Agree, you need a few small operations going all the time just to maintain the supply chain, keep the pumps primed, and retain skilled operators and institutional knowledge.
They were using shells at such a high rate they would shoot a month's production in a week. At the time the production capacity was not close to the usage.
The "funny" part is that the people who were saying "we're fine" will be telling everyone "I TOLD them to buy more munitions" if we get in a serious conflict.
This is a great opportunity for us to divorce ourselves from Raytheon, Lockheed, General Dynamics, Boeing in favor of smaller, cheaper, more agile producers. The bottom line is that we cannot afford to keep paying exorbitant prices to sloth-like producers who are accustomed to their profit margins from the early 1990s. We used up all the legacy kit; time to move on to a paradigm that can support us in not only capability, but capacity. The question is: do our elected officials have the fortitude to make the clean cut?
The MIC are masters of the acquisition paperwork and the lawsuit. Unless DOW takes actions to lower barriers to entry, there is no hope of courting small, agile producers. How many GOFOs are willing to forgo the retirement gig to make the necessary major reforms to acquisition?
I'd argue that what is going on right now with the SPEED ACT, MEIA and other initiatives are definitely lowering that barrier to entry and enhancing the efficiency / effectiveness of the acquisition system. Now, the infrastructure mods will take time; however, Hegseth's 'bull in the China shop' methodology was spot on. The system was not only broken, it was cancerous. Cutting out as much of that cancer as possible was the right move even if you don't have something perfect to fill the void. Allow enterprising officers to improvise, adapt and overcome. They are.
Thanks, Bill. This is something I've been saying again and again. The primes build what they're asked to build. A lot of the time, the government is in its own way.
😂. We have been at low rate production for years. It’s easy to blame the prime for the high unit cost and long production cycles when the government is only ordering a handful of weapons and not funding the long-lead material and tooling necessary to open production lines. Industry will do what they are contracted and funded to do. Find me a start-up “innovative” mom and pop shop that can shoot down an exo-atmospheric ballistic missile and I’ll stop laughing at your post.
I'm glad that you challenged me. industry entered into a drug deal with former SECDEF Les Aspen and William Perry at the "Last Supper." Despite the peace dividend, the profit margins were allowed to persist through the consolidation of primes and the awarding of monopolies for each of the major programs. This allowed for baselines to be centrally controlled, and turned into CFE proprietary information--enabling a fee just for opening up the black box. It wasn't about capacity retention, or even future capability development. It was all about turning the MIC into a democrat fundraising base, and it succeeded. Don't come at me with "we aren't being paid to scale." You're not even capable of scaling right now, and you're pushing back against scaling because it threatens the profit margins in the near term.
I disagree. We always retained the data rights for Aegis. We also had data rights for SM-3. Of course the government gets the rights to use proprietary data that we pay for. When budgets get tight and we ask industry to use their own money in R&D, don’t expect those rights to be cheap. And our newfound love for fixed price contracting in development demands higher margins for industry because of the risk they are assuming. We are headed for another A-12 debacle.
We did a build-to-print competition for the Mk 72 rocket motor and got hit with 42 ECPs to correct mistakes in the drawing package. Having a GFI data package is not the panacea you think it is. BTW, we don’t have in-house design teams that could ever produce at the scale and capability we need.
no, you are misinformed. we did not retain the rights for AEGIS. We got them ex post facto in the late 2000s when "AEGIS OA" was thrust upon Lockheed Martin. Before then, we were threatening to wrap AEGIS with a GD product called "common network interface / CNI." CNI was supposed to be a DAP that could enable MOSA. Lockheed walked into N86 with a bunch of veeps and threatened to never hire another N86 alumnus if that happened. CNI was truncated from being an AEGIS wrapper to an amphib capability augment the very next day. The cost of generating a new AEGIS BL when Lockheed had data rights was $1B before development even began. $1B just to open the black box. I don't know your experience, but I'm guessing that you weren't in the building, in the office, when all of this stuff went down.
