Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

This is just a general comment on the same topic, but not necessarily directed at Sea Dog to avoid further argument.

We know US is the best at attracting top minds around the world to study & live there, who contribute greatly to in the labs of universities and commercial entities. These include foreign students, workers and those who came & became US citizen. Despite Sea Dog's attempt again to minimize any form of foreign contributions, I think we can safely say they make non-insignificant & disproportionately high contribution to the US research sector.
These are the foundation of the massive US military infrastructure.
These are where many if not most new concepts and developments originate, and then gradually absorbed into the military.
Now if we're to make a big issue abt dependence and ability to develop new concepts. What's the difference between what US does & say when PLA employs former Russian scientists to work on their systems ? Both are 'buying' and 'depending' on foreign knowledge. I'd say not much diff at all.
I'd even say attracting or 'stealing' top human resources is far more effective at developing an indigenous military infrastructure than espionage of stealing some data.

Schumacher said:

We know US is the best at attracting top minds around the world to study & live there, who contribute greatly to in the labs of universities and commercial entities.
These are the foundation of the massive US military infrastructure.
These are where many if not most new concepts and developments originate, and then gradually absorbed into the military.
Now if we're to make a big issue abt dependence and ability to develop new concepts. What's the difference between what US does & say when PLA employs former Russian scientists to work on their systems ? Both are 'buying' and 'depending' on foreign knowledge. I'd say not much diff at all.
I'd even say attracting or 'stealing' top human resources is far more effective at developing an indigenous military infrastructure than espionage of stealing some data.

Click to expand...

It's true. the US is definitely pooling alot of brains and talent out of other countries. But you're wrong about the US defense industry. Have you ever held a clearance? Just out of curiousity. If you worked anywhere in this system you would know that foreign tech workers are miniscule in the defense industries as a result of the clearance requirements. If they are a part of it at all, it is indirectly, as in a contractual obligation in a supporting company. But you won't find anybody like this working F-22 or Aegis directly. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're now just making stuff up out of thin air.

Sea Dog said:

It's true. the US is definitely pooling alot of brains and talent out of other countries. But you're wrong about the US defense industry. Have you ever held a clearance? Just out of curiousity. If you worked anywhere in this system you would know that foreign tech workers are miniscule in the defense industries as a result of the clearance requirements. If they are a part of it at all, it is indirectly, as in a contractual obligation in a supporting company. But you won't find anybody like this working F-22 or Aegis directly. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're now just making stuff up out of thin air.

Click to expand...

And here we go again. I repeat what I said, and I believe is what u said earlier as well but somehow changed along the way.
It's the huge network of research labs, not only military, but the universities and other commercial entities as well that give US military the edge. Ur right foreigners do not have clearance in military labs.
Ur implying non-military research, to which foreigners do have access, contributed insignificantly to US military while the exact opposite is true.

It's sad really. In an attempt to minimize all forms of foreign contributions to US military, again for reasons best known to yourself, ur actually disregarding the huge role of the US non-military sector that do allow foreign employment just to fit ur argument.

Schumacher said:

And here we go again. I repeat what I said, and I believe is what u said earlier as well but somehow changed along the way.
It's the huge network of research labs, not only military, but the universities and other commercial entities as well that give US military the edge. Ur right foreigners do not have clearance in military labs.
But obviously, in another of ur attempt to minimize all forms of foreign contributions to US military, ur implying non-military research, to which foreigners do have access, contributed insignificantly to US military while the exact opposite is true.

Click to expand...

LOL. Schumacher, you just don't understand how it works. Even in University's where critical technologies are being work for military applications, there are security clearances required. I'm not minimizing the contributions that foreign workers make. They have given much to U.S. technology, and continue to do so. I value their work. But you overstate the case. I'm just saying realistically, when it comes to defense work, they just are not going to get the clearances to work the programs. And that's what you don't understand. I'll concede to you that some non-military research is dual and can be used in military technologies. But when it actually comes to designing and implementing newer technologies built for mil-spec, it's totally different. There is, for example not alot of non-military research applications used in kinetic hit-to-kill technologies, or in Aegis. But there is some dual uses for laser technology. And there may be some dual use in radar technology because of the uses in commercial applications. And even in satellite and communications equipment there is some dual use non-military applications these foreign tech workers contribute alot to. But there is not much of a transfer in RCS research though, and alot more. But that's OK, you think what you want.

