The Pentagon’s budget is going to shrink and Americans are going to get a better “bang for their buck” under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s leadership, argues Victor Davis Hanson on today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.”
“Did you notice that of all the controversial Trump nominees—Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, RFK, Tulsi Gabbard—the Left went after Pete Hegseth the most vehemently? And he required JD Vance to break that tie. There was a reason for that. He is proposing radical changes in the Pentagon. Remember where we are right now with the Pentagon. We spend $820 billion a year. It's about 14% of the entire budget and it's immune to criticism. It really is.
“And we are building $14 billion carriers. We're building $85 million F-35s. We have built $140 million F-22s. And we're watching, in Ukraine and the Middle East, the entire mode of 21st-century warfare being revolutionized. It's more of—not that we're going to have bad quality, but it's more quantity than quality. They're flooding the zones with cheap drones—cheap drones on the ocean, in the air, and on land.
“And we're not there yet. We're not doing it. So, what Pete Hegseth wants to do is change the entire manner of procurement.”
He said a whole lot of good in that six minutes.
ReplyDeleteFederal spending on defense has been cost plus for as long as I can remember.... This leads to cost over runs and late deliveries... Also in a world where a few hundred to thousand dollar drones can sink a ship the defense department needs a fresh look at war fighting to win
ReplyDeleteJD
"An aircraft carrier is a large bladder of jet fuel wrapped around high explosives. This is worth remembering." Fred Reed
ReplyDeleteSTOP BUILDING THEM!
"change the entire manner of procurement"
ReplyDeleteI think what he really mean is he needs to change the entire manner of how we intend to prosecute wars in the future. Weapons procurement follows from those decisions.
Sending a $14Billion carrier to stand as a target off of some distant shore doesn't sound like a good idea when either a couple thousand $ drone swarm or a couple hundred thousand $ hypersonic missile can destroy that expensive asset in less time that it took to type this.
This is exactly the problem that firing all of those joint chiefs and hiring people that have an inkling of WTF they're doing and what war(s) they're preparing for should solve.
and all of the naysayers during the runup to and during his confirmation hearings said he was unqualified. Wrong again.
Nemo
At this point lets concentrate on returning the bucks and holding off on any banging for a few years.
ReplyDeletethe first time I was how bad the MIC was in West Germany . 1978 or so. was part of a team testing out the Carl Gustaf rocket launcher.. it was way better than we had. iron sights to back up the optic one. and more different rounds than I can remember. shorter and easier to handle than anything we had too. come "show day' there where 3 army generals and 2 Marine ones watching. or I should say the Marine generals did. the army asshole didn't care or acted like we where wasting their time.
ReplyDeletethe Marine generals came down and fired the weapon with us. took out note books and asked questions "off the record like" about it. all in all they spent a good hour with us asking about it. BUT the army bought the Dragon anti tank system.
never used it so, I don't know. but from what I was told about it , it was over priced junk.
funny thing, you never hear about it anymore ?
so image how I felt in 2004-5 there about, watching the news and seeing some troops using the carl G in the sandbox ? and they going on and on about how great it is for the job over there. I often wonder who got paid off to "buy " the dragon over the Carl G.
the troops don't need or want the newest thing. they want one that works !
take the LAW rocket for one. it is a old weapon for sure but it still around. and why?
because it works. dave in pa.
the dragon had a lot longer range than a carl gustav. dragon also paved the way for TOW and javelin. we learned a lot from dragon, as far as guidance and portability.
Deletethe army saw the gustav as a step backwards. they had done everything they could to get rid of the 106RR, and the 75mm and the 90mm before that, so going to another recoiless weapon like that was unthinkable. besides it was a swedish design...and if we couldn't bring ourselves to adopt the belgian FAL, we sure as hell weren't going to adopt a swedish weapon...they weren't even allies at that point.
dragon was also the starting point for a lot of the "star wars" orbital anti-missile systems that were in the works in the 80's. having those small rocket motors all the way around the body of the missile was seen as a cheap guidance for something that would have to operate in orbit. the "smart rock" and "brilliant pebble" both started out using dragon rocket motors.
The last f-22 was delivered in 2012 so that cost is sunk. Drones are the future, but the border is the real threat. Old A10’s and Aero Tractors are a perfect solution for the border in combination with drones and land mines. F* Ukrain and the EU.
ReplyDelete