Budget gilding

[Administrator]

TO THE SERVICES AND INDUSTRY, for fueling congressional demands for more by continuing to gild the lily when it comes to equipment purchases. All of the services are guilty of insisting only “the best of the best” will do, whether it’s stealthy airplanes, new-design ships or networked combat systems. More times than not, industry talks up these best-of-best “solutions.” But cutting-edge technology is growing faster than rosy budgeting can accommodate. Best is useless if you can’t afford enough to do the job — good enough is the smarter approach, and it’s time to start thinking smarter on defense spending. That also requires rethinking how all arms of government work together to meet national security priorities.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/03/3410147

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Administrator

TO THE SERVICES AND INDUSTRY, for fueling congressional demands for more by continuing to gild the lily when it comes to equipment purchases. All of the services are guilty of insisting only “the best of the best” will do, whether it’s stealthy airplanes, new-design ships or networked combat systems. More times than not, industry talks up these best-of-best “solutions.” But cutting-edge technology is growing faster than rosy budgeting can accommodate. Best is useless if you can’t afford enough to do the job — good enough is the smarter approach, and it’s time to start thinking smarter on defense spending. That also requires rethinking how all arms of government work together to meet national security priorities.

Possibly it's time to start looking at what gear is actually required to do the actual job that the US military is likely to actually have to do and allocate spending accordingly.

I noted the other day that the US military has resurrected the 1960's M-72 (LAW) [approximate original cost $950.00 {cost for the newest "WhizBang Model" around $2,300.00}] for no good reason than it actually works and meets the operational requirements of the conflicts that the US military is actually engaged in whereas the M-136 (AT-4) [approximate cost $1,500.00 {plus the cost of the ammunition}] didn't (although the M-136 did manage to pass through the Pentagon's "Gosh Guys, let's find a cute acronyn for this thing" committee with flying colours).