Schumacher said:

And here we go again. I repeat what I said, and I believe is what u said earlier as well but somehow changed along the way.
It's the huge network of research labs, not only military, but the universities and other commercial entities as well that give US military the edge.

Click to expand...

By the way, for what it's worth, I'm not totally blasting everything you say. You do make some excellent points. And after reading some of what I wrote, I admit that it sounds like I'm minimizing the role of our foreign tech workers. And that is not my intention. These people are indeed valued members of the US industrial base. Even though I think you overstate their impact from a military industrial perspective, they certainly deserve praise for their work in their respective fields. You're right, some of this technology they work on is dual. But alot isn't.

Sea Dog said:

LOL. Schumacher, you just don't understand how it works. Even in University's where critical technologies are being work for military applications, there are security clearances required. I'm not minimizing the contributions that foreign workers make. They have given much to U.S. technology, and continue to do so. I value their work. But you overstate the case. I'm just saying realistically, when it comes to defense work, they just are not going to get the clearances to work the programs. And that's what you don't understand. I'll concede to you that some non-military research is dual and can be used in military technologies. But when it actually comes to designing and implementing newer technologies built for mil-spec, it's totally different. There is, for example not alot of non-military research applications used in kinetic hit-to-kill technologies, or in Aegis. But there is some dual uses for laser technology. And there may be some dual use in radar technology because of the uses in commercial applications. And even in satellite and communications equipment there is some dual use non-military applications these foreign tech workers contribute alot to. But there is not much of a transfer in RCS research though, and alot more. But that's OK, you think what you want.

Click to expand...

U do have limited view of how research is done. And I don't see how adding 'LOL' can help to cover that up.
The point is they don't need to be directly involved at defence work to contribute. Many new concepts that go into military use came from non-military sources.
It's good ur starting to acknowledge foreigners' contributions.

Schumacher said:

U do have limited view of how research is done. And I don't see how adding 'LOL' can help to cover that up.
The point is they don't need to be directly involved at defence work to contribute. Many new concepts that go into military use came from non-military sources.
It's good ur starting to acknowledge foreigners' contributions.

Click to expand...

Yes, but when you take some of this dual-use technology and militarize it, it usually changes to a different spec. I think I actually have some experience in this. Do you?

At this point I'm done with this topic, as it's gone in circles too long. You're free to believe what you may. But I think it's best if I leave this topic at this point. You can have the last word on it if you like.

Sea Dog said:

Yes, but when you take some of this dual-use technology and militarize it, it usually changes to a different spec. I think I actually have some experience in this. Do you?

At this point I'm done with this topic, as it's gone in circles too long. You're free to believe what you may. But I think it's best if I leave this topic at this point. You can have the last word on it if you like.

Click to expand...

This is the way I see it. The debate started when u implied PLA copied or lack ANY indigenous design capability for little evidence except saying those techs already existed in the field, in concept or in development. Saying PLA is behind in tech,which is true, therefore they must be 'copiers' simply lacks logic.
The debate went further when after having denied PLA ANY credit for their new techs, u denied US having relied in ANY way on foreign techs or human resources.
The way u so easily talked in absolute and opposite terms abt PLA and US showed me u were far from objective.

When someone mentioned China being the first to field the CAT boats in large number, u dismissed it by simply saying the Scandinavian already had concepts of them in the 80s. But now when talking abt some dual-use techs that started from non-military fields, u keep emphasizing the 'change in spec' when such techs evolved into military use as if some mere 'change in spec' would nullify the fact that it originated from non-military research.
I really don't know why u persisted in such lines of arguments.
I can only speculate ur flip-flopping again and is still trying to minimize the roles of foreign expertise, as part of ur overall argument that US never depended on foreign sources, who work solely in non-military research, despite having acknowledge their contribution to the US military infrastructure in an earlier post.

