(04-21-2019 12:57 PM)q5sys Wrote: There's several parts of 'military funding'. One half is the actual logistical stuff: bases, salaries, Benefits, etc. Then you have the purchase of actual goods: guns, bullets, gear, planes, ships, etc.
Then you have the cash cow... "R&D", where a firm is hired to do research to develop 'A Thing'. They get paid regardless of whether there are end up being any deliverables at all.
Vanity Fair did an excellent article on SAIC over 10 years ago, and its well worth the read.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/03/spyagency200703
The problem is that the logistical funding gets skimped on to that they can fund 'R&D Projects'. So you have troops not getting the things they need to do their jobs effectively, because billions of dollars is blown every year on things that rarely amount to anything. I dont know how things are now, but I know during my time with the USAF and later after I got out with the CSS, it was estimated that around 20% of total funding.
What's even worse about all that R&D is that we end up spending tons on cutting edge technology that is not quite ready for prime time. Examples:
- The Navy's USS Gerald Ford, our newest aircraft carrier, is 110,000 tons of innovation. It has an electromagnetic catapult system (EMALS) to launch aircraft, where previous carriers used steam. It has a computerize recovery systems for airplanes landing. It has an ingenious system of weapons elevators to brings bombs and bullets up from the magazines to the flight deck. Except none of that works. So we spent $15 billion and up on a carrier that can do everything except launch aircraft, recover them, and arm them. And it carries about 2/3 the number of aircraft that our 80,000 ton carriers did in my day.
- The F-35 is a single aircraft designed to meet three separate needs--an interceptor/fighter, an attack/bomber aircraft, and a short takeoff (STOVL) airplane for the Marines. It's probably going to end up costing more than it would have cost to build three separate purpose-build aircraft. And the. compromises mean that it is not quite as good at any of the three missions as it should be. It is not as maneuverable as a top-line fighter should be and the housing for the STOVL lift fans blocks the pilot's view aft. It cannot carry the bomb load that you want from an attack aircraft and it doesn't have long enough legs. It's probably okay for the Marines, but something smaller would have worked better.
- The LCS, the Navy's littoral combat ship, was designed to do 45 knots. Not entirely why that much speed was needed, but everything else was sacrificed to get it. It has a 2-inch popgun as main armament. It was designed to accommodate mission modules for various tasks--anti-submarine warfare (ASW), mine countermeasures (MCM)--but none of the modules work yet. The engines are too noisy to permit the ASW sonar to function properly. I don't know why anyone would ever want to tool around a minefield at 45 knots. The ships are built of aluminum to save weight for speed, but the aluminum helicopter deck isn't sturdy enough to handle anything but our smallest helos. And that 45 knot power plant has never actually made 45 knots, but it is too complicated to maintain effectively, and the first several to deploy ended up being towed home.
Our R&D and procurement folks get obsessed with shiny new gadgets, totally ignoring the reality that in every war known in history, reliability was the most effective and efficient attribute for weapons systems to have.
I think there are a couple of things we can do about it.
1) If you are involved in procurement of weapon systems, then you cannot go to work for any manufacturer of any system you supported or approved for at least 10 years after retirement. Do, and you forfeit your retirement.
2) For the Navy, at least, I think we should consider what the Brits do. They have two career paths for line officers--deck/warfare and engineering. The 1st Engineer is co-equal with the 1st Lieutenant (basically equivalent to our XO), both reporting directly to the Captain. The engineers run the ship and te deck/warfare officers navigate and fight the ship. Only the deck/warfare types can have command at sea. The engineering types command shore facilities and ship design and maintenance activities. The engineering types are less likely to fall in love with cutesy shiny things, and more likely to worry about whether something will actually work or not.
/
why do liberals think what they think?
