Global Military Spending - NEWS ONLY

jsport said:
breakingdefense.com

US gets an 'F' for erratic, unfocused funding of defense innovation, says Reagan Foundation - Breaking Defense

A ponderous budget process, overspending on old tech, and chronically late appropriations hamstring the Pentagon’s ability to tap into private-sector innovation, according to the foundation’s new scorecard.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
I don't think they needed an official report to appreciate this. Let alone one by a dubious bias think tank like the Reagan Foundation and Institute

Regards
Pioneer
 
www.defensenews.com

An organizational road map for Pentagon to deter China, win in Ukraine

The Pentagon is woefully unprepared to integrate commercial technologies and private capital at scale.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

  1. Creating a new defense ecosystem that uses the external commercial innovation ecosystem and private capital as a force multiplier. Leverage the expertise of prime contractors as integrators of advanced technology and complex systems, refocus federally funded research and development centers on areas not covered by commercial tech.
  2. Reorganizing DoD research and engineering. Allocate its budget and resources equally between traditional sources of innovation and new commercial sources of innovation and capital. Split the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s research and engineering organization in half: Keep the current organization focused on the status quo; and create a peer organization, the “Under Secretary of Defense for Commercial Innovation and Private Capital.”
  3. Scaling up the new Office of Strategic Capital and the Defense Innovation Unit to be the lead agencies in this new organization. Give them the budget and authority to do so, and provide the services the means to do the same.
  4. Reorganizing DoD acquisition and sustainment. Allocate its budget and resources equally between traditional sources of production and the creation of new ones from 21st century arsenals — new shipyards, drone manufacturers, etc. — that can make thousands of low-cost, attritable systems.
  5. Coordinating with allies. Expand the national security innovation base to an allied security innovation base. Source commercial technology from allies.
wait what ..end the corruption..ur kidding
 
Last edited:
news.usni.org

Pentagon Acquisition Has Innovation Problem, New Study Finds - USNI News

The Pentagon has an innovation adoption problem that’s part of a system that does not encourage new techniques, processes or technologies, former Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said at a Wednesday rollout of a new report on defense innovation. James used the example of the fast fielding...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
jsport said:
www.defensenews.com

An organizational road map for Pentagon to deter China, win in Ukraine

The Pentagon is woefully unprepared to integrate commercial technologies and private capital at scale.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

  1. Creating a new defense ecosystem that uses the external commercial innovation ecosystem and private capital as a force multiplier. Leverage the expertise of prime contractors as integrators of advanced technology and complex systems, refocus federally funded research and development centers on areas not covered by commercial tech.
  2. Reorganizing DoD research and engineering. Allocate its budget and resources equally between traditional sources of innovation and new commercial sources of innovation and capital. Split the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s research and engineering organization in half: Keep the current organization focused on the status quo; and create a peer organization, the “Under Secretary of Defense for Commercial Innovation and Private Capital.”
  3. Scaling up the new Office of Strategic Capital and the Defense Innovation Unit to be the lead agencies in this new organization. Give them the budget and authority to do so, and provide the services the means to do the same.
  4. Reorganizing DoD acquisition and sustainment. Allocate its budget and resources equally between traditional sources of production and the creation of new ones from 21st century arsenals — new shipyards, drone manufacturers, etc. — that can make thousands of low-cost, attritable systems.
  5. Coordinating with allies. Expand the national security innovation base to an allied security innovation base. Source commercial technology from allies.
wait what ..end the corruption..ur kidding
Click to expand...

Ending corruption is likely impossible, especially given a) secrecy b) the backlash against any serious investigation into defense purchasing practices and c) lobbyists and PACs.

Neglecting that, the five paragraphs occasionally arise to the level of word salad. Were they produced by a badly-written chat bot?
 
