Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Navy Is Removing Life Support For Shipbuilding Industry
Manufacturing News | July 8, 2005 Vol. 12, No. 13

Posted on 07/11/2005 10:19:47 AM PDT by mr_hammer

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Paul Ross

Thanks for the ping!

41 posted on 07/11/2005 8:19:04 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cinives
China will never attack us

China has already begun to attack us. The attack is political, so far. China is not your friend.

42 posted on 07/11/2005 9:18:50 PM PDT by Colorado Doug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon
"My main concern however, is the push by DOD to remove the requirements to have top shelf military gear designed and manufactured in this country. That IMHO is a big, serious, troubling move"

I think we may see this push realized by our recent defense agreement with India (see thread). If our joint arrangement becomes just another greed-fest as we witnessed in the commercial technology sector (as opposed to a way to bring a new and potentially important ally into the fold), then IMO we'll be on a path to real decline in our domestic technology capability and infrastructure.

"Removing the requirements to design and build here will further accelerate the demise of engineering and manufacturing in the US...which in turn will accelerate the demand for offshoring...which will further drive engineering offshore...and so on....and so on..."

Just as you've noted the non-linear growth in China's technology and manufacturing infrastructure, the postive feedback loop you describe above will create a simultaneous non-linear decline in our capability. A recipe for disaster to be sure.

Ultimately...we will accept Madame Albrights cogent observation that we shouldn't really BE the only world superpower...after just isn't fair.

A few days ago there was a really funny post on FR about 400 sheep who apparently flung themselves over a cliff to their deaths (supposedly a true story). Maybe the sheep thought they could fly! Likewise, sometimes I wonder if Countries, Civilizations, etc. can, or have, committed collective suicide by convincing themselves of similar delusions, like for example that Free Trade is "free" for everybody in perpetuity.
43 posted on 07/11/2005 9:28:34 PM PDT by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mr_hammer; Travis McGee; Jeff Head; Alamo-Girl
Notice it still appears we have some Panda-huggers in the defense dept., many who should know better (Adm. Blair, Analyst David Finkelstein, etc), still saying that regarding China as an enemy "would be wrong." No, they are our very good buddies and nascent allies. Yeah right:

U.S. Attitude Shifts as China’s Military Improves
By WILLIAM MATTHEWS, Defense News, July 11th, 2005

In 1991, U.S. precision weapons, night vision, stealth and other technologies dazzled the world by obliterating the Iraqi Army in four days. Among those most profoundly impressed by the U.S. accomplishment was China.

Awed by the power of U.S. technology, the Chinese military launched a sustained effort to modernize and reorganize its military, said David Finkelstein, an Asia expert at the Center for Naval Analysis.

A decade and a half later, it’s Americans who are beginning to be awed by what China has achieved.

The Chinese military has acquired an assortment of new weapons: Russian submarines and jet fighters, destroyers with state-of-the-art phased-array radar, airborne early warning aircraft, cruise missiles and wake-homing torpedoes, among others.

Stressing quality over quantity, China has cut the size of its military, yet increased its capability, Finkelstein said. It has developed new command-and-control doctrines and new standards for training troops.

Chinese military leaders “know what’s broken and what has to be fixed to make themselves a more capable, professional institution,” Finkelstein said July 7 during a discussion on the Chinese military at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank.

China’s Ultimate Goal?

The question for the U.S. military is: What does China plan to do with its improving military power?

For U.S. military planners, who are conducting the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Finkelstein said,”it would be prudent to assume” that China will continue to improve its military.

But it would be a mistake to assume that China inevitably harbors hostile intent toward the United States, he said.

That seems to be the assumption President George W. Bush and his administration are making, another expert said.

As recently as December, former Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the U.S. relationship with China as the best in 30 years. But since then, there has been a noticeable shift in the way top administration officials discuss China, said John Tkacik, a research fellow in China policy at the Heritage Foundation.

In June, for example, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld questioned continued increases in Chinese military spending.

“Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment?” Rumsfeld said.

Finkelstein contends that China perceives that it has legitimate defense needs. China fears Japan, wants to protect the access of its burgeoning industries to shipping lanes, and has reasons to worry about the aspirations of Asian neighbors such as India.

Tkacik offers this answer: China is preparing for a major war over Taiwan.

The U.S. military should pay attention to China’s military advances, said Daniel Gouré, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a defense research center in Arlington, Va. “There aren’t many uses for these advanced weapons except against an equally large and capable foe,” he said

Gouré cautioned against those who have advised that the QDR focus on the war against terrorism. China and its role as a rising world power are at least as important as the war on terrorism, he said.

The forces needed to check the military power that China may become are substantially different from those optimized for the global war on terrorism.

Among the U.S. capabilities that have a clear impression on China is the ability “to go downtown,” Gouré said. China is pursuing defenses against the capabilities that enabled the United States to strike with impunity in Belgrade and Baghdad, he said.

If the Chinese succeed, the United States will be unable to operate aircraft other than stealth planes anywhere near China, Gouré said.

For the U.S. military, that creates a clear role for planes like the F/A-22, the B-2 bomber and a B-2 follow-on, he said. It also could increase the requirement for electronic warfare capabilities and very high-speed or hypersonic strike aircraft, he said.

In response to the Chinese military buildup, Gouré said U.S. planners conducting the QDR should give consideration to:

• Maintaining a strong nuclear attack submarine fleet. Talk of reducing the fleet raises questions about how the Navy would maintain an adequate undersea presence in Asia.

• Equipping aircraft carriers with better early warning aircraft, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles and stealthy F-35 fighters.

• Keeping ship-based ballistic missile defenses in the region.

“And we need a ground force capable of taking the war to China if that becomes necessary,” he said. It may not be necessary — or possible — to march the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division into Beijing, Gouré said. But U.S. military planners should consider “putting U.S. troops on Chinese soil in ways that are persuasive.”

There’s another threat the United States has yet to address: cyber defense.

“There’s a lot of talk these days about the terrorist cyber threat. That pales in comparison” to the ability of countries like China “to put 10,000 or 20,000 trained people on the hacking circuit if they want to do so,” he said. That “is something you simply cannot ignore.”

If all that sounds daunting to the United States, it may be more daunting to the Chinese, according to Finkelstein.

China’s military modernization is occurring amid extraordinary economic growth, modernization and change in its society. In recent weeks, for example, riots have erupted among farmers over land disputes, students over rising university fees and peasants over the growing gap between rich and poor.

For Chinese government officials, “the biggest problems lie not beyond the water’s edge, but right at their doorstep,” Finkelstein said.

“The big story is about whether the Chinese Communist Party will succeed or fail in managing the rise of China at home,” he said. •

44 posted on 07/12/2005 12:56:12 PM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter; RightWhale; ALOHA RONNIE
The bad news is not expected to stop there. The principal profiteers from the outsourcing, foreign companies, WANT STILL MORE...even the business from the US Taxpayer!! Check this out:

BAE Chief: Lower U.S. Tech Transfer Rules
By WILLIAM MATTHEWS , Defense News, July 11, 2005

The chief of Europe’s largest defense company is urging the U.S. government to ease rules that restrict foreign access to defense U.S. technology.

Dick Olver, chairman of London-based BAE SYSTEMS, said export controls imposed by the State Department are hindering the development of high-tech weapons such as the Joint Strike Fighter and “data fusion” technology that promises to improve battlefield situational awareness.

In addition, “buy American” sentiment in the House of Representatives in recent years threatens to further limit the ability of foreign companies to sell to the U.S. military. Olver called it “misguided.”

If buy American legislation prevails, it “would impair the United States’ defense capabilities because it would prevent the U.S. taking full advantage of the global market,” Olver said in a July 12 address at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a public policy research institute.