In hindsight, I should have stopped when u gradually admitted US military did, like almost any other militaries in the world, depend in non-insignificant ways from foreign sources.

Schumacher said:

I think we can safely say they make non-insignificant & disproportionately high contribution to the US research sector.
These are the foundation of the massive US military infrastructure.
These are where many if not most new concepts and developments originate, and then gradually absorbed into the military.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you are just wrong on this. The foreign tech workers in the US are not the foundation of the US defense industry...far, far from it. There are many foreign tech workers in the US and a much smaller percent in the actual defense industry...but most of the research and the entire foundation is built on American workers, the vast majority by biirth, who hold government clearances that allow them to do the work they do.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, you are just wrong on this. The foreign tech workers in the US are not the foundation of the US defense industry...far, far from it. There are many foreign tech workers in the US and a much smaller percent in the actual defense industry...but most of the research and the entire foundation is built on American workers, the vast majority by biirth, who hold government clearances that allow them to do the work they do.

Click to expand...

I didn't say foreign tech workers are the foundation of the US defence sector.
What I said was, the vast network of non-defence labs, from universities and various commercial entities in which foreign tech workers do play NON-INSIGNIFICANT roles, form one of the foundations of the US military.

Note I've used a mere 'non-insignificant' to describe the contributions of the foreign tech workers to the NON-DEFENCE sector. Pls don't tell me the proper word should be 'non-existant' or 'insignificant'.

Perhaps u may want to argue the non-defence research sectors are not nearly as significant as the top-secret pure defence labs.
I'll say the opposite is true. The USSR had military scientists who were as good as their US counterparts.
One of the main reasons the US won was because of the endless flow of new developments and ideas from the universities and private companies to the defence sector.
These entities enjoyed far more research freedom, & freedom to employ foreign talents, & fundings from government & the market. This was something USSR had no hope of achieving.
In fact, if China, Japan & Europe are to have any hope of overtaking US in the defence area, let alone overall tech, they need to be more accomodating to free flow of foreign human resource like the US.

Um, way off topic for the thread's subject. LoL.

I'm foreign born (Taiwan/ROC) and once applied for a job at defense industry in Orange County, as IT contractor. The situation is a bit complicated, I'll try to explain it:

In America, companies are not allowed to discriminate based on your age, gender, and ethnicity for hiring. However there are very few and specific exemptions permitted by law. For example airline pilots and air traffic controllers have strict health and age/retirement requirements, for obvious reasons. Sorry, we just can't risk you having a heart attack while flying a 747.

In the defense industry, they prefer to hire US citizens and they are not allowed to discrminate between foreign-born vs. native-born. You're either a citizen, or you're not. However, in jobs that DO NOT require a security clearance, they don't have a legal justification to prevent non-US citizen from applying for the position. As long as you're a legal resident and greencard holder, you can apply for the job and they also cannot discriminate against you.

Does this mean non-US citiens can get jobs there easily? Well not exactly. At defense industry there are many secured areas. If you're not a US citizen, they have to send a security guard to escort you. So if you're applying for the job, they send out a cute girl from human resource department in a skirt, look at you with big, pleding eyes and explain how difficult it'd be for both you and the company if you were to work there.

Now, if you're a US citizen and you want to apply for work there, there's less barriers. For positions that require secured access, there's 3 general levels, confidental, secret, and top secret. To get these security clerances you'd need to fill out lengthy forms and wait for them to do a background check on you. The security access is also only good for limited number of years. Needless to say it's easier to get "confidental" than "Top Secret".

The process of getting the security clearance usually takes several months or longer. If you're US-born, Mormon family, and squeaky clean, you get approved easily. If you're foreign-born, have close family relatives that live overseas, and travel overseas recently or reguarly, it'd be harder to get the clearance because they have to look into your background.

If you're ethnic Chinese/Taiwanese, I'd recommend against working in sensitive positions in US defense industry at this time. The risk of being made a scapegoat by intelligence/counter-intelligence agents is not worth it, and I'm sure we all know law enforcement use racial profiling. =p