I was the Aegis Combat Systems Engineer and then the Program Manager. Your post sounds like a disgruntled operator who never contracted for or built anything in their career, or who would ever be hired by LM :). To be clear, the government has had the data rights since the first contract was awarded in 1969. How do you think we did the breakout contracts for SPY-1 transmitter production to Raytheon and FCS production to GD? CNI?
The Program Office that I was part of fought CNI as hard as LM. It was vugraph engineering that was full of the FLABS (Folklore and BS) that was being peddled by the OA and ARCI zealots who couldn’t spell “Aegis”. Sounds like an N86 alum who bought into the eye candy that was being sold.
not disgruntled at all! and never applied to LM. I've worked many areas as both a no shit engineer and as a requirements officer. I'm still in the fight today, are you? You're taking personal offense and now resorting to ignorant ad hominem attacks, which means that I've struck a nerve. I'll stop wasting my time here.
also, as for your exo-atmospheric ABM shot, congratulations. You've found the use case where you are still relevant. Except, you can't make enough of the ABMs in order to be strategically relevant, and you can't make them cheap enough to be affordable. And, let's step into a SCIF / SAP-F to have the rest of the conversation.
I disagree on the can't have enough silver bullets argument. Even the introduction of a limited number of ABMs, causes the attacker great grief. He already had to double tap a many targets to solve the ICBM quality control issue, now he needs to double it again in case a particular target has ABM coverage and still has missiles on the rails.
IDK, The IDF is very good about saving counter-missiles for the incoming missiles that will strike populated areas. Are THAAD, SM3/6 and US Patriot in the C3 system or are we just protecting patches of sand?
From my seat in the bleachers, it looks like US "ABMs" in general were designed and doctrine'd with a spendthrift mindset -- double-tapping every vampire, never facing truly massive incoming fire, and so on. Economy of interceptors wasn't *ignored*, but was a fairly secondary or tertiary priority.
The IDF, OTOH, facing incessant attack by small inaccurate munitions, put a much higher priority on interceptor economy, b/c they were facing a live threat that wouldn't hesitate to empty IDF magazines with masses of cheap "model rockets" and mortar shells. So Iron Dome had a very strong emphasis on discriminating and ignoring/engaging targets based on where those targets were likely to impact.
The Ukrainians, I've heard, have become masters of economy with their Patriot batteries, due to facing limited supplies of interceptors and incessant large-scale attacks, basically OTJ'ing how to make do with the absolute minimum number of expended interceptors. I'm sure someone in the Pentagon is taking careful notes -- I just hope the higher chain of command pays *attention* to those notes.
I know exactly what it takes to make the rounds affordable and with sufficient capacity. MDA and OMB wouldn’t make the investment in tooling and quantities. I was the Program Manager. I can also relate the debacle of a transition from R&D to defense wide procurement. The different funding policies cut round quantities by 2/3s.
forgive me, this reads as equal parts "It's my fault" and "nobody listened to me". If it was your job to convince them, is it their fault or yours? So, either your plan wasn't good enough, or you didn't do a good enough job at convincing them. Either way, I'm not hearing any responsibility being taken.
Elected officials are a serious problem as they insist on doing things they are not allowed to do under the constitution. Consequently, the money needed to maintain the military in peace time is not available.
"No need for large navies, armies, or tactical air forces taking up space with ‘old think’. No. Nuclear war will either be the new normal, or would prevent wars from happening at all."
The TLAM-N and TASM-N fanbois continue with that mid-20th century think. "Why maintain big stockpiles when there is a -N option?" Jeez, Louise! Congress on the left is constantly trying to push LEU and HALEU onto the naval nuclear power program and the right is always trying to put various N warheads on cruise missiles. Is it so hard to just fund maintenance on what we have, construction of what we know works, and fill our existing magazines with the weapon systems we already have?
Our entire approach is a disaster in waiting. Replenishing our magazines should be our top priority. It should be a national emergency.
