Tag: military industrial complex

US Army’s Joint Light Tactical Vehicles Never Passed Required Armor Testing

In news that we’re certain will have Adam Schiff laying out a multi-national, multi-planetary conspiracy that can only be stopped by impeaching Donald Trump tomorrow, a new report from Bloomberg found that from 2017 to 2019, employees at Evraz North America Inc., a Russian-owned steel manufacturer, falsified quality control tests on armor plating used in the JLTV, according to an internal report and company officials.

The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the U.S. Army’s successor to the Humvee, is designed to protect troops from bullets, mines, and explosives. At its Portland, Oregon facility, workers skipped mandatory hardness tests and fabricated results for about 12,800 armor plates, which were falsely labeled as approved. Some of these plates later developed cracks, raising concerns about their reliability in combat.

Oshkosh Defense LLC, a major military vehicle manufacturer, was a key customer for Evraz’s armor plates. The company produces the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), marketed as a “go-anywhere, do-anything” light tactical vehicle. Primarily used by the U.S. military, the JLTV has also been provided to Ukraine, Israel, Brazil, and Lithuania. As of last year, over 22,000 JLTVs had been built, each expected to last around 20 years, the report says.

Keep reading

What happens if the robot army is defeated?

Many of the national security establishment’s leading voices say America’s military needs to rapidly modernize by embracing the digital future through adopting Artificial Intelligence, network-centric warfare, and uncrewed weapons.

Some even claim that such technology has already fundamentally changed the nature of war. The Pentagon’s technologists and the leaders of the tech industry envision a future of an AI-enabled military force wielding swarms of autonomous weapons on land, at sea, and in the skies.

However, before the United States fully mortgages its security to software code and integrated circuits, several questions must be addressed. Assuming the military does one day build a force with an uncrewed front rank, what happens if the robot army is defeated? Will the nation’s leaders surrender at that point, or do they then send in the humans?

The next major question is, what weapons will the humans wield? It is difficult to imagine the services will maintain parallel fleets of digital and analog weapons. Judging by current trends, Pentagon leaders are much more likely to invest the bulk of their procurement budgets in purchasing autonomous or “optionally manned” systems like the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle.

Those promoting such a future appear ignorant of a very simple truth: war is a human endeavor. Wars are fought to serve human ends. The weapons used are only the means to achieve those ends.

The humans on both sides of a conflict will seek every advantage possible to secure a victory. When a weapon system is connected to the network, the means to remotely defeat it is already built into the design. The humans on the other side would be foolish not to unleash their cyber warriors to find any way to penetrate the network to disrupt cyber-physical systems.

The United States may find that the future military force may not even cross the line of departure because it has been remotely disabled in a digital Pearl Harbor-style attack.

Technology certainly has its place in the military. Uncrewed aerial vehicles fill many of the roles traditionally performed by pilots flying expensive aircraft to take just one example. In certain circumstances, troops on the front lines should have the ability to employ technology directly.

Keep reading

Visualizing Washington’s Key Role In Military Aid To Ukraine

As doubts over future American support for Ukraine and the Trump administration’s commitment to NATO loom large, European leaders have rallied to assure Ukraine of its unwavering support and to become more independent of their transatlantic partner. 

On Thursday, leaders gathered for a special European Council meeting, where the future of Europe’s security and the bloc’s role in Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression was discussed.

“This is a watershed moment for Europe. And it is also a watershed moment for Ukraine, as part of our European family,” Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said in a statement. 

“Europe faces a clear and present danger. And therefore, Europe has to be able to protect itself, to defend itself, as we have to put Ukraine in a position to protect itself, and to push for a lasting and just peace.”

As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, to be able to negotiate a “peace through strength”, as von der Leyen put it, the EU must quickly ramp up its military aid to Ukraine after U.S. President Donald Trump paused U.S. military support earlier this week. 

According to the IfW Kiel’s Ukraine Support Tracker, the EU’s 27 member states have allocated a total of $53.8 billion in military aid to Ukraine between January 24, 2022 and December 31, 2024. 

That’s equivalent to 39 percent of total military aid supplied to Ukraine during that time and roughly $15 billion short of what the U.S. supplied. 

Adding contributions from European non-EU members Norway and the UK, Europe’s military aid to Ukraine was roughly on par with U.S. support so far, meaning it would have to double its investment if the U.S. were to withdraw its support permanently.

Keep reading

Could the US Military’s Recruitment Problem Be a Good Thing?

Some experts worry that, if the country went to war, many reserve units might be unable to deploy. A U.S. official who works on these issues put it simply: ‘We can’t get enough people.’”