Last edited:
Pioneer said:
jsport said:
breakingdefense.com

US gets an 'F' for erratic, unfocused funding of defense innovation, says Reagan Foundation - Breaking Defense

A ponderous budget process, overspending on old tech, and chronically late appropriations hamstring the Pentagon’s ability to tap into private-sector innovation, according to the foundation’s new scorecard.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
I don't think they needed an official report to appreciate this. Let alone one by a dubious bias think tank like the Reagan Foundation and Institute

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
So the report is valid/accurate but because of who did it, it’s no longer valid/accurate?

Did you see who’s on the advisory board? Seems like a pretty diverse group.

I used to always look at reports from groups like ACA, the BofAS and NRDC groups diametrically opposed to my defense views because they did stellar research and produced accurate and relevant information.
 
bobbymike said:
Pioneer said:
jsport said:
breakingdefense.com

US gets an 'F' for erratic, unfocused funding of defense innovation, says Reagan Foundation - Breaking Defense

A ponderous budget process, overspending on old tech, and chronically late appropriations hamstring the Pentagon’s ability to tap into private-sector innovation, according to the foundation’s new scorecard.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
I don't think they needed an official report to appreciate this. Let alone one by a dubious bias think tank like the Reagan Foundation and Institute

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
So the report is valid/accurate but because of who did it, it’s no longer valid/accurate?

Did you see who’s on the advisory board? Seems like a pretty diverse group.

I used to always look at reports from groups like ACA, the BofAS and NRDC groups diametrically opposed to my defense views because they did stellar research and produced accurate and relevant information.
Click to expand...
While the Reagan Foundation and Institute may have sufficient political biases to make some of its reports, let alone recommendations, quite suspect, I think one of the issues with this summary is that it's so horribly written. I also believe one of the problems with recent defense projects, e.g., DDX, KC-46, LCS, and F-35, is that there has been too much expertise outsourced to the defense contractors, which do not have any interest in minimizing development costs. The services should all have procurement organizations with sufficient expertise so they can write realistic and obtainable performance specifications without outside help. I think this was one problem with the DDX -- the project management didn't have the expertise to know when to say "this is too risky."
 
www.forbes.com

America Spends Less On Its Military Than You Think. Look At The Numbers.

The U.S. spends more on defense than other nations, but relative to the size of its economy military outlays are far from excessive.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
“For instance, the Army wants to spend $3.8 billion on procurement of combat vehicles in 2024. With the government planning to spend $18.8 billion per day, that amounts to barely five hours of federal spending—for all types of tracked and wheeled vehicles in the Army’s inventory.”
 
www.federaltimes.com

The US military must move beyond defense-reform theater

Zealous reformers continue to over-focus on weapons buys when hardware is increasingly the commodity.
www.federaltimes.com www.federaltimes.com

That means accountability, like sequestering congressional paychecks until appropriations are enacted each day after the start of the fiscal year. Appropriators must also revise rules established at a time when the defense budget was a fraction of its size today, and let the Defense Department move more money around after being approved to react in real time to changing technology.

It also means greater transparency on the costs of doing business. As former Rep. Anthony Brown, D-Md., highlighted — but few seem to be aware — Washington spends “$1 billion more on Medicare in the defense budget than we do on new tactical vehicles. We spend more on the Defense Health Program than we do on new ships. In total, some $200 billion in the defense budget are essentially for nondefense purposes — from salaries to health care to basic research.”

others have advocated a split defense budget.
 
Last edited:
www.reuters.com

Russia's defence spending jumped 282% y/y to $26 bln in Jan-Feb -budget data

Russia spent 2 trillion roubles ($26 billion) on defence in January and February alone, a 282% jump on the same period a year ago, data on the budget portal showed, illustrating the spiralling costs for Moscow of its conflict in Ukraine.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
www.reuters.com

Analysis: Surge in Russia's defence and security spending means cuts for schools and hospitals in 2023

Russia plans to spend nearly a third of next year's budget on defence and domestic security while slashing funding for schools, hospitals and roads as it diverts cash to support its military campaign in Ukraine.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom