|
chitoryu12 posted:So if someone in Russia put up, say, a POSP scope for sale online, it's perfectly fine to buy it and have it mailed over here? What about if I were to sell someone in Russia a Leupold scope? Assuming nothing but private individuals making transactions. for exporting the scope...it depends. It could be ITAR or EAR controlled depending on the specs (the manufacturer would likely know the USML cat. or ECCN for the scope) Regardless no rifle scope is "EAR99" (meaning not really facing many export controls). Technical the rifle scope would require a license or a license exemption (or exception if EAR). One rifle scope? probably not worth the effort to prosecute you. But all rifle scopes are controlled for export.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Here rifle scopes controlled under the ITAR: 121.1, Category I, (f) Riflescopes manufactured to military specifications (See category XII(c) for controls on night sighting devices.) all other rifle scopes are controlled under the EAR: Commerce Control List (CCL), Supplement No. 1 to Part 774, 0A987 (ECCN) - Optical sighting devices for firearms both face potential export controls that if you were to export them it would be your responsibility to over come. do not gently caress around with shipping gun parts overseas unless you know what you are doing. It does not matter if this is a private non military sale. ITAR has "higher" jurisdiction than the EAR, so the ITAR is your first check. Notice how the ITAR says manufactured to military specifications, so it is possible for a civilian company making a purely civilian hunting scope for civilians, and have that rifle scope being subject to the ITAR. Vork!Vork!Vork! fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Vork!Vork!Vork! posted:do not gently caress around with shipping gun parts overseas unless you know what you are doing It's likely you'll never get hosed over for shipping commerical, off-the-shelf products overseas. However, if you ever find yourself so hard up for cash that you're thinking of shipping something even remotely ITAR/EAR noncompliant overseas, rethink your life and stop buying fancypants optics and poo poo. The odds of getting hemmed up may be small, but the amount of liability is rather large. The Bureaucrats who will ruin your life don't care that we've probably handed out those parts in droves to bad guys recently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's likely you'll never get hosed over for shipping commerical, off-the-shelf products overseas. I disagree, most AR-15 parts are subject to the ITAR, the BIS can and will go after you for exporting them. One off shipments? no they probably will not, but why risk it? Example: http://www.strtrade.com/news-publications-export-privileges-denied-Honduras-rifle-parts-052014.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Vork!Vork!Vork! posted:I disagree, most AR-15 parts are subject to the ITAR, the BIS can and will go after you for exporting them. One off shipments? no they probably will not, but why risk it? I guess I haven't researched the rate with which they go after people, but my point stands: It's one of those things where you might hear 10 stories of people selling ITAR poo poo without issue, but you never, ever want to be the one unlucky rear end in a top hat that gets wrecked by ITAR. edit: hahaha, why is that bulletin so loving vague? "a guy got in trouble, fear me!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Oh, right, I've heard about this. Thanks for the clarification. Haha, I wish it was a rare occurrence. Vork!Vork!Vork! posted:I disagree, most AR-15 parts are subject to the ITAR, the BIS can and will go after you for exporting them. One off shipments? no they probably will not, but why risk it? This. Don't gently caress around, it gets ugly fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Vork!Vork!Vork! posted:Here rifle scopes controlled under the ITAR: Is any sale overseas between parties legally an export for these purposes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
My father's law firm was involved in an ITAR case where some US company was exporting lovely Chinese-made airsoft sights to some third country, I think somewhere in Europe. Even though they were totally unfit for use on real firearms and made in China, which of course freely exports them anywhere, the feds tried to nail them for it. I don't remember what the outcome of the case was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:My father's law firm was involved in an ITAR case where some US company was exporting lovely Chinese-made airsoft sights to some third country, I think somewhere in Europe. Even though they were totally unfit for use on real firearms and made in China, which of course freely exports them anywhere, the feds tried to nail them for it. I don't remember what the outcome of the case was. Mortabis' dad makes money defending companies exporting illegal, lovely, Chinese products to European terrorists, heard it here first! I'm at least 1/5 joking, Mortabis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I guess I haven't researched the rate with which they go after people, but my point stands: It's one of those things where you might hear 10 stories of people selling ITAR poo poo without issue, but you never, ever want to be the one unlucky rear end in a top hat that gets wrecked by ITAR. Yeah rates are unknown for prosecution. Gun parts probably get exported all the time with out being caught. If it was just a mistake of somebody not knowing the law and shipping a small amount, customs would probably just seize it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Is any sale overseas between parties legally an export for these purposes? depends...If you as a US Person are handling the transaction then that could be considered brokering (also subject to the ITAR) and faces regulations
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