It’s more important than our next GEN fighter. It’s more important than our next GEN sub. It’s more important than our next aircraft carrier. Having the ability to fully utilize the weapons systems we have deployed is simply common sense..
Fire superiority is foundational is it not to the core of our tactical approaches to warfighting? How can we sail around the seas like biggus-dickus and only be able to kick ass for a proverbial 24.75 days before we have to sail home until we can get more munitions in 2029?
You don’t need to be a strategy expert to see how stupid this all it is and how it leaves our navy, our Marines and our soldiers deployed abroad vulnerable.
It is true that we can unleash an enormous amount of whoop ass in ways no one else can, at distances no one else can with accuracy that no one else can. It’s truly astonishing.
But when I think about it metaphorically like a street fight, I picture Uncle Sam like the overly beefy strong man who maybe has forgotten how easy it is to become winded carrying all that muscle. And that is the vulnerability. If you’re not grokking what I’m saying watch the movie “When We Were Kings”
slightly off topic, where are all those missiles that the USAF wants to dump off the ramp of C-130s coming from and which actual log missions won't get flown to do that?
I worked on missiles for 30 years in aerospace. The problem starts with specs from the labs. When I pointed out hundreds of times that one scenario out of 20 drove all requirements and cost they always told me to mind my own business. Same story Army, Navy and Air Force labs.
Josey Wales was released in 1976 but if you mean the gray-headed gent with his back to us in the photo, that’s the actor Chief Dan George playing the character of Stand Watie, who would have been in his early sixties in 1865-66, the period of the movie.
NagsHeadLocal: Oh, I was just referring to Clint Eastwood's current age, not the gent in the photo, but Chief Dan George was great in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." ..."Juicy Fruit."
Over 200 Admirals in the USN and lack of ordinance significantly retards our rapidly aging fleets. Great article but, it made me wonder WTF the leadership has been doing for decades. I will bet a dollar if the SHTF the billion dollar bad boys canoe club will close ranks and blame others. As usual there will be minimal accountability. What we are really talking about here is the lives of our sailors. Very disappointing and simply pathetic.
I understand your issues and agree with most all of it, but I have a bone to pick with The Air Tasking guys, and above.
I completely agree that in the initial stages of Iran, we needed to use our best stuff to reduce air losses, from the Iranian air defense network.
But why, after destroying the ADA, are we still burning TLAM and JASM-ER against stationary, non moving, targets when a dumb Mark 82 or one with a Laser kit would work just fine. We are firing expensive and rare, stand-off weapons when cheaper, short range dumber stuff would be more responsive?
Probably a very strong desire to avoid even a low probability of taking casualties. The fuss over things like Ted Koppel and "Day XXX of America Held Hostage!" made (and makes) a big impression.
Fire lots of people and the follow on is yank security clearances and access if they either make trouble or got any closer to China than Takeout food. There’s still 771,000 civil service suits sitting on 1.2M uniforms.
For this article and discussion, I'll quote Donald Rumsfeld - "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might wish to have at a later time." Or as my father would say, "it's time to pull our heads out."
Since February 2022, we have seen exactly how poorly prepared NATO and the MIC are for sustainment. Europe repeatedly says it can't do anything without an American backstop. They spent the peace dividend on social programs and let the MIC die. The backstop let the foundational parts of its MIC move to Communist China.
Between Ukraine, Midnight Hammer, and Epic Fury, the U.S. has exhausted its arsenal.
The People's Republic controls rare earth processing, which is critical to all modern weapons systems—an entirely foreseeable and stupid policy.
The machine tool sector, the literal nuts and bolts of defense, migrated to the PRC. Foreseeable but inevitable because defense spending is based on Continuing Resolutions, a company cannot plan for personnel, raw materials, and production times based on "maybe."
We've emphasized college degrees over trade schools and apprentice programs. No one noticed because we weren't building warships, submarines, or merchantmen in public or private yards in sufficient numbers to maintain or enlarge the fleets. What country has the most yards and build and repair capacity? Communist China.
