Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - horge

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Until DND-BAC pulls its head (at least partly) out of the insane culture that COA Circ. 97-004 has created,
and there certainly are legal avenues for it to do so, I don't see sufficient longterm support for GA or any
other domestic provider/vendor of small arms

Lacson: PHL won’t lose anything if US stops rifle sale
Published November 1, 2016 11:55am


Lacson urged the Department of National Defense (PNP) to revive its self-reliance program instead.

“There is now more reason for our Department of National Defense to revive our self-reliance program so we can produce our own weapons and ammunition and other military hardware,” he said.


If ^that is realized under this administration, I can almost forgive every other bit of insanity that has come out of it.
Still, too many decades have gone by with as much motivation, but still without fruition, for me to hold out much hope.
Lacson's other point is accurate: that there is no shortage of M4gery vendors out there, but the fatal problem remains
that the US can block almost any small-arms deal we might attempt, short of going very, very red.

To be fair to Regis, his half-thought-through statement was in response to Yasay's statement below.
So, fighting carelessness with carelessness?  :P

Taking a page from the Indian approach perhaps?
I'm thinking the Chinese, which wouldn't be so strange for this administration.

Does the Philippines' current lack of a credible external defense capability constitute a violation of the MDT?


The MDT doesn't provide metrics for determining party-compliance does it? How then, to determine?
Taking a legalistic POV without legal training is always lots of fun, but if we come back to reality, the MDT
was created with an eye to the U.S. to coming to our aid, rather than us coming to theirs.

FA-50PH provides a particularly-entertaining example of how silly it is to try getting legalistic on this matter.
We have the platform, but we don't have the air/ground crew training, the combat support infrastructure,
the sustainment infrastructure, or the political infrastructure to be able to fairly cite FA-50PH as a defense
asset (such as can be counted towards "maintaining a credible defense capability"). We have the bird, but
we can't yet use it in service to the MDT (and the inability has little to do with FA-50PH munitions), hence
we don't have it in a way that counts.

Even a dozen FA-50PH's wouldn't count under those circumstances.

It blows my mind how people are twisting their nuts over a lack of access to certain FA-50PH munitions,
when the point to FA-50PH acquisition, as I understood it, was to provide a TRAINING PLATFORM for our
air/ground-crews, for the combat support infrastructure, for the sustainment infrastructure and above all,
for the political infrastructure, BEFORE all those said sectors try coordinating together on the wielding of
something that's actually sharp/pointy.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]