This is very good. (And interesting that you support at least one area of diversity.)
Well said, can't argue with any of that.
So you’re saying we have a chance?
Per point 6, CAS and artillery are supporting arms, if you try to swap one for the other it will hurt. Both sides are bogged down partly because they can't bring effective CAS to bear.
Make sure your forces have weapons that will do the job. Don't give them 57mm main batteries, when 5" ers can be marginal for many of the tasks given them. Don't give them " transformational " ships, that not only cannot even attempt to serve as warships, but would get their crews killed.
Smart man & a damn good writer.
Any chance this one can be read into the Congressional Record???
Sal says it all. Is anyone in Congress listening?
8) Your Intelligence weenies might be lying to you as well, especially when you have 17+ agencies all staffed by the Nina Jankowiczs of the world. Stupid and Diligent is the least desirable.
Also, their dirty tricks departments might have been busy. Very busy, shortsighted, and incompetent. The truth might be embarrassing.
9) Friction, Unintended Consequences and Blowback are real. TANSTAAFL and Murphy.
10) 10 percent for the big guy. "Never underestimate the other guy's greed."
From personal experience, I can vouch that the 'surge production' plans of defense contractors for munitions are so much fiction. It will take at least 5 years to increase the rate of production of any 'smart' weapon currently in production and the cost will be far more than the Pentagon projects. The problems sits not at the prime contractors but all the way down in their supply chains. And since FAR regulations strongly discourage relationship building between prime contractors and subs, the management at the primes don't have any idea how much trouble they'd be in. What's in inventory is what we fight with.
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
It’s hard to have a ‘G.D., I hate using money for military when the regular folks need so much’ attitude and yet to really understand the basic premise of your argument even if I can’t get the particulars. Another thought: the rich like the dividends of their investments in the military but they don’t want their taxes increased to pay for it or what we go without in order to have it.
Read McGrath, Ricks, Edwards below. Ditto in spades here!
Clear-eyed! (Like I imagine Cassandra was)
A question on #6. Isn’t there such thing as too much diversity in weapons? You don’t want to intensify the logistical issues by creating too many weapon systems. I remember reading about the Russian front in WWII and the different approach to armor the two sides took. The Russians, IIRC, had three basic tank types while the Germans had many more varieties. The Germans fielded an assortment of niche tanks designed for very specific conditions and, as a result, had a much more complicated supply chain.
Anyway, the best analogy I can think of would be for photography. Sure, it would be nice to be able to afford a dozen prime lenses but sometimes an adjustable lens is good enough for the job, especially when it is easier to have the one lens in the bag vs five or six.