Even my beloved Air Force, like the USN, which holds a special place, seems unable to decide on its combat requirements. I give you the A-10, 4th, and NGAD aircraft; the AF can't maintain its combat platforms at the projected operational requirement: the Zumwalt's, and the controversy over whether surface or aviation commands what type of ship.
The three principal problems: budget planning & certainty, infrastructure capacity, and workforce training. May I add that we are too dependent on the enemy, make no mistake, they are,
I repeat my call for a quad pack low cost land attack missile to work alongside the Tomahawk. Get one of the startups cracking on making a few thousand a year.
Yep. Not every target needs 1000 pounds of boom or 900 nautical miles of range. I'd like to see how much we can get in a smaller package, perhaps shorter range package, preferably one we can build in volume.
Having survived 2 OPNAV Bullpen (N801) tours I can tell you we always went to weapons quantity to pay bills. We took weps down to minimum sustaining levels almost every POM in which I was involved. Rarely did Navy leadership question it unless it broke the line. OSD often raised questions, especially wrt TLAM but used relented when forced to consider alternative cuts. Weps just did not have community advocation the way platforms did.
Or perhaps just a few, but we desperately NEED them NOW.
As Sgt Edwards taught me at Parris Island "There's only three vital things, hogs; Ammo, Water and Sh*tpaper. Everything else is incidental" Words to live and win by.
In 1915, all the combatants suffered a shell shortage. It is politically impossible to fill the magazines in peace time.
Agree, you need a few small operations going all the time just to maintain the supply chain, keep the pumps primed, and retain skilled operators and institutional knowledge.
They were using shells at such a high rate they would shoot a month's production in a week. At the time the production capacity was not close to the usage.
Very good point. l remember writing a paper on this exact issue for my National Strategic Decision Making course at the Naval War College.
The "funny" part is that the people who were saying "we're fine" will be telling everyone "I TOLD them to buy more munitions" if we get in a serious conflict.
This is a great opportunity for us to divorce ourselves from Raytheon, Lockheed, General Dynamics, Boeing in favor of smaller, cheaper, more agile producers. The bottom line is that we cannot afford to keep paying exorbitant prices to sloth-like producers who are accustomed to their profit margins from the early 1990s. We used up all the legacy kit; time to move on to a paradigm that can support us in not only capability, but capacity. The question is: do our elected officials have the fortitude to make the clean cut?
The MIC are masters of the acquisition paperwork and the lawsuit. Unless DOW takes actions to lower barriers to entry, there is no hope of courting small, agile producers. How many GOFOs are willing to forgo the retirement gig to make the necessary major reforms to acquisition?
I'd argue that what is going on right now with the SPEED ACT, MEIA and other initiatives are definitely lowering that barrier to entry and enhancing the efficiency / effectiveness of the acquisition system. Now, the infrastructure mods will take time; however, Hegseth's 'bull in the China shop' methodology was spot on. The system was not only broken, it was cancerous. Cutting out as much of that cancer as possible was the right move even if you don't have something perfect to fill the void. Allow enterprising officers to improvise, adapt and overcome. They are.
Bypass 20301
Exactly, we need a new generation, both in government and in the Primes, who care about what is best for the nation, not themselves or the pocketbook.
At Raytheon the govt forced us to build weapons way over need. A simplified Tomahawk at half the price was rejected every time.
Thanks, Bill. This is something I've been saying again and again. The primes build what they're asked to build. A lot of the time, the government is in its own way.
😂. We have been at low rate production for years. It’s easy to blame the prime for the high unit cost and long production cycles when the government is only ordering a handful of weapons and not funding the long-lead material and tooling necessary to open production lines. Industry will do what they are contracted and funded to do. Find me a start-up “innovative” mom and pop shop that can shoot down an exo-atmospheric ballistic missile and I’ll stop laughing at your post.