“Vietnam Syndrome” hasn’t gone away! It resulted in the elimination of the draft and ultimately morphed into “Iraq Syndrome” – so it seems – and even though those lost, horrific wars are now nothing but history, the next American war is ever-looming (against Canada?… against Greenland?). And yet, good God, the military is having a hard time recruiting a sufficient amount of patriotic cannon fodder.

“We can’t get enough people” – you know, to kill the enemy and to risk coming home in a box. And maybe that’s a good thing! The public is kind of getting it: War is obsolete (to put it politely). War is insane; it threatens the future of life on the planet – even though a huge swatch of the American media seems unwilling to get it and continues to report on war and militarism as though they literally equaled “national defense.” After all, we spend a trillion dollars annually on it.

Indeed, war unites us… in hell.

Keep reading

Trump Should Cut Off Europe’s Defense Welfare Queens

The new administration isn’t even a month old, but already hysteria has swept Europe. After visits by Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, top European officials threw “a temper tantrum” in the words of one observer, which featured wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments on a Biblical scale. On Monday French President Emmanuel Macron hosted an emergency summit of selected continental leaders, which generated abundant kvetching but little more.

Ukraine and its European advocates warn of a new Dark Age if the U.S. makes peace with Russia, as President Donald Trump is trying to do. Even worse, NATO members fear the loss of their heretofore presumed birthright to defense by America. Governments which have repeatedly claimed that Kiev’s defeat would invite a reformed Red Army to march to the Atlantic are preparing new excuses for failing to spend more on defense. The spectacle resembles a theatrical farce.

Americans have subsidized the continent’s defense for eight decades. Despite complaints from Washington, Europeans have consistently minimized military expenditures, convinced that the U.S. would continue to do whatever was necessary to protect them. There were occasional American outbursts, such as by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates more than a decade ago. However, this political theater changed nothing—Gates retired three weeks after his famous speech—and the Pentagon continued to provide defense welfare for prosperous and populous nations across the pond and beyond.

Indeed, top U.S. officials, including Joe Biden as both vice president and president, repeatedly told the Europeans “never mind,” visiting the continent to assure listeners that no matter how little they did, they could count on America to bail them out. The Europeans understandably left the heavy lifting to Washington while concentrating on funding generous welfare states at U.S. expense. (The same Europeans often pilloried Americans for their “Anglo-Saxon model” of capitalism.)

Keep reading

You Get What They Pay For, War

Readers here have heard of Ray McGovern’s MICIMATT, the military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academe-think-tank complex. It’s gargantuan and lubricated with enormous sums of money.

Consider think tanks. Go to thinktankfundingtracker.org and you’ll see useful information like this:

Top 10 Think Tanks That Receive Funding from Pentagon Contractors

  1. Atlantic Council $10,270,001
  2. Center for a New American Security $6,665,000
  3. Center for Strategic and International Studies $4,115,000
  4. Brookings Institution $3,475,000
  5. Hudson Institute $2,240,000
  6. Council on Foreign Relations $2,095,000
  7. Stimson Center $1,555,763
  8. Aspen Institute $1,125,000
  9. German Marshall Fund $871,010
  10. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace $620,008

I wonder why these think tanks tend to favor the agendas and interests of America’s various weapons makers? Hard to offer “neutral” or “balanced” advice when so much of your funding is coming from the merchants of death.

Keep reading

Military Spending: Trump’s Aim Is True, but He’ll Still Need Help To Make the Shot

“One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia,” US president Donald Trump said on February 13. “And I want to say, ‘let’s cut our military budget in half.’ And we can do that. And I think we’ll be able to.”

Trump deserves our thanks and support in taking aim at US military spending in general, and at the insanely large, outrageously expensive, and mostly useless US nuclear arsenal in particular.

Making sure he feels lots of public love on the matter is a matter of major importance, because the only thing more rare than such talk from an American president since World War 2 has been real action on the idea.

Dwight Eisenhower made a strong rhetorical lunge against the “military-industrial complex,” but only on his way out of office in his 1960 farewell address.

Eisenhower’s successor, John F. Kennedy, seemed somewhat inclined to agree with Eisenhower on the subject, and likely paid the price for that agreement in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.

Since that time, American presidents have considered themselves on notice to tread lightly where the US war machine is concerned.

So, does he really mean it?

I suspect he does.

Even a man with Trump’s tendencies toward saying whatever pops into his head knows that this kind of talk is politically, maybe even personally, dangerous. There’s no upside to saying it if he doesn’t mean it.

And if he’s really interested, as he claims, in reducing the federal government’s drunken-sailor spending, some of the reduction will have to come out of the Pentagon’s hide.

“Defense” (a euphemism for military spending, most of which has little or nothing to do with actually defending the US) is the single biggest category of “discretionary” government spending.

