Originally posted by asdfg2:
Your explanation given is that someone bought something for X
dollars from foreign companies and not > X dollars from GLC,
replacing an antiquated technology? So, is there something I can
compare to.
When ST goes shopping, they go around evaluating other possible
suppliers as well. you would do the same too if u wanted to buy a
new TV set! don't be lame...
they chose to make their own because they couldn't find one that
suited all the specs and it would not be as effective and
cost-efficient to buy one and modify (quite ridiculous to radically
modify an existing rifle though... never heard of anyone doing that
before)
this trend is not limited to the rifle. the same is true of the
developments in armoured vehicles as well. why make your own?
because then, u can make it to suit u exactly, u gain experience to
build a better one and u can sell it if u make it good
enough.
1) is it possible that there are "cheaper" places to acquire or
negotiations such that the price can be driven lower.
2) is someone more efficient?
pay peanuts, get monkeys... the only "cheap" source of weapons
are from former warsaw states and u face integration problems after
that. give ST some credit. they do their homework.
defence equipment may or may not be price elastic. it depends on
the level of competition. if u've done your homework and are on to
a few very specific factors which only one platform can deliver,
then pushing your luck on the price will just screw the deal. not
everything is negotiable.
and why do u think we bought training submarines from sweden?
because they have a long, established history of operating
submarines and make some of the world's best submarines (though the
sub industry is german owned now). efficiency! if ST was being the
careless ego-maniac u claim to be, wouldn't they have tried to
build their own sub? what for? the Australians tried that with
their collins class subs and got nothing but a problematic sub and
pain in return. (incidentally, the Collins design is partially
swedish too, though the problems are not in the design, its the
production.)
Without explict and in depth knowledge about aforementioned
technology, I can only rely on general reasoning?
Nice reasoning about evidence by omission only; the problem is that
I have shown above that your reasoing is shallow and the facts you
have displayed are insufficient.
reasoning must be backed up with facts. what we talk about here
are based on information available on the public domain, not
limited to Sg sources. they are the views of international security
analysts as well as our own. i would footnote them but i don't
think anybody here minds.
you know what? nothing is sufficient to you because u have already
made up your mind before u joined the discussion. have an open
mind.
we obviously stand by our position because they are well-researched
and established positions, not just your bizarre "reasoning" which
i find most unreasonable.
and please! what "in depth knowledge" is it that u want? thats
absurd. you don't sound like u have an in depth knowledge of the
economy or the military as well. why are u here then?
