions.

1967. US Army adopted the XM16E1 rifle as a standard "US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1", on 28 February 1967.

1965 - 1967. Field reports from Vietnam began to look much more pessimistic. M16 rifles, issued to US troops in the Vietnam, severely jammed in combat, resulting in numerous casualties. There were some causes for malfunction. First of all, during the introduction of the new rifle and its ammunition into the service, US Army replaced originally specified Dupont IMR powder with standard ball powder, used in 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition. The ball powder produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the actions of the M16 unless the gun was cleared well and often. This pitifully combined with the fact that the initial M16 rifles were promoted by the Colt as "low maintenance", so, for the sake of economy, no cleaning supplies were procured for new M16 rifles, and no weapon care training was conducted fro the troops. As a result, soldiers did not knew how to clean their rifles, and had no provisions for cleaning, and thing soon turned bad. To add the trouble, the ball powders also had a different pressure curve, so they produced higher pressures at the gas port, giving the rise to the rate of fire, and, thus, decreasing accuracy and increasing parts wear.

1967 - 1970. The deficiencies discovered in previous years began to dissolve. 5.56mm ammunition was now loaded using different powders that produce much less residue in the gun action. The barrel, chamber and bolt of the rifles were chrome-lined to improve corrosion resistance. Cleaning kits were procured and issued to troops, and a special training programs were developed and conducted ever since. Earliest cleaning kits could be carried separate from rifle only, but since circa 1970 all M16A1 rifles were manufactured with the containment cavity in the buttstock, that held the cleaning kit. At the same time (circa 1970) the new 30 rounds magazines were introduced into service instead of the original 20 rounds ones, to equal Soviet and Chinese AK-47 assault rifles, which had 30-rounds magazines from the very beginning.

One of the key advantages of the Stoner design, that must be especially stressed, is the extreme flexibility of the construction. At the present time the interchangeable complete "uppers" are available in various barrel lengths and profiles (from 7 to 24 inches long, slim and heavy), in dozens of rifle and pistol calibers (from tiny but fast .17 Remington and up to monstrous .458 SOCOM, and from .22LR and 9mm Luger up to mighty .50AE). Special, manually single-shot uppers are commercially available in the extremely powerful .50BMG (12.7x99mm) caliber. Various "lowers" offer a broad variety of trigger units, buttstocks and other options. This advantage is viable for both military (especially Spec Ops), Law Enforcement, and civilian applications, as it allows to tailor any particular AR-15 type rifle to the current situation and tactical needs.

The M16 is still a general-issue rifle with the US Armed forces. It is also widely used by the US Law Enforcement agencies, either in military form (for example, the LAPD had some M16s, retired from Army), or in "civilian" semi-automatic only form. The AR-15 style rifles are made in the USA by at least dozen large companies, such as Armalite, Bushmaster, Colt, FN Manufacturing, Hesse, Les Baer, Olympic, Wilson Combat, and by number of smaller companies, many of which do assembly their rifles from components made by some other major manufacturers. M16-type rifles also manufactured outside of the USA, most notably in the Canada, by Diemaco Co. China also makes some AR-15 type rifles at NORINCO state factories. M16 rifles are used by many foreign military groups, most notably the British SAS, who preferred the M16 over the infamous L85A1 rifle, and by many others.

At the present time almost all the initial flaws of the M16 are bugged out, and it is considered among the best assault rifles in the world. While its reliability in the harsh conditions cannot match reliability of its main rival, the Kalashnikov AK-47 and AK-74, largely due to their lower tolerances, allowing more slop, hence dirt resistance, the M-16 is still a quite reliable rifle, despite its much higher tolerances, especially when well maintained. It is also comfortable to fire and quite accurate. Indeed, the M-16 led directly to the development of the AK-74, which is in many ways inspired by the principal advantages of the M-16.

[Poohbah]

Having lugged one around, I can tell you that the M16 is a piece of crap. We're now developing a 6.8mm round, because we're discovering that 5.56mm round just doesn't have the oomph needed to take down a jihadi and make him stay down. Hopefully, they will make the new weapon more tolerant of landing in mud (as it is wont to do when the bearer lands in mud), as well as working reliably in temperatures other than a "standard European day." (Believe it or not, wars are not fought in 72-degree air-conditioned clean rooms.)

[Toddsterpatriot]

Interesting. Engaging in interpersonal violence as a method of debate. Hmm. I seem to recall a political party of peace that recently did that in America.

Sounds like poor old Havoc and his union thug buddies.

[Poohbah]

Wonder what happened to him. Did he have a falling-out with his fellow thugs and wind up sleeping with the fish?

[Toddsterpatriot]

He was outsourced to Mexico.

[strider44]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a piece of crap. It is accurate as hell - you can't argue with that. The stopping power of the 5.56 is an issue though. Yes, you do have to keep it clean. But it is light-weight and easy to operate. All things considered, I would call it average. (Yes I've lugged it around a put thousnads of rounds through it).