I'm glad that you challenged me. industry entered into a drug deal with former SECDEF Les Aspen and William Perry at the "Last Supper." Despite the peace dividend, the profit margins were allowed to persist through the consolidation of primes and the awarding of monopolies for each of the major programs. This allowed for baselines to be centrally controlled, and turned into CFE proprietary information--enabling a fee just for opening up the black box. It wasn't about capacity retention, or even future capability development. It was all about turning the MIC into a democrat fundraising base, and it succeeded. Don't come at me with "we aren't being paid to scale." You're not even capable of scaling right now, and you're pushing back against scaling because it threatens the profit margins in the near term.
I disagree. We always retained the data rights for Aegis. We also had data rights for SM-3. Of course the government gets the rights to use proprietary data that we pay for. When budgets get tight and we ask industry to use their own money in R&D, don’t expect those rights to be cheap. And our newfound love for fixed price contracting in development demands higher margins for industry because of the risk they are assuming. We are headed for another A-12 debacle.
We did a build-to-print competition for the Mk 72 rocket motor and got hit with 42 ECPs to correct mistakes in the drawing package. Having a GFI data package is not the panacea you think it is. BTW, we don’t have in-house design teams that could ever produce at the scale and capability we need.
You are misinformed.
no, you are misinformed. we did not retain the rights for AEGIS. We got them ex post facto in the late 2000s when "AEGIS OA" was thrust upon Lockheed Martin. Before then, we were threatening to wrap AEGIS with a GD product called "common network interface / CNI." CNI was supposed to be a DAP that could enable MOSA. Lockheed walked into N86 with a bunch of veeps and threatened to never hire another N86 alumnus if that happened. CNI was truncated from being an AEGIS wrapper to an amphib capability augment the very next day. The cost of generating a new AEGIS BL when Lockheed had data rights was $1B before development even began. $1B just to open the black box. I don't know your experience, but I'm guessing that you weren't in the building, in the office, when all of this stuff went down.
I was the Aegis Combat Systems Engineer and then the Program Manager. Your post sounds like a disgruntled operator who never contracted for or built anything in their career, or who would ever be hired by LM :). To be clear, the government has had the data rights since the first contract was awarded in 1969. How do you think we did the breakout contracts for SPY-1 transmitter production to Raytheon and FCS production to GD? CNI?
The Program Office that I was part of fought CNI as hard as LM. It was vugraph engineering that was full of the FLABS (Folklore and BS) that was being peddled by the OA and ARCI zealots who couldn’t spell “Aegis”. Sounds like an N86 alum who bought into the eye candy that was being sold.
not disgruntled at all! and never applied to LM. I've worked many areas as both a no shit engineer and as a requirements officer. I'm still in the fight today, are you? You're taking personal offense and now resorting to ignorant ad hominem attacks, which means that I've struck a nerve. I'll stop wasting my time here.
also, as for your exo-atmospheric ABM shot, congratulations. You've found the use case where you are still relevant. Except, you can't make enough of the ABMs in order to be strategically relevant, and you can't make them cheap enough to be affordable. And, let's step into a SCIF / SAP-F to have the rest of the conversation.
I disagree on the can't have enough silver bullets argument. Even the introduction of a limited number of ABMs, causes the attacker great grief. He already had to double tap a many targets to solve the ICBM quality control issue, now he needs to double it again in case a particular target has ABM coverage and still has missiles on the rails.
for nuclear weapons, yes. For conventional ballistic missiles (which we have used a ton of ABMs defending against), no.
agree
IDK, The IDF is very good about saving counter-missiles for the incoming missiles that will strike populated areas. Are THAAD, SM3/6 and US Patriot in the C3 system or are we just protecting patches of sand?
From my seat in the bleachers, it looks like US "ABMs" in general were designed and doctrine'd with a spendthrift mindset -- double-tapping every vampire, never facing truly massive incoming fire, and so on. Economy of interceptors wasn't *ignored*, but was a fairly secondary or tertiary priority.
