Global Military Spending - NEWS ONLY

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
 

  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:
 

  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

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:
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
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.
 
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
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.
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."
 
“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.”
 

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:
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom