4 ms·

I've worked for a US military contractor and have seen the waste first hand. There is a LOT of fraud in the industry, a lot. Contrast this with Russia, which i

by mempko 3y ago

I've worked for a US military contractor and have seen the waste first hand. There is a LOT of fraud in the industry, a lot. Contrast this with Russia, which increased it's production substantially after the start of the war in Ukraine. Most of the Russian defensive industry is run/owned by the government itself. Yes, there is obviously corruption there too but it's no where near the US defense industry. This is just another classical example of how privatization not only increases the size of the bureaucracy (you need more bureaucrats making sure contracts are adhered to) but also decreases capability and quality. I think much of this has to do with the fact that the US defense industry is really a 'make works' program to provide a funnel for social spending without calling it that. Since the social system in the US is so weak and the political capital is so low that the only feasible way to funnel a lot of money into the private sector is via defense spending which both parties agree on. In other words, the waste is the goal.

Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
It's a bit of both. The people maintaining the A15 are in a jobs program[0] as you say but the engineers at lockheed could work almost anywhere. And I wouldn't take any lessons from Russia except what not to do. [0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-10-warthog-why-is-america-still-flying-cold-war-relic-f34f607f https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-10-warthog-why-is-america-sti...
- mempko 3y ago
  It's wise to learn from your enemies. Not getting into war is something both the Russians and Americans can learn. The fact that Russia got into a war shows how weak Putin was diplomatically.
_djo_ 3y ago
While I agree there is plenty of waste in the US defence industry, to claim that the level of corruption is far higher than that of the Russian defence industry is ridiculous. For all its faults and costs the US is able to field effective systems, proven in combat, at decent scale. Russia has had to resort to importing artillery shells and other ammunition from North Korea and Kamikaze drones from Iran. Despite placing the entire country on a war footing the production from its arms factories is still far below planned levels, and front line units keep reporting quality issues and non-deliveries.
- mempko 3y ago
  I'm sure you are right they are behind desired levels. But the shortage of ammunition and problems ramping up production in NATO is well reported on. Manufacturers are reluctant to invest in increased production unless they get long term guarantees for the ammunition. The South Koreans are selling ammunition to US to give to Ukraine. The world hasn't seen a war on this scale for many decades.
  - _djo_ 3y ago
    Well, yes, but not a single NATO country is on a war footing or has invoked war-time levels production contracts the way Russia has. The current contracts just represent more capacity from existing plants, and are far from the huge investment and retooling that would come with a shift to a wartime economy.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Contrast this with Russia, which increased it's production substantially after the start of the war in Ukraine. Most of the Russian defensive industry is run/owned by the government itself. Yes, there is obviously corruption there too but it's no where near the US defense industry. The end-to-end corruption in the Russian defense establishment is much worse than in the US. Being run by the government doesn't help at all in Russia (unsurprisingly, since the government is pretty much a top-to-bottom kleptocracy); much of the corruption is in the military itself. Not sure its currently at the levels of, say, the first Chechen war where a serious problem was military quartermasters personally profiting from selling supplies under their control directly to the enemy, but its rather notoriously a problem effecting readiness, planning, and operations for decades. Also, the US and other NATO allies have increased ammunition production and other defense production substantially since the war began, as well, even without moving the overall economy to anything even approximating a general war footing (e.g., US production of 155mm artillery shells had doubled from 6-8 months prior by September of this year, as part of an upswing targeting another quadrupling by 2025.) > Since the social system in the US is so weak and the political capital is so low that the only feasible way to funnel a lot of money into the private sector is via defense spending The US "funnels" a lot more money through direct, overt social spending than through defense spending, this argument is common, but absolutely disconnected from reality.

by mempko 3y ago

Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago

It's a bit of both. The people maintaining the A15 are in a jobs program[0] as you say but the engineers at lockheed could work almost anywhere. And I wouldn't take any lessons from Russia except what not to do. [0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-10-warthog-why-is-america-still-flying-cold-war-relic-f34f607f https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-10-warthog-why-is-america-sti...

mempko 3y ago
It's wise to learn from your enemies. Not getting into war is something both the Russians and Americans can learn. The fact that Russia got into a war shows how weak Putin was diplomatically.

_djo_ 3y ago

While I agree there is plenty of waste in the US defence industry, to claim that the level of corruption is far higher than that of the Russian defence industry is ridiculous. For all its faults and costs the US is able to field effective systems, proven in combat, at decent scale. Russia has had to resort to importing artillery shells and other ammunition from North Korea and Kamikaze drones from Iran. Despite placing the entire country on a war footing the production from its arms factories is still far below planned levels, and front line units keep reporting quality issues and non-deliveries.

mempko 3y ago
I'm sure you are right they are behind desired levels. But the shortage of ammunition and problems ramping up production in NATO is well reported on. Manufacturers are reluctant to invest in increased production unless they get long term guarantees for the ammunition. The South Koreans are selling ammunition to US to give to Ukraine. The world hasn't seen a war on this scale for many decades.
- _djo_ 3y ago
  Well, yes, but not a single NATO country is on a war footing or has invoked war-time levels production contracts the way Russia has. The current contracts just represent more capacity from existing plants, and are far from the huge investment and retooling that would come with a shift to a wartime economy.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Contrast this with Russia, which increased it's production substantially after the start of the war in Ukraine. Most of the Russian defensive industry is run/owned by the government itself. Yes, there is obviously corruption there too but it's no where near the US defense industry. The end-to-end corruption in the Russian defense establishment is much worse than in the US. Being run by the government doesn't help at all in Russia (unsurprisingly, since the government is pretty much a top-to-bottom kleptocracy); much of the corruption is in the military itself. Not sure its currently at the levels of, say, the first Chechen war where a serious problem was military quartermasters personally profiting from selling supplies under their control directly to the enemy, but its rather notoriously a problem effecting readiness, planning, and operations for decades. Also, the US and other NATO allies have increased ammunition production and other defense production substantially since the war began, as well, even without moving the overall economy to anything even approximating a general war footing (e.g., US production of 155mm artillery shells had doubled from 6-8 months prior by September of this year, as part of an upswing targeting another quadrupling by 2025.) > Since the social system in the US is so weak and the political capital is so low that the only feasible way to funnel a lot of money into the private sector is via defense spending The US "funnels" a lot more money through direct, overt social spending than through defense spending, this argument is common, but absolutely disconnected from reality.