Quoted:

I'm just adding some points for context based on some incorrect assumptions that I've read in this thread. I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire, and I probably won't reply in this thread again unless there is more real information or clarification I can add.

~Augee

Quoted:
I'm for reals not interested in getting into an argument about whether or not anyone should buy Chinese goods, so I'm not going to engage any comments or responses that try to draw me into it.

Suffice to say, while I may have my own personal feelings and beliefs, intellectually I understand both sides.

I do want to throw out some facts for context, however.

- Certain systems that are borne out of directed government requirements are partially "owned" by the government, in and that they require DoD approval to be sold commercially. If it has a funky acronym as a program of record name, chances are it's one of them. The GPNVG required direct government approval to be openly and freely sold commercially. Agree, disagree, like it, don't like it, this is the way it is, and it can be an involved process. Do we like having to jump through all these hoops to bring products to market? Fuck no. But if that's what needs to be done, that's what we've done and will continue to do to get the best products and capabilities to market.

- The companies I've mentioned in the past that have abandoned projects because of possible Chinese follow-on products are not the same major manufacturers most of you are thinking of--I'm not saying that those companies haven't, but if they have, I have not been privy to those conversations. I'm talking about companies who are very much in favor of selling product commercially to anyone that has the money, not products intended for military contracts. Logically, that doesn't make sense--if you're building for a military contract, why would you care if the Chinese knock it off? DoD or USGOV is not going to buy a Chinese product, so you'll make your money back regardless.

- I have been involved in the export and fielding of night vision equipment from both the government side and the industry side, though it is not a major part of TNVC's business as it is with many other companies. Capabilities are not "willy nilly" given, even to close allies, much less the Afghans. I was involved in these fieldings in the very early days.

I have my feelings about all that too, however I can assure you that the thousands of AN/PVS-7B/Ds and beat up AN/PEQ-2As we gave to the ANDSF are not how China is making a knock-off ENVG. See above about DoD approval for certain systems--China getting their hands on ENVGs is primarily a result of either: willful ITAR violations of gray market products and/or obtaining equipment from dead/injured U.S. and allied service members. We know this to be the case because these things have been the subject of investigations and in some cases prosecutions.

- Finally, no one is "worried" about the Chinese or anyone else having the technology to merge thermal with image intensifiers. The reason that most fusion systems are so tightly controlled is because of the C4ISR and augmented reality and networking features that are integrated into them. Most of these features are opaque to commercial end users because they don't have access to the networking infrastructure that DoD has. Hell, in some cases they're even opaque to Joe on the ground, because the '6 section can't unfuck the COMSEC and properly configure the networks and their commanders don't give a shit enough to figure out how to use it all. The Chinese government, on the other hand, does have the capacity to examine and evaluate this technology and work to counter or defeat it.

Again, I'm not trying to get into an argument or debate about this stuff.

I'm just adding some points for context based on some incorrect assumptions that I've read in this thread. I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire, and I probably won't reply in this thread again unless there is more real information or clarification I can add.

~Augee

Quoted:


Did you read the next sentence after what you highlighted?



Maybe it's a difference between our definitions of "willy nilly." Yes, I know that we share capabilities with many folks in many capacities at many levels. My point, however, was that that is not done haphazardly or without a thorough consideration of the likely proliferation of the technology, the likelihood of it getting into (or even being given directly to) our adversaries.

What I meant by "not willy nilly," is that it's not an Oprah-style "you get NVGs, you get NVGs!" kind of deal.

In the case of the Afghans specifically, what we provided as aid to the ANDSF we knew, even then, would get into adversaries' hands. You can't just give something to the ANA, even "ANA SOF," and not assume that it's only a matter of time before you can buy it in the bazaar. However, the capabilities were given understanding that and at a level commensurate to the risk that we were willing to assume to fulfill the operational needs for which we began fielding them in the first place.

~Augee

Quoted:

- Finally, no one is "worried" about the Chinese or anyone else having the technology to merge thermal with image intensifiers. The reason that most fusion systems are so tightly controlled is because of the C4ISR and augmented reality and networking features that are integrated into them. Most of these features are opaque to commercial end users because they don't have access to the networking infrastructure that DoD has. Hell, in some cases they're even opaque to Joe on the ground, because the '6 section can't unfuck the COMSEC and properly configure the networks and their commanders don't give a shit enough to figure out how to use it all. The Chinese government, on the other hand, does have the capacity to examine and evaluate this technology and work to counter or defeat it.

~Augee

Quoted:
Will TNVC carry these units?

Quoted:

When Biden appeals the NFA!

Quoted:
Will TNVC carry these units?

Quoted:
Will TNVC carry these units?

Quoted:
Link to buy these?

Quoted:
I'm for reals not interested in getting into an argument about whether or not anyone should buy Chinese goods, so I'm not going to engage any comments or responses that try to draw me into it.

Suffice to say, while I may have my own personal feelings and beliefs, intellectually I understand both sides.

I do want to throw out some facts for context, however.

- Certain systems that are borne out of directed government requirements are partially "owned" by the government, in and that they require DoD approval to be sold commercially. If it has a funky acronym as a program of record name, chances are it's one of them. The GPNVG required direct government approval to be openly and freely sold commercially. Agree, disagree, like it, don't like it, this is the way it is, and it can be an involved process. Do we like having to jump through all these hoops to bring products to market? Fuck no. But if that's what needs to be done, that's what we've done and will continue to do to get the best products and capabilities to market.

- The companies I've mentioned in the past that have abandoned projects because of possible Chinese follow-on products are not the same major manufacturers most of you are thinking of--I'm not saying that those companies haven't, but if they have, I have not been privy to those conversations. I'm talking about companies who are very much in favor of selling product commercially to anyone that has the money, not products intended for military contracts. Logically, that doesn't make sense--if you're building for a military contract, why would you care if the Chinese knock it off? DoD or USGOV is not going to buy a Chinese product, so you'll make your money back regardless.

- I have been involved in the export and fielding of night vision equipment from both the government side and the industry side, though it is not a major part of TNVC's business as it is with many other companies. Capabilities are not "willy nilly" given, even to close allies, much less the Afghans. I was involved in these fieldings in the very early days.

I have my feelings about all that too, however I can assure you that the thousands of AN/PVS-7B/Ds and beat up AN/PEQ-2As we gave to the ANDSF are not how China is making a knock-off ENVG. See above about DoD approval for certain systems--China getting their hands on ENVGs is primarily a result of either: willful ITAR violations of gray market products and/or obtaining equipment from dead/injured U.S. and allied service members. We know this to be the case because these things have been the subject of investigations and in some cases prosecutions.

- Finally, no one is "worried" about the Chinese or anyone else having the technology to merge thermal with image intensifiers. The reason that most fusion systems are so tightly controlled is because of the C4ISR and augmented reality and networking features that are integrated into them. Most of these features are opaque to commercial end users because they don't have access to the networking infrastructure that DoD has. Hell, in some cases they're even opaque to Joe on the ground, because the '6 section can't unfuck the COMSEC and properly configure the networks and their commanders don't give a shit enough to figure out how to use it all. The Chinese government, on the other hand, does have the capacity to examine and evaluate this technology and work to counter or defeat it.

Again, I'm not trying to get into an argument or debate about this stuff.

I'm just adding some points for context based on some incorrect assumptions that I've read in this thread. I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire, and I probably won't reply in this thread again unless there is more real information or clarification I can add.

~Augee