Defense cuts? You betcha!

 

I note that Defense Secretary Hegseth has asked the US military to prepare for budget cuts of about 8% a year over the next five years.  That sounds like a tall order, but I think it's entirely feasible if he takes an axe to the bureaucracy, waste and "gilding the lily" that's rampant in our armed forces at present.  Examples:

• The Constellation-class frigate program was supposed to use an existing design, with minimal modification.  After "tinkering" by the Navy, it now has less than 15% commonality with its source design.  It's also three years late and 40% over budget.  At this point, it might be better to "reset" the entire program, go back to its original design roots, and cancel everything over and above that.
• The F-35, which after years of tinkering and ten years in service is still not at its full, originally specified operational capability, and is costing so much that it's soaking up funds needed for other aircraft projects.
• The US Navy has less than 300 ships in active service, and about 230 admirals of various grades - approximately 1.3 ships per admiral.  If we adjust things so that we have just 2 ships per admiral, that would reduce the "deadwood" by about eighty admirals - and I'm sure that's just the beginning of what could be achieved.  The other services could do likewise.  For decades, Air Force wings were commanded by colonels.  Today, some are commanded by brigadier-generals.  Why?  Why not go back to the old way and save all those general officer salaries and benefits?

To be fair, some of the armed forces' problems are caused by the politicians to whom they answer.  The catastrophic withdrawal (should that be "undignified scramble for the exits"?) from Afghanistan left behind tens of billions of dollars of weapons and equipment, much of which is now allegedly being made available to terrorists elsewhere in the world.  It should never have happened, but the Biden administration rode roughshod over military and strategic considerations, causing the havoc that ensued.

I hope that as far as weapon design and procurement goes, the armed forces will seriously consider Elon Musk's approach to new technology.  Build a "first-pass" attempt and test it.  It'll probably fail.  Find out why, fix that, and see what else can be improved.  Build a "second-pass" attempt and test it.  Ditto.  After a few iterations, you're likely to see greatly improved results - and you'll get them fast, instead of having to wait years for theoretical designers to try to make sure everything's safe on paper before they allow anything to actually be made.

I'd also like to see something like Armscor's approach to weapons design in South Africa.  When a new weapon was required, a design was chosen and developed to pre-production standards:  then the engineers who'd built it, and who would oversee production, were expected to take it into a combat zone and test it under fire.  Most of them, of course, had seen military service as conscripts, so they weren't unused to the idea, but it was nonetheless amusing to hear their comments when something proved less than satisfactory while the enemy was shooting at them.  (I learned a few new words that way.)  It also made sure that the actual production models were as good as they could be, with very few surprises (unpleasant or otherwise) for the troops using them.

A good example was the first field test of South Africa's ZT3 anti-tank missile, today known as the Ingwe.  Based on the US TOW missile, which was then developed into a laser-guided version, MAPATS, by an Israeli company, the ZT3 was sent into combat in 1987, mounted on a Ratel IFV, as a final test before full production began.  A few Angolan T-55's duly turned up, and fire was exchanged.  Unfortunately, in some cases the missile's laser guidance system, designed to seek out a laser beam being projected onto the target and follow it, instead found the hot, bright African sun a much more interesting illumination - so some missiles took off skyward, pursued by the highly indignant epithets of the engineers and servicemen trying to defend themselves.  Others worked.  You can hear ten minutes of audio from that actual combat at this link.

I'm afraid a "waste mindset" has permeated through much of the US military these days.  "We don't have to worry - the taxpayer will foot the bill!"  I don't think that's accurate any more . . . and I hope our armed forces can change their ways, and become leaner and meaner than before.

Peter