BAE has a particular interest in lowering the barriers that inhibit technology transfers and buying from foreign defense suppliers. Since 1999, the company has bought about a dozen U.S. defense firms. In March, BAE paid $4.2 billion to buy United Defense Industries, the maker of Bradley fighting and Marine Corps amphibious vehicles, naval guns, missile launchers and precision munitions.

BAE employs 35,000 American workers and expects to keep expanding in the United States, Olver said.

But even a “trans-Atlantic company” like BAE must get State Department approval before an American branch of the company can share sensitive technology with a British branch.

One result, Olver said, is that the United States has a hard time getting access to expertise it needs on short take-off and vertical landing — a key feature in one version of the JSF.

“We have been asked to lead the testing of this technology and to carry out operational modeling of mixed short takeoff and conventional takeoff options. But we can only do this if we receive the right approvals,” Olver said.

BAE has hit a similar roadblock with data fusion technology. The company has developed ways to combine data from multiple sources to create a detailed picture of a threat, he said. “Combined with U.S. capability, we believe we would be cutting-edge. But we are waiting for approval to contribute what we know in order to develop more capable, interoperable solutions.”

One of the big losers because of U.S. export controls is the United States, Olver said.

Controls deny the United States access to tens of thousands of skilled engineers, scientists, companies and technology, he said.

One aim of U.S. technology transfer restrictions is to deny militarily important technology to U.S. enemies and potential adversaries. But Olver said strict British prohibitions mean “there is no possibility” that critical U.S. technology would be re-exported to prohibited countries such as China.


Sigh. This is such GARBAGE. We have more, and better skilled aerospace and electronics engineers now selling real estate and insurance for lack of employment BY OUR OWN DEFENSE INDUSTRY!!!!!!

And the "Global Market" is most assuredly not a good reason for furthering this abomination any further. The plane is either built entirely so as to DEFEND AMERICA...or it shouldn't be built.

If it's solely a flying pig farm, for the benefit of our allies, or merely to stymie the french fighter (much as I like to embarass them that's not a good enough reason to spend $220 billion U.S.), then it badly needs termination.

Put the money into the F-22...which is mostly American at least. And a TRUE air superiority machine. It rocks. Restored funding would let Lockheed get the economies of scale needed to really optimize our investment in this plane. The numbers would be there...

45 posted on 07/12/2005 5:08:42 PM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
We have more, and better skilled aerospace and electronics engineers now selling real estate and insurance for lack of employment BY OUR OWN DEFENSE INDUSTRY

True. Many have chosen to not apply leather to pavement over and over looking for the next engineering position and have settled for the job security and continuity of working in a coal mine or driving a cab.

46 posted on 07/12/2005 5:15:56 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Further evidence that the phoney free traders do not BEGIN to comprehend the havoc they wreaked on our competitiveness with their demented shown here. His whole post is beyond the pale, but then he concludes in post 355 with this gem: "an example is boeings 787. Boeing cannot raise enough RD developemt funds here, so they must look for foerign investors"

This guy has no idea how gaping is his knowledge deficit. He doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Very disturbing. My conclusion: He must be a product of a very recent public education...

47 posted on 07/12/2005 6:17:58 PM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

A factoid: The transcontinental and spur railroads of the mid to late 1800s were partially funded by European investment. There was a huge crash in railroads four years after the continent was spanned when business didn't go quite right and European investment dried up. It wasn't all bad, but it was dislocating for a few years while the American economy reoriented itself.

48 posted on 07/12/2005 6:24:37 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: wideminded

I think the number is 55 at the moment. The 33 is a 2010 projection.

49 posted on 07/12/2005 6:28:44 PM PDT by Doohickey (The more cynical you become / the better off you'll be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Thanks for the ping!

50 posted on 07/12/2005 7:29:52 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Just hope they now what they are doing?

51 posted on 07/14/2005 9:25:13 AM PDT by mr_hammer (The Supreme Court took my home and all I got was this stupid t-shirt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mr_hammer
Just hope they now what they are doing?


52 posted on 07/14/2005 9:57:19 AM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson