The Ukrainian USVs forced the Russian navy to move over a thousand kilometers away, to the distant Sea of Azov in the northeastern portion of the Black Sea.
Now to the problem caused by US defense industry. As a major supplier of military aid to Ukraine, the Ukrainians share details of their experience with new weapons against the Russians. The problem is that the United States refuses to adopt the Ukrainian designed USVs and instead sticks with similar, but much inferior, systems developed in the United States.
If the United States wants to give Taiwan useful advice and assistance, they must adopt what worked for the Ukrainians, not try to create something new that can be described as made in America.
Well H3ll NO!. That could involve licensing fees. Better to develop one’s own system that generate massive develop revenue and perhaps invent an less effective weapon.
What the U.S. Navy has not been able to produce are the cheap, effective, armed UAVs and USVs the Ukrainian used to cripple the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The problem is situational and political. The American situation is peacetime, not wartime. When you are at war things are done quickly, effectively, and inexpensively. Ukraine demonstrated that with its domestic UAV and USV programs.
In the United States peacetime defense procurement is a lot more expensive and takes longer than it would in wartime. That means the Ukrainian type UAVs and UUVs will cost the USN far more than the Ukrainian models and take years to reach the U.S. Pacific Fleet
Yes it is better to keep to the tried and true methods that generate significant profits to the bottom line.
Nothing new under the sun department: Rafael, in Israel, developed the Trophy countermeasure system years ago. It has been used in combat. It works. The US Army wanted to buy it. “oh no”, said Raytheon, “we will develop a knockoff, just give us lots and lots of time and money”. After years of “development”, Raytheon’s system, “quick kill” is still not deployable.
In the United States peacetime defense procurement is a lot more expensive and takes longer than it would in wartime.
Does anyone believe that, after decades of sloth and corruption, the US “defense” industry could suddenly clean up it’s act, and produce effective systems quickly, like they did 80 years ago?
No. But under the pressure of a real war, there are dozens of engineering firms and factories that are not part of the current military-industrial complex capable of stepping up and turning out effective and lower cost weapons.
The US defense industry cannot compete, pure and simple. The industry is dependent on “slow go” development because that is required in order to have lots of employees everywhere (i.e. Congressional districts). Fast/agile development throws out the big players because they are too slow and ponderous (i.e. bureaucracy) to handle it. High volume production of proven designs is where the existing defense firms work most effectively (that was a big part of WWII production). After the development and testing of a new product is completed, and volume production is expected, it can be contracted to an existing contractor, with the fast/agile developers moving on to something else (in addition to continuing further development of the product approved by the govt).
Sure about that? The aircraft industry, for one, has become much more concentrated that it was 80 years ago. North American, which produced the AT-6 and B-25, both highly regarded, and was so agile that they created the P-51 on a very tight schedule, has since been rolled into Boeing, along with McDonnell and Douglas. Lockheed has absorbed what was once Consolidated-Vultee. Northrup has absorbed Grumman.
The 80 years ago analog to today’s US defense contractors would undoubtedly be Curtis-Wright. Both the SB2C and C-46 made it into production far behind schedule, and the SB2C had a pretty poor reputation in service. (referred to by wags as (edited) “sumbeech second class”, while rejected outright by the British Navy) Meanwhile, the Wright engine division was caught bribing Army inspectors to pass known defective engines, that servicemen would be betting their lives on. C-W was so in the vanguard of Shiny business practices that they refused to invest in developing jet engines, preferring to milk the market for piston engines to maximize short term profit, then exit the engine market.
For things other than aircraft, yes. When people talk about weapons systems, I think mostly of things other than aircraft, but including things like missiles and bombs that aircraft might carry. Artillery, vehicles, rockets, small drones (the size that might be used for aerial photography - recon in military usage - or slightly larger that could carry small explosives similar to what Ukraine has been hacking together).
I do agree that there has been a lot of consolidation in the aircraft industry since WWII. But there are still small-ish manufacturers out there that might have some good and less expensive ideas.
Off hand, there’s Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, Cirrus, Gulfstream - all of which are US based. Outside of the US but still with potential allies are Dassault in Europe (maker of the Mirage fighter), and Embraer in Brazil.
Most of these companies make jets, so have the basic engineering capability needed for military aircraft. And they’re used to making things that work reliably, rather than things with all sorts of fancy bells and whistles that create problems in the field.