Okay. Answer simple question: Who offers M1s to the NATO alliance: the General Dynamics, or the US GOVT?
I never saw General Dynamics offering M1s to sale.
GD owned by many funds that are affiliated with government. Black Rock has like 6 to 10% hold, Vanguarg Alliance also has same amounts.
For sure arent. And mustnt be. T-90s arent produced in the gulag of lubyanka, and the Challengers arent produced under the king`s residence. If the govt is to decide where and whome to sell the arms, it means it owns those arms production. GD cant make and sell 10000 more M1s to anyone as govt wont let them. Shit, GD cant even make the contracts on their own - the US GOVT makes contracts for them via said FMS. That basically means owning.
It really doesn’t. Especially not in the propaganda sense that you mentioned before. Just because the US government controls arms exports doesn’t mean that they own GD like the russian state owns rostec
Its basically the same. GD cant make contract on their own therefore their owners decide which contracts it takes. Chrysler Corporation got many govt funds during the crisys as it was collapsing just for the Chrysler Defence to be afloat. Its that simple. And this “look” of independence of arms producer is as much a joke.
Regulated weapons manufacturing in a capitalist democracy is not the same as a weapons manufacturer being owned by an Autocracy. Especially since GD is not required to do propaganda on the US governments behalf as you claimed above.
True but GD isnt required to and neither are all the other non government owned weapons manufactureres. So in the end Panther was right and there is indeed a difference in credibility between claims from rostec vs GD, Rheinmetall etc.
It may have a difference, i do believe, however hardly any documents they release are NOT controlled by the govt, which also controls the propaganda. Its just needs to be thought through to understand.
Sure theyre not allowed to release classified info but they are not required to lie on behalf of their respective government which is what i was getting at. Its probably more on the contrary, lying about capabilities as a private entity can turn your billion dollar contract into a billion dollar lawsuit quite quickly.
you cant prove it as you cant ask them or look into the process of releasing info. They are as much a victim of the govt as NII STALI for example. Only difference is they arent required to give govt a special face, the director or main engineer or someone else, to say that to the TV camera.
If its the “public info” that is made up by govt, there are no lawsuits
As much as i want to believe it, i dont, i never will believe that govt that created FMS to make sure the arms producers wont sell shit without their agreement will let said producers publicly release the info that wasnt carefully read and redacted before going public. It may be not “making up” but certainly will cut corners where it can.
Ofc it was but the difference is that the US government would never make GD overstate capabilities, because if, for example, the Australians found out that their new M1s are actually a lot worse than promised then that would be a huge issue for GD.