Originally Posted by
J Wolfsberger
I agree - our normal operating mode (historically) seems to be going to war undermanned with antiquated equipment.
It might also be well to remember the nursery rhyme that begins "For want of a nail..." It should begin: "For lack of a smithy, the nail wasn't made..." We can no more expect to turn on a company such as Ford or Caterpillar to make combat vehicles overnight than we can expect to turn an 18 year old into a competent infantryman in 8 - 12 weeks of basic training.
Generally, systems that aren't effective get cut, redirected, or terminated. And, yes, there are also some things that get funded simply to maintain industrial base. I, for one, would be seriously concerned by any politician who threatened to end that. To someone completely ignorant of modern weapon systems, it might seem feasible to just pull in the "freeze dried engineers," a sentiment popular in the late 80s - early 90s, and start the weapon design process. In practice, those novice engineers, and especially their management, will require one or two practice programs just to reach the level of competence needed to develop an effective system. When you realize that those "practice" systems will run into years and $Bs, keeping the base ticking over is a prudent investment.
Bookmarks