Keep reading

Analysis of the Military-Industrial Complex Behind the Grayling Saab Ammunition Facility

Saab, a global leader in aerospace and defense manufacturing, announced its plans to construct a $75 million munitions production facility in Grayling Township, Michigan. An investigation into Saab’s new ammunition plant in Grayling reveals the intricate components of the military-industrial complex at the state level, primarily involving politicians, military officials, corporate interests, government agencies, and local representatives.

Since assuming office in 2019, Governor Gretchen Whitmer has actively championed Michigan’s role in defense manufacturing, establishing the Office of Defense and Aerospace Innovation (ODAI) to attract international arms manufacturers. Her administration has provided corporate incentives to military contractors in an effort to position Michigan as a hub for defense production.

Whitmer has cultivated political alliances, including ties with Michigan Senator Gary Peters, to bolster her defense industry initiatives. She has also engaged internationally, visiting NATO and regions such as Taiwan to promote Michigan’s defense sector. Her administration has encouraged military training programs and international exercises to enhance the market demand for Michigan-made weaponry, indirectly escalating global military tensions.

Keep reading

A New Military-Industrial Complex Arises

Last April, in a move generating scant media attention, the Air Force announced that it had chosen two little-known drone manufacturers – Anduril Industries of Costa Mesa, California, and General Atomics of San Diego – to build prototype versions of its proposed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), a future unmanned plane intended to accompany piloted aircraft on high-risk combat missions. The lack of coverage was surprising, given that the Air Force expects to acquire at least 1,000 CCAs over the coming decade at around $30 million each, making this one of the Pentagon’s costliest new projects. But consider that the least of what the media failed to note. In winning the CCA contract, Anduril and General Atomics beat out three of the country’s largest and most powerful defense contractors – Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman – posing a severe threat to the continued dominance of the existing military-industrial complex, or MIC.

For decades, a handful of giant firms like those three have garnered the lion’s share of Pentagon arms contracts, producing the same planes, ships, and missiles year after year while generating huge profits for their owners. But an assortment of new firms, born in Silicon Valley or incorporating its disruptive ethos, have begun to challenge the older ones for access to lucrative Pentagon awards. In the process, something groundbreaking, though barely covered in the mainstream media, is underway: a new MIC is being born, one that potentially will have very different goals and profit-takers than the existing one. How the inevitable battles between the old and the new MICs play out can’t be foreseen, but count on one thing: they are sure to generate significant political turbulence in the years to come.

The very notion of a “military-industrial complex” linking giant defense contractors to powerful figures in Congress and the military was introduced on January 17, 1961, by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to Congress and the American people. In that Cold War moment, in response to powerful foreign threats, he noted that “we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.” Nevertheless, he added, using the phrase for the first time, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Keep reading

Heads Are Going to Explode When DOGE Cancels This Boondoggle

Boeing Vice President David Dutcher warned workers on the company’s Space Launch System (SLS) to prepare for layoffs on Friday if NASA finally cancels the rocket providing lift for the Artemis lunar program. The political fallout could make heads explode. 

Eric Burger has the details on Dutcher’s emergency all-hands meeting, but they aren’t all that interesting. What is interesting is what happens when and if a team led by SpaceX founder Elon Musk tries to cancel a multibillion-dollar project led by Boeing.

Artemis is the U.S.-led international effort to establish a sustainable human presence on the moon, but to borrow a New England expression, we “can’t get there from here” on the rocket built for the job —which is where DOGE’s budget-cutting chops come in.

SLS isn’t just a boring and stupid name for an impressively sized rocket; it’s underpowered and too expensive for its intended mission. SLS can’t put enough mass into lunar orbit to account for the Orion space capsule it carries and its four-person crew and their supplies. It doesn’t even carry the landing vehicle.

To make up for SLS’s shortcomings, we’re going to build Lunar Gateway — an international space station in orbit around the moon. The plan is that Orion and its crew will dock at the Gateway and transfer to a SpaceX Human Landing System (HLS, and another boring name) for transit to the lunar surface, where they’ll conduct their mission, and then back to the Gateway for transfer back to Orion for the voyage back to Earth. HLS gets to Lunar Gateway courtesy of a SpaceX Starship.

Did you get all that? There will be a quiz later.

The complexity is only necessary because SLS can’t produce enough lift. Starship, once completed, can produce enough lift, making the Lunar Gateway and all that going back and forth unnecessary.

The Lunar Gateway is expected to cost $5.3 billion just for initial construction (and we both know what happens to those initial estimates; they go nowhere but up) and another billion dollars each year to operate and maintain.

Maybe there’s a case to be made for Artemis to include an orbital substation, but it isn’t Lunar Gateway. 

Keep reading