The IDF, OTOH, facing incessant attack by small inaccurate munitions, put a much higher priority on interceptor economy, b/c they were facing a live threat that wouldn't hesitate to empty IDF magazines with masses of cheap "model rockets" and mortar shells. So Iron Dome had a very strong emphasis on discriminating and ignoring/engaging targets based on where those targets were likely to impact.
The Ukrainians, I've heard, have become masters of economy with their Patriot batteries, due to facing limited supplies of interceptors and incessant large-scale attacks, basically OTJ'ing how to make do with the absolute minimum number of expended interceptors. I'm sure someone in the Pentagon is taking careful notes -- I just hope the higher chain of command pays *attention* to those notes.
I know exactly what it takes to make the rounds affordable and with sufficient capacity. MDA and OMB wouldn’t make the investment in tooling and quantities. I was the Program Manager. I can also relate the debacle of a transition from R&D to defense wide procurement. The different funding policies cut round quantities by 2/3s.
forgive me, this reads as equal parts "It's my fault" and "nobody listened to me". If it was your job to convince them, is it their fault or yours? So, either your plan wasn't good enough, or you didn't do a good enough job at convincing them. Either way, I'm not hearing any responsibility being taken.
You’re assuming you can fix stupid. You’ve proven that’s not the case
Elected officials are a serious problem as they insist on doing things they are not allowed to do under the constitution. Consequently, the money needed to maintain the military in peace time is not available.
"No need for large navies, armies, or tactical air forces taking up space with ‘old think’. No. Nuclear war will either be the new normal, or would prevent wars from happening at all."
The TLAM-N and TASM-N fanbois continue with that mid-20th century think. "Why maintain big stockpiles when there is a -N option?" Jeez, Louise! Congress on the left is constantly trying to push LEU and HALEU onto the naval nuclear power program and the right is always trying to put various N warheads on cruise missiles. Is it so hard to just fund maintenance on what we have, construction of what we know works, and fill our existing magazines with the weapon systems we already have?
Pushing LEU and HALEU onto the NNPP is so nonsensical.
"Credible institutions and war colleges". Love it.
I LOL'd at that sentence!
And math is not Trump’s long suit. We won bigly by 7000%!
Our entire approach is a disaster in waiting. Replenishing our magazines should be our top priority. It should be a national emergency.
It’s more important than our next GEN fighter. It’s more important than our next GEN sub. It’s more important than our next aircraft carrier. Having the ability to fully utilize the weapons systems we have deployed is simply common sense..
Fire superiority is foundational is it not to the core of our tactical approaches to warfighting? How can we sail around the seas like biggus-dickus and only be able to kick ass for a proverbial 24.75 days before we have to sail home until we can get more munitions in 2029?
You don’t need to be a strategy expert to see how stupid this all it is and how it leaves our navy, our Marines and our soldiers deployed abroad vulnerable.
It is true that we can unleash an enormous amount of whoop ass in ways no one else can, at distances no one else can with accuracy that no one else can. It’s truly astonishing.
But when I think about it metaphorically like a street fight, I picture Uncle Sam like the overly beefy strong man who maybe has forgotten how easy it is to become winded carrying all that muscle. And that is the vulnerability. If you’re not grokking what I’m saying watch the movie “When We Were Kings”
slightly off topic, where are all those missiles that the USAF wants to dump off the ramp of C-130s coming from and which actual log missions won't get flown to do that?
I worked on missiles for 30 years in aerospace. The problem starts with specs from the labs. When I pointed out hundreds of times that one scenario out of 20 drove all requirements and cost they always told me to mind my own business. Same story Army, Navy and Air Force labs.
I'd like to take a moment and thank the CDR for the Josey Wales reference.
NagsHeadLocal: Josey Wales isn't that old, is it? I mean, Clint Eastwood is only 96.
Josey Wales was released in 1976 but if you mean the gray-headed gent with his back to us in the photo, that’s the actor Chief Dan George playing the character of Stand Watie, who would have been in his early sixties in 1865-66, the period of the movie.
NagsHeadLocal: Oh, I was just referring to Clint Eastwood's current age, not the gent in the photo, but Chief Dan George was great in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." ..."Juicy Fruit."
