5 ms·
As a former Navy F/A-18 pilot, I have strong opinions on this and generally agree with the analysis. A few thoughts: 1. The services are building what the def
by poof131 10y ago
As a former Navy F/A-18 pilot, I have strong opinions on this and generally agree with the analysis. A few thoughts:
1. The services are building what the defense contractors want to build more than what the war fighters want. Knew a lot of pilots who didn’t like the F-35 and would have preferred more, cheaper planes specialized for specific roles. This defense contractor capture is a big problem.
2. The services waste these ‘big war’ resources on our insurgency campaigns. F/A-18s were about 10k per flight hour and perform worse than platforms such as the Super Tacono[1] when supporting war fighters on the ground. We spent hundreds of billions more than we needed to on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because when the game starts everyone wants to play to justify their budgets. Programs such as the Super Tacano were shut down to protect and justify the massive expenditure on fighter jets. Funding for different types of wars needs to go through different sources to prevent this enormous waste of money.
3. I’d be for a submersible carrier that could surface to launch and retrieve drones that act as missile trucks for both air-to-air and strike missions. I wouldn’t go all in on unmanned aircraft though, since I would also assume the possibility of totally denied electronic environment where signals are jammed and space assets are unavailable.
4. To force military leaders to focus on the services and not themselves, I’d support a ban on senior level leadership (O-7 and above) from accepting board seats or contractor / full-time positions with defense contractors. Too many leaders make decisions while in service influenced by their personal outcomes when they get out. This behavior reinforces a system that supports the status quo. Senior leaders have great retirement packages and can do things other than maintain an incestuous relationship with the military-industrial complex. Although sometimes other jobs seem to result in more bad behavior such as pressure to look the other way on Theranos and its questionable product.[2, 3] Does look like their board has gotten a bit better with the only remaining military / diplomat being General Mattis. Glad to see Admiral Roughead and Secretary of State Kissinger are no longer there.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
[2] http://www.techinsider.io/emails-theranos-elizabeth-holmes-us-military-2015-12 http://www.techinsider.io/emails-theranos-elizabeth-holmes-u...
[3] https://www.theranos.com/leadership https://www.theranos.com/leadership
- gozur88 10y ago>To force military leaders to focus on the services and not themselves, I’d support a ban on senior level leadership (O-7 and above) from accepting board seats or contractor / full-time positions with defense contractors. That is an excellent idea, though I would extend it to cover any senior government leadership revolving into private sector positions in industries they regulated or for which they awarded contracts. There's clearly a conflict of interest, and nobody is going to starve on a senior official's retirement package.
- paulddraper 10y agoYou may be justified, but that would certainly rub me the wrong way to be denied a job because I had a blacklisted employer on my resume.
- srtjstjsj 10y agoYou'd have to be satisfied by your lifelong pension.
- hueving 10y agoBut then we would miss out on all of the greedy people!
- lordnacho 10y agoNo, you could do work that wasn't related. Suppose you worked as a buyer for the military, the law would say you can't jump over to people you bought from. But there's no reason you couldn't retire and become a buyer for some other industry.
- kbenson 10y agoPresumably you would know before applying (or at this level, more likely the headhunter should know before approaching). In any case, it's something that would probably be phased in. If you take a position, are reelected, or continue in a position 3 years after the law takes affect, then the the law affects you. It would be interesting to see who jumped to the private sector before it affected them.