www.ditl.org

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:I think the way our military operates now is fine. JROTC programs are growing and bases remain Federal property to avoid local issues.

If there was to be some kind of financial gains then I personally believe it should be limited to a nation under our aid to pay for or pay as much as they can towards the cost of the deployment of our forces. Beyond that, I don't like the idea of looking at our military as a pile of mercs.

But think of all the advantages of the free market when applied to the military. Do you really think a private company would put up with fighter jets that take 30 years to design and cost 300 million each? None of this "oh we must have a base in Iowa to save jobs so the congressman can be re-elected" nonsense in the private military!

Right, because big companies never make bad choices in money or for political gain.

Deepcrush wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:I think the way our military operates now is fine. JROTC programs are growing and bases remain Federal property to avoid local issues.

If there was to be some kind of financial gains then I personally believe it should be limited to a nation under our aid to pay for or pay as much as they can towards the cost of the deployment of our forces. Beyond that, I don't like the idea of looking at our military as a pile of mercs.

But think of all the advantages of the free market when applied to the military. Do you really think a private company would put up with fighter jets that take 30 years to design and cost 300 million each? None of this "oh we must have a base in Iowa to save jobs so the congressman can be re-elected" nonsense in the private military!

Right, because big companies never make bad choices in money or for political gain.

Sure they do, but not THAT badly. They do have a bottom line to answer for, after all. We're constantly told about the evils of socialism, how the government can't possibly run a company as well as a capitalist business will run.

Unless of course you're a socialist?

Life in the military is pretty much the same as living as a socialist. Major problem is that if you start treating the Armed Forces like a profit group then they'll start acting like one. Somethings get fouled up, but the majority of the military operates very well and changing that so that someone can pocket more money just doesn't serve a useful long term purpose.

GrahamKennedy wrote:But think of all the advantages of the free market when applied to the military. Do you really think a private company would put up with fighter jets that take 30 years to design and cost 300 million each? None of this "oh we must have a base in Iowa to save jobs so the congressman can be re-elected" nonsense in the private military!

That's actually the first argument here that made me pause and think about it. There would have to be something set up to keep the military investing in cutting edge technology and pushing the envelope rather than buying 2,000 F-16's and calling it a day.

The military industrial complex would benefit from being run like a private business, agreed.

However, you still need democratic oversight of some sort. How do you make sure the military are really doing what's important, rather than what's profitable? You need administrative boards, or some sort of oversight at multiple points.

Tyyr wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:But think of all the advantages of the free market when applied to the military. Do you really think a private company would put up with fighter jets that take 30 years to design and cost 300 million each? None of this "oh we must have a base in Iowa to save jobs so the congressman can be re-elected" nonsense in the private military!

That's actually the first argument here that made me pause and think about it. There would have to be something set up to keep the military investing in cutting edge technology and pushing the envelope rather than buying 2,000 F-16's and calling it a day.

What is needed is a reform of the procurment process rather than any of this other non-sense. You simply need to take the politics out of it and stop imposing such a huge degree of "fairness" in the bid process. That is why everything takes so long anymore.

The F-35 debacle is a great example of this. Touted as being cheaper than the F-22 they cut the F-22 production way down to build more F-35's....but then they realize that they need to heat up the F-35 beyond its original mission specifications since now it has to be a major air to air player. Shockingly, to those with an IQ of more than 15, the price hits the roof when you start tinkering with the damn thing.

Anyone with a lick of sense could have seen this coming. Had you just build more of a F-16 style replacement for the F-35 and built enough F-22's to do that job then you would have saved tons of money and had a more capable force.

And if I even have to talk about the tanker mess I might vomit right here and now...

I'm not saying I think privatizing the military is a good idea but the procurement process is just lost its shit. The tanker example is a good one though in this case "fair" didn't even enter the equation.

Tyyr wrote:I'm not saying I think privatizing the military is a good idea but the procurement process is just lost its s**t. The tanker example is a good one though in this case "fair" didn't even enter the equation.

The real problem with that is that they bid it to begin with. If they just wanted a tanker built by Boeing just go to Boeing and say we want X number of tankers and this is what we think the price should be. Build it now.

Really I think the problem's with most of this started under McNamara (in my world he started most of the major DOD problem's worst SecDef ever).