Over 200 Admirals in the USN and lack of ordinance significantly retards our rapidly aging fleets. Great article but, it made me wonder WTF the leadership has been doing for decades. I will bet a dollar if the SHTF the billion dollar bad boys canoe club will close ranks and blame others. As usual there will be minimal accountability. What we are really talking about here is the lives of our sailors. Very disappointing and simply pathetic.
OK,
I understand your issues and agree with most all of it, but I have a bone to pick with The Air Tasking guys, and above.
I completely agree that in the initial stages of Iran, we needed to use our best stuff to reduce air losses, from the Iranian air defense network.
But why, after destroying the ADA, are we still burning TLAM and JASM-ER against stationary, non moving, targets when a dumb Mark 82 or one with a Laser kit would work just fine. We are firing expensive and rare, stand-off weapons when cheaper, short range dumber stuff would be more responsive?
Probably a very strong desire to avoid even a low probability of taking casualties. The fuss over things like Ted Koppel and "Day XXX of America Held Hostage!" made (and makes) a big impression.
Fire lots of people and the follow on is yank security clearances and access if they either make trouble or got any closer to China than Takeout food. There’s still 771,000 civil service suits sitting on 1.2M uniforms.
For this article and discussion, I'll quote Donald Rumsfeld - "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might wish to have at a later time." Or as my father would say, "it's time to pull our heads out."
Since February 2022, we have seen exactly how poorly prepared NATO and the MIC are for sustainment. Europe repeatedly says it can't do anything without an American backstop. They spent the peace dividend on social programs and let the MIC die. The backstop let the foundational parts of its MIC move to Communist China.
Between Ukraine, Midnight Hammer, and Epic Fury, the U.S. has exhausted its arsenal.
The People's Republic controls rare earth processing, which is critical to all modern weapons systems—an entirely foreseeable and stupid policy.
The machine tool sector, the literal nuts and bolts of defense, migrated to the PRC. Foreseeable but inevitable because defense spending is based on Continuing Resolutions, a company cannot plan for personnel, raw materials, and production times based on "maybe."
We've emphasized college degrees over trade schools and apprentice programs. No one noticed because we weren't building warships, submarines, or merchantmen in public or private yards in sufficient numbers to maintain or enlarge the fleets. What country has the most yards and build and repair capacity? Communist China.
Even my beloved Air Force, like the USN, which holds a special place, seems unable to decide on its combat requirements. I give you the A-10, 4th, and NGAD aircraft; the AF can't maintain its combat platforms at the projected operational requirement: the Zumwalt's, and the controversy over whether surface or aviation commands what type of ship.
The three principal problems: budget planning & certainty, infrastructure capacity, and workforce training. May I add that we are too dependent on the enemy, make no mistake, they are,
I repeat my call for a quad pack low cost land attack missile to work alongside the Tomahawk. Get one of the startups cracking on making a few thousand a year.
Same form factor as the NSSM but offensive instead of defensive.
Yep. Not every target needs 1000 pounds of boom or 900 nautical miles of range. I'd like to see how much we can get in a smaller package, perhaps shorter range package, preferably one we can build in volume.
😂
Having survived 2 OPNAV Bullpen (N801) tours I can tell you we always went to weapons quantity to pay bills. We took weps down to minimum sustaining levels almost every POM in which I was involved. Rarely did Navy leadership question it unless it broke the line. OSD often raised questions, especially wrt TLAM but used relented when forced to consider alternative cuts. Weps just did not have community advocation the way platforms did.
We need a whole lot of Henry Kaisers to build boatloads of good enough weapons. Now.
Or perhaps just a few, but we desperately NEED them NOW.
As Sgt Edwards taught me at Parris Island "There's only three vital things, hogs; Ammo, Water and Sh*tpaper. Everything else is incidental" Words to live and win by.
By the "few" I was referring to Henry Kaiser...I agree that we need to get a Liberty ship/Willow Run effort to restock; NOW