For the record, I have nothing for sale. I'm mostly a purchaser of surplus and modern gear, some of which comes from Eastern Europe and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:For the record, I have nothing for sale. I'm mostly a purchaser of surplus and modern gear, some of which comes from Eastern Europe and Russia. for the record I did not offer any legal advice for complying to US export regulations 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
My favorite ITAR violation is that it's apparently illegal to let a non-US citizen even look through a Gen 3 night vision device. You don't have to export it. You don't have to sell it to them inside the US. Just let them look through it. http://www.nighthunter.com/category_s/1835.htm http://tnvc.com/faq/
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:My favorite ITAR violation is that it's apparently illegal to let a non-US citizen even look through a Gen 3 night vision device. You don't have to export it. You don't have to sell it to them inside the US. Just let them look through it. Unless they're helping us kill tewwowists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Presumably the SAS has a a license exemption for... a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
hannibal posted:It's always fun hearing what the govvies say when contractors are not around. I've been in too many meetings where someone asks if any contractors are in the room. (Working for an FFRDC makes that a complicated question to answer since not everyone understands the difference) We actually have the opposite problem...we include the contractor on way too much poo poo. But like I've said previously, I live in bizarro acquisitions land. Deploy a system operationally before Milestone B? Sounds legit. Treat things like "CPD threshold values" and "Statutory requirements" more like suggestions? Totally normal. Tremblay posted:Haha, I wish it was a rare occurrence. lol yeah I was gonna say, it actually surprises me the least that it was a gov dude BIG HEADLINE posted:Unless they're helping us kill tewwowists. This is actually the running joke for why we don't follow any of the rules (as laid out above.) "9/11, terrorists, saving arms and limbs from IEDs, American freedom*" * All of these capabilities we're developing in the name of the previously mentioned stuff may or may not work, that's not actually what's important
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:We actually have the opposite problem...we include the contractor on way too much poo poo. At least you get to deploy systems, it seems like everything I work on is stuck in development hell for years, if it's even following a shred of JCIDS. It's always a breath of fresh air to go do some work on the ops side every so often.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Presumably the SAS has a a license exemption for... a lot of things. The UK has tried to get an ITAR waiver (like Canada has) multiple times, to no avail. Wikipedia makes it sounds like it's just one dude in Congress who keeps blocking them over and over. But yeah, foreign militaries are usually allowed to procure lots of ITAR controlled goods. Just have to do loads of paper work. Similarly the civilian sector uses ITAR controlled IMUs for lots of stuff, you just need the right permits before anyone can sell to you. Military GPS on the other hand... PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:21
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Apollo 13, we have a solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/apollo-13-the-mistakes-the-explosion-and-six-hours-of-live-saving-decisions/ is much shorter but also pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Regarding Gene Kranz:The article posted:The rule vesting ultimate authority in the flight director during a mission... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
The Bob Legler piece of the story really raises a good point about continuity and the idea that everyone at the same rank/level is equivalent, regardless of actual skillset (relevant to the US military personnel system) I'm just bitter because I'm being PCS'd out of a job I'm a) really good at and b) actually enjoy, to go somewhere else that has no relevance to my professional knowledge or what I'm interested in, because "officer professional development." Oh well, I'll come back here in a bit once the Guard hooks me up. Also that was a really good article. Also also Set SCE to aux Steely-eyed missile man
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Wikipedia makes it sounds like it's just one dude in Congress who keeps blocking them over and over. To be fair, a few guys in Congress are old enough that a few might've remembered fighting against them damned Redcoats in 1812. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:To be fair, a few guys in Congress are old enough that a few might've remembered fighting against them damned Redcoats in 1812. ...and the White House before it was white.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
I kid, of course. ...even back then their fathers got them deferments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I'm just bitter because I'm being PCS'd out of a job I'm a) really good at and b) actually enjoy, to go somewhere else that has no relevance to my professional knowledge or what I'm interested in, because "officer professional development." At this rate we'll never make flag rank on the forums 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
I still have a T-shirt somewhere that was once illegal to export thanks to PGP being classified as a weapon back in the '90s.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:I still have a T-shirt somewhere that was once illegal to export thanks to PGP being classified as a weapon back in the '90s. Cryptography is still export controlled under EAR with similar restrictions as missile parts and nuclear technology. There are exemptions that make it less severe than it was in the 90s, but there are a number of fun ways to commit inadvertent federal felonies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
