A little extra in the paycheck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

That's called a deficit and it didn't seem to bother anyone over the last decade :w

---

It has been happening for some decades now and it has bothered me quite a bit

Anyway I received a mass-distributed note from my employer last week stating that the amount of federal taxes withheld from my paycheck may decrease. I doubt it though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It has been happening for some decades now and it has bothered me quite a bit

Anyway I received a mass-distributed note from my employer last week stating that the amount of federal taxes withheld from my paycheck may decrease. I doubt it though!

---

Sorry, I should have said
'It didn't bother enough people to influence the voting pattern enough to make the politicians care enough to do something about it.'

:HJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

In any case, even a minor a budget cut in defense will make a whole lot of difference without compromising security.
The US is responsible for HALF of the total global defense spending, so it might be time to have a more critical look on how the money is spent, and what it is being spent on.

---

I can assure you most of it goes to r&d. If you think drug companies spend a lot developing a new drug, you would be appalled at what a defense contractor has to do, research-wise, to bring a new weapons system to market. Also, the testing phase is way WAY more rigorous, and thus expensive. by the time manufacturing rolls around, about 85% of the cost of each unit has already been incurred.

that's the cost of being on the bleeding edge. while it's possible to keep making "good enough" stuff with decades old technology (much like your Fabrique Nationale) and still turn a profit, that really isn't a long-term growth strategy. so yes, the US spends a lot on defense. and as a result, we are nearly a decade ahead of most other countries' defense technology.

if you want the best, it's never cheap.

/end rant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

:HJ


I can assure you most of it goes to r&d. If you think drug companies spend a lot developing a new drug, you would be appalled at what a defense contractor has to do, research-wise, to bring a new weapons system to market. Also, the testing phase is way WAY more rigorous, and thus expensive. by the time manufacturing rolls around, about 85% of the cost of each unit has already been incurred.

that's the cost of being on the bleeding edge. while it's possible to keep making "good enough" stuff with decades old technology (much like your Fabrique Nationale) and still turn a profit, that really isn't a long-term growth strategy. so yes, the US spends a lot on defense. and as a result, we are nearly a decade ahead of most other countries' defense technology.

if you want the best, it's never cheap.

/end rant

---

I fully understand the things you mention, but it's a matter of 'do you need the fancy schmancy stuff'
While research for the sake of innovation is indeed an interesting and possible lucrative venue, does it make sense for the military to pay for it? Especially if technology has already stopped being the limiting factor.
So with the US spending how many trillions per year on defense, i don't believe that everything is as useful as all the rest.

It's true that the Belgian weapons industry turns a profit on decades old technology, but that technology has proven to be effective. And while it is nothing fancy, it seems to get the job done.

Btw, I know that the subject of our discussion is not something as trivial as sub machine guns, but just we do have our strong points. Our P90 is a big success, and it's imported even in the US for use by SWAT teams and other comparable units:
FN P90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I fully understand the things you mention, but it's a matter of 'do you need the fancy schmancy stuff'
While research for the sake of innovation is indeed an interesting and possible lucrative venue, does it make sense for the military to pay for it? Especially if technology has already stopped being the limiting factor.
So with the US spending how many trillions per year on defense, i don't believe that everything is as useful as all the rest.

---

do you enjoy using a microwave? how about the shatterproof glass in your car? how about a gps? or a joystick? or the radar that keeps planes from crashing? or sattelite radio?

I could go on literally all day. defense research is helpful because a few years down the road, the stuff in the labs right now will be in your living room, making your life better. war is the single leading cause of innovation. how far do you think medical technology would have come if we didn't have to learn to fix people during wars?

also, on an off topic note, the p90 is pretty flimsy. we tested one last week and found it to be not that great. jammed a lot. no real knock down power. however, the FNm240 is an excellent machine, despite being a 73 year old design, and they are an absolute joy to use, so I give FN the thumbs up for that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

I can assure you most of it goes to r&d. If you think drug companies spend a lot developing a new drug, you would be appalled at what a defense contractor has to do, research-wise, to bring a new weapons system to market. Also, the testing phase is way WAY more rigorous, and thus expensive. by the time manufacturing rolls around, about 85% of the cost of each unit has already been incurred.

that's the cost of being on the bleeding edge. while it's possible to keep making "good enough" stuff with decades old technology (much like your Fabrique Nationale) and still turn a profit, that really isn't a long-term growth strategy. so yes, the US spends a lot on defense. and as a result, we are nearly a decade ahead of most other countries' defense technology.

if you want the best, it's never cheap.

/end rant

---

I wish there was a substantial sum of money allocated for the research of controlled nuclear fusion in the defense budget. :w

Heck, I would invest all the bail out money given to automakers in that! ;)

Warning...:HJ

The company I work for gets about 90% of it's total funding from various government agencies...the majority of which comes from branches of the military and the DOD, and I can tell you there have been major funding cuts to R&D companies in the last few years, even before the latest election. Another interesting fact is that the funding amount for a contract from these agencies hasn't increased a single penny in quite a while (I believe it's somewhere around 10-15 years) so I'm not really sure where all the freaking money goes either:shrug:

I do know that there has been a substantial push toward more energy efficient weapons systems, which from a military standpoint means smaller, more versatile weapons; however, these advances will more often than not overlap into the commercial market. So, whether you like the huge defense budget or not, it is a major factor in creating greener technology that will hopefully someday reduce the world's dependency on non-renewable resources. I know the defense budget gets scattered around to countless organizations, but at least in the area of R&D they are not just wasting the money:)

Thanks for listening to my rant!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

also, on an off topic note, the p90 is pretty flimsy. we tested one last week and found it to be not that great. jammed a lot. no real knock down power. however, the FNm240 is an excellent machine, despite being a 73 year old design, and they are an absolute joy to use, so I give FN the thumbs up for that one.

---

Interesting. What type of ammo was used?
From what I read about the P90, a main advantage was that the weapon was very compact and maneuverable while at the same time allowing it to be used with body armour piercing rounds.

A couple of years ago, one was found in the black circuit despite tight manufacturing controls and assurances that it would only be sold to LE and gov agencies. Local LE went ape**** because of the idea that gangsters would be armed with P90.

To be honest, I really have no clue about guns so I cannot judge any of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Interesting. What type of ammo was used?
From what I read about the P90, a main advantage was that the weapon was very compact and maneuverable while at the same time allowing it to be used with body armour piercing rounds.

A couple of years ago, one was found in the black circuit despite tight manufacturing controls and assurances that it would only be sold to LE and gov agencies. Local LE went ape**** because of the idea that gangsters would be armed with P90.

To be honest, I really have no clue about guns so I cannot judge any of it.

---

whatever FN sent us, they were the nonAP rounds (green tip, not black tip). it's basically a 5.56nato round with half as much gunpowder in it, no power at all. you can buy the gun off the shelf here at any gun store, they are actually kind of trendy amongst female shooters because they are small and cute and have little recoil.

But I like the P90...

You must've gotten an older version. The new one shoots special 5.7 rounds- still a pistol caliber however.

Bruno, that's funny that a P90 ended up on the black market. Kind of proves our point over here that the criminals will get their hands on them no matter what.

This thread has been severely hijacked. For what it's worth, I noticed that less had been withheld from my check too :D