They tried to do super-projects like the F-111 and just have a few of them for the whole military. That meant that getting the one fighter contract for the next decade was make or break for defense contractors. We learned from that and built a series of fighters next (F-15, F-16, F-14, F-18, F-117, A-10) rather than trying to cram everything into one uber-plane. Then we went right back to it with the F-35 and we cancelled every other project out there. So in effect we end up with one major fighter project with all the major defense contractors invovled (because we can't put the one or two that did not win out of business) and predictably it becomes a circus of epic proportions.

Would have been a lot simpler to by 400 or so F-22's. Then buy about 1,500 or so F-35's that were much closer to the original specs and cost (hell, make them sub-sonic if they need to be and more like the F-117 than what they are now). Then just buy some new F-16's and F-15E's to use as bomb trucks once the stealth platforms have stripped the enemy air defenses off the battlespace. I will admit it is not a great plan or some sort of transformational strategy, but it would have worked a damn sight better than what we tried.

With the tankers they went out and requested a certain group of specs, then when the bids came in they completely upended their requirements and picked a different plane. Boeing's entire problem with it was that they built a plane to the Air Force's requirements but then the Air Force changed the requirements on them. The playing field wasn't level. Frankly I think it's idiotic to farm out a defense contract like this to another country when Boeing's already got a tanker in hand ready to go.

The F-22 project was mishandled from the get go. They bitched about how much the airplane was going to cost so they cut the number they'd buy, which predictably pushed the price per plane even higher so they used that as motivation to cut the number again... and bitched when the price went up again. Frankly I have trouble imagining 187 of them being sufficient for the next 30 years with the F-15's getting close to being able to make social security claims.

Then you've got clusterfucks like the Zumwalts.

Tyyr wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:But think of all the advantages of the free market when applied to the military. Do you really think a private company would put up with fighter jets that take 30 years to design and cost 300 million each? None of this "oh we must have a base in Iowa to save jobs so the congressman can be re-elected" nonsense in the private military!

That's actually the first argument here that made me pause and think about it. There would have to be something set up to keep the military investing in cutting edge technology and pushing the envelope rather than buying 2,000 F-16's and calling it a day.

Well they'd have the same drive the real military does on that front; if they're going to be called on to fight then they'd want to win.

Of course they might think something like the F-22 was overpriced and over-capable... "why be five times better when it's good enough to be two times better" sort of thinking. But to be honest I'm not sure they'd be at all wrong in thinking that. A LOT of people think the US overspends on expensive super-toys rather than getting what they need for a decent price.

GrahamKennedy wrote: Well they'd have the same drive the real military does on that front; if they're going to be called on to fight then they'd want to win.

There is a big problem, however. What is the forces opposed aren't worth the money spent? Can they simply bail and go like "sorry, we can't get involved in this fight. Here, have a refund."?

GrahamKennedy wrote:Well they'd have the same drive the real military does on that front; if they're going to be called on to fight then they'd want to win.

Of course they might think something like the F-22 was overpriced and over-capable... "why be five times better when it's good enough to be two times better" sort of thinking. But to be honest I'm not sure they'd be at all wrong in thinking that. A LOT of people think the US overspends on expensive super-toys rather than getting what they need for a decent price.

I think there's a certain degree of polishing the cannonball that we do indulge in far too much, I can't argue that. However I also think that for someone like us the need or I suppose you could say desire to have significant influence the world over as well as global commitments to our allies you either have to get the most bang for your buck in terms of the equipment you do buy because you're likely to be outnumbered wherever you go or you have to be willing to raise a huge military in terms of raw numbers. Well since we threw the draft out and went all voluntary we couldn't guarantee ourselves a huge number of recruits so we went for the most bang for our buck with every piece of kit.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote: Well they'd have the same drive the real military does on that front; if they're going to be called on to fight then they'd want to win.

There is a big problem, however. What is the forces opposed aren't worth the money spent? Can they simply bail and go like "sorry, we can't get involved in this fight. Here, have a refund."?

No, they'd get sued for breach of contract.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote: Well they'd have the same drive the real military does on that front; if they're going to be called on to fight then they'd want to win.

There is a big problem, however. What is the forces opposed aren't worth the money spent? Can they simply bail and go like "sorry, we can't get involved in this fight. Here, have a refund."?

No, they'd get sued for breach of contract.

What court? U.S.'s court?

A country that put its military fate into a mercenary army who decides the risk isn't worth the wage won't last long ennough for the settlement of the court case.

Yeah, you might call it "privatized," but they'd have to be kept on such a short leash that when it came to things like that they'd have no choice but to do as they were told.