2 ms·

The reason that Rumsfeld's second term as SecDef marks him as the worst to ever hold the position (1) is that at least the other guy who oversaw the US getting

The reason that Rumsfeld's second term as SecDef marks him as the worst to ever hold the position (1) is that at least the other guy who oversaw the US getting into a decades long morass (McNamara) delivered some effective weapons. Forcing the USAF to buy the F4H, the USAF half of the 'vark, Nimitz class carrier, Spruance class destroyer, etc. were all reasonably successful weapons systems that McNamara was largely responsible for, in bureaucratic terms. Donald Rumsfeld's term managed to get the US into a decades long morass and basically all of his procurement plans failed (FCS, JTRS, EMALS, LCS, EFV, DDG-1000). Rumsfeld's best program outcome (LCS) was still worse than McNamara's worst (F-111). 1: Not counting the current occupant where we can't fully judge him yet, but he's not doing well.

SJC_Hacker 1y ago
Were those programs really on Rumsfeld, or was it the Congress/Senate ?
- mandevil 1y ago
  The consistent emphasis on the value of speed and mobility over the other parts of the combat triangle (mobility-firepower-survivability)- to the detriment of them as weapons systems- is a sign that there was a coherent influence and direction being put on those programs, to their detriment, by the SecDef's office. Basically, Rummie's approach was to emphasize speed and mobility over all other aspects of fighting, and it created ships with high speed and little sustainability or effective mission packages (LCS) and ground vehicles which were hideously expensive and way too vulnerable (EFV, FCS). Some things that happened under him (like the F-22 line being closed permanently) were more due to Congress' than him, but those programs were closely associated with him and his office at the time, and were gigantic CF's that, in the best case, ended without a single production unit ever reaching service. I say this as someone who worked in Army procurement doing FCS things. In my opinion as someone who was there, it was Rumsfeld's baby, and it was such a disaster both Presidential candidates in 2008 promised to kill it. And it deserved that killing.

SJC_Hacker 1y ago

Were those programs really on Rumsfeld, or was it the Congress/Senate ?

mandevil 1y ago
The consistent emphasis on the value of speed and mobility over the other parts of the combat triangle (mobility-firepower-survivability)- to the detriment of them as weapons systems- is a sign that there was a coherent influence and direction being put on those programs, to their detriment, by the SecDef's office. Basically, Rummie's approach was to emphasize speed and mobility over all other aspects of fighting, and it created ships with high speed and little sustainability or effective mission packages (LCS) and ground vehicles which were hideously expensive and way too vulnerable (EFV, FCS). Some things that happened under him (like the F-22 line being closed permanently) were more due to Congress' than him, but those programs were closely associated with him and his office at the time, and were gigantic CF's that, in the best case, ended without a single production unit ever reaching service. I say this as someone who worked in Army procurement doing FCS things. In my opinion as someone who was there, it was Rumsfeld's baby, and it was such a disaster both Presidential candidates in 2008 promised to kill it. And it deserved that killing.