US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


SlothmanAllen

Junior Member
Registered Member
I have been thinking about why the US doesn't leverage its close relationships with Japan and South Korea for shipbuilding? Both of these nations have excellent shipbuilding capabilities, and I struggle to believe they would not be able to build US Navy vessels of any class outside of nuclear powered submarines. I think the whole point of these alliances should be to leverage the unique economic strengths they offer. The US happens to be close allies with two of the worlds largest shipbuilding nations. On top of that, it would be a great way to strengthen that relationship. The US is struggling to maintain its ships and build new ones, on top of the fact that it is hard to recruit talent into the industry. Obviously they can still fully fund and invest in US based shipbuilders as they have been doing, but can you imagine that the $40 billion or whatever they have allocated for Ukraine was put towards purchasing ships from South Korea and Japan? I really feel like this is a missed opportunity for them. It would be a great way for them to rapidly recapitalize their fleet and is something basically no other nation has access to or even the resources to commit to it.
 

Michaelsinodef

Junior Member
Registered Member
I have been thinking about why the US doesn't leverage its close relationships with Japan and South Korea for shipbuilding? Both of these nations have excellent shipbuilding capabilities, and I struggle to believe they would not be able to build US Navy vessels of any class outside of nuclear powered submarines. I think the whole point of these alliances should be to leverage the unique economic strengths they offer. The US happens to be close allies with two of the worlds largest shipbuilding nations. On top of that, it would be a great way to strengthen that relationship. The US is struggling to maintain its ships and build new ones, on top of the fact that it is hard to recruit talent into the industry. Obviously they can still fully fund and invest in US based shipbuilders as they have been doing, but can you imagine that the $40 billion or whatever they have allocated for Ukraine was put towards purchasing ships from South Korea and Japan? I really feel like this is a missed opportunity for them. It would be a great way for them to rapidly recapitalize their fleet and is something basically no other nation has access to or even the resources to commit to it.
Racism (/s)

More seriously, trust? (yes the US still doesn't trust them. Also there might be trust issues in terms of secrecy/leaks) As well as maybe lobby interests?

What's more it's 'kind of' a recent development, that the US has 'problems building ships'.

And well, stuff like this can take time to change/pivot and make.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
.
Racism (/s
BS

Generally US Congress. Building is only part of it you also need refit and repair.
Thing is a ship dry dock for repairs is the same as for new building.
The USN regularly uses foreign yards for repairs and refit of ships home ported outside the US to try and clear American yards for new builds.
Here read this.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Generally speaking even if the USN did it still wouldn’t speed things up as in the end the USN would still need to certify the work as any costumer would and part of the problem is just not enough certification officers another is ships go in for repairs and new issues are discovered.
 

Michaelsinodef

Junior Member
Registered Member
.

BS

Generally US Congress. Building is only part of it you also need refit and repair.
Thing is a ship dry dock for repairs is the same as for new building.
The USN regularly uses foreign yards for repairs and refit of ships home ported outside the US to try and clear American yards for new builds.
Here read this.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Generally speaking even if the USN did it still wouldn’t speed things up as in the end the USN would still need to certify the work as any costumer would and part of the problem is just not enough certification officers another is ships go in for repairs and new issues are discovered.
Can you read lol, I had /s
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
Any system has teething issues.

Right, and you call me "biased" ?

What "teething issues" has the Glock had? It's in service with half the planet's civ/mil forces (including the US). Here's the actual fact (again) : Your Army claimed the Sig is more reliable than the Glock in its report. As soon as it was inducted, it failed in reliability and Sig had to make adjustments. Therefore, the report was biased, not me. I buy my guns based on the actual data.

Except they did. The Army is placing an order of about 130,000 units for the “Close combat force”
Specifically to address body armor. Which was not part of that past debate.

Yea, while they wait for the new ammo to replace 556 once and for all. It's gonna take years to get production ramped up and the price to come down etc. But the writing is on the wall. The 556's days are numbered.


Oh and the piston is actually the cause of it not doing as well in mud test demonstrations vs AR15.

Oh, so Sig can't even make Pistons well ?! Wow. Good luck then. Thanks for linking the video and proving my point lolz
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Right, and you call me "biased" ?

What "teething issues" has the Glock had? It's in service with half the planet's civ/mil forces (including the US). Here's the actual fact (again) : Your Army claimed the Sig is more reliable than the Glock in its report. As soon as it was inducted, it failed in reliability and Sig had to make adjustments. Therefore, the report was biased, not me. I buy my guns based on the actual data.
No the Army did not test to destruction they tested to a set minimum of rounds as a result of that testing they concluded that the two submissions met the minimum reliability requirements. A number of individuals have pushed this as a flaw in the Army’s testing with the claim that had the Army gone into destructive testing Glock would have won. Yet that’s irrelevant.
Glock’s protest was over the fact that the army awarded without separate tests of the M18. GAO concluded that was irrelevant.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

teething issues was regarding integration of M17 and M18 pistols.

Yea, while they wait for the new ammo to replace 556 once and for all. It's gonna take years to get production ramped up and the price to come down etc. But the writing is on the wall. The 556's days are numbered
Your logic is breathtaking
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The fact is M4 and 5.56x45mm are plenty but with body armor as a issue they need to go up. M4 which was originally adopted as a PDW. It replaced M16 primarily for CQB and long patrol where it was advantageous.
XM5 comes in as a heavy 8.3 lbs empty. Fully kitted out it comes in at a bit of weight almost 12 lbs. and a length rivaling M16. As such it’s poorly suited to all Army roles. The M4A1 easily sits in the same role set as a PDW. Like P90 or AKS74U.

Oh, so Sig can't even make Pistons well ?! Wow. Good luck then. Thanks for linking the video and proving my point lolz
No in this mud test just about all piston guns have this happen. Worse for AKs which often end up as bolt action single shots.
The piston system is designed to isolate gas leak to the muzzle end of the weapon. When AR rifles have this happen the gas helps to blow mud clear of the bolt well
The receiver design limits leaking of most of it from entering the receiver.
the downside of the AR 15 with a suppressor is the the back gasses are a bit violent often causes the shooter to wear residual compounds from shooting.
But facts don’t matter when it’s all about memes.
 

Abominable

Captain
Registered Member
Watching that forgotten weapons video, I think 6.8mm is a good compromise between 5.56 and 7.62. They just need to use the training round ammo as the regular round - although I wonder what the penetration capacity will be with the shorter barrel the M5 has.

Having infantry train with one type of ammo and issuing them with a much more powerful one for combat....well that's not a good idea.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Watching that forgotten weapons video, I think 6.8mm is a good compromise between 5.56 and 7.62. They just need to use the training round ammo as the regular round - although I wonder what the penetration capacity will be with the shorter barrel the M5 has.

Having infantry train with one type of ammo and issuing them with a much more powerful one for combat....well that's not a good idea
That’s about the norm. If you look at some of the best shooters and some military training programs they employ cheaper lighter rounds like .22lr to practice and build up memory, familiarity then transition to stronger rounds. Felt recoil in this case will be negligible.
 

Top