 Shot down Scud
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
I was genuinely unaware that Patriots had downed any scuds at all in GW1. Was it just that one battery at the barracks that had been left running too long? Alot of people genuinely seem to be under the impression that no scuds at all were intercepted, which doesnt seem right at all. Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Apr 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
The low quality of the video equipment used to record Patriot launches combined with the poor quality of Iraqi Scuds lead to a whole lot of inconclusive data. The loving scuds were falling apart of their own accord in many cases, so the debris was examined to look for signs that it had been hit by a Patriot. But even scuds with Patriot damage are hard to guess whether they were actually downed by the Patriot. Add the political side of things, where it was very much in the interest of HW and the US Military to claim the highest possible success rate, and very much in the interest of HW's detractors and Israel to claim the Patriot was a useless piece of garbage that didn't do anything.. the numbers are pretty foggy all around. It probably hit a few during the first Gulf War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:I was genuinely unaware that Patriots had downed any scuds at all in GW1. Was it just that one battery at the barracks that had been left running too long? From earlier in the thread: mlmp08 posted:A few words about a some events people always seem to ask about- Additionally, even among PAC-2 missiles, not all are equally good against TBMs. The modern PAC-2 that we use for TBMs has various upgrades. I'll quote this snippet straight from Raytheon's website so as to ensure I'm not accidentally being Very Stupid and letting slip something high side: Raytheon's Web Site posted:Guidance Enhanced Missile TBM (GEM-T) is the latest in-production series of the highly successful Raytheon Patriot missile variants available to both U.S. forces and international customers. GEM-T deliveries to the U.S. Army began in 2006. This capability adds a low-noise oscillator for improved acquisition and tracking performance in clutter. The GEM-T missile provides an upgraded capability to defeat tactical ballistic missile (TBM), aircraft and cruise missile threats in complement to the PAC-3 missile. Dr. Postol will tell you this is all bullshit and lies and smoke and mirrors, but I will tell you that he's a loving hack. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Apr 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
I thought one of the big problems with the percentages was that it was a per missile statistic. This would be horrible because they launched four or more at each incoming contact and had no way to tell whether one or more missiles hit the target. This means that 25% would be the max score based on hits/weapons launched.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I thought one of the big problems with the percentages was that it was a per missile statistic. This would be horrible because they launched four or more at each incoming contact and had no way to tell whether one or more missiles hit the target. This means that 25% would be the max score based on hits/weapons launched. That too. Plus you had a combination of crew skill and system limitations that resulted in firing a lot of interceptors up at clouds of debris and shrapnel, targeting spurious or misclassified tracks. And sometimes partner nations decided that when the US said we had the target, they'd go ahead and fire anyway. Often, more than one fire unit may be capable of engaging a target, but there's an optimal system for each engagement. Much of this is handled automatically, but when you can't link in with partner nations for security and software/hardware reasons it's a pain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Currently making the rounds on tumblr:  Wikipedia posted:In October 1965, to highlight the dropping of the six millionth pound of ordnance, Commander Clarence J. Stoddard of Attack Squadron 25 (VA-25), flying an A-1H, dropped a special, one-time-only object in addition to his other munitions – a toilet Would've been funnier if they'd dropped a double-bowl sink, but I guess you take what you can get when you're on an aircraft carrier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 10:24
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
The toilet earned a Battle E
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
The pilot earned a Purple Fart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:The toilet earned a Battle E Taco night.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:Currently making the rounds on tumblr: Your wish is granted:  This was back in Korea (toilet was Vietnam). This came from a meeting with the press where the VA-195 XO remarked "we dropped everything on them but the kitchen sink." As soon as the JOPA got ahold of that quote... Incidentally, VA-195 (now VFA-195) has the nickname Dambusters. You can see why in this post. On another note, this airs on PBS tomorrow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTWX-BB4aAA It looks amazing. PBS is actually doing a whole focus on Vietnam to line up with the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. Tonight has/had a feature on the Draft as well as the impact the media had on the American public's perception of Vietnam (probably too late if you're anywhere but the West Coast but maybe you can catch it on re-runs or DVR the early morning replay). Tomorrow is a feature on Kent State followed by Last Days in Vietnam. e: That toilet picture is from a Skyraider also...I'm too lazy to go pull up another picture but if you just google "VA-195 kitchen sink bomb" I'm sure you'll find a picture or two of it mounted up on a Skyraider. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 04:34
|
|