The last 10 years of my contracting career was on armored vehicles. I venture to say that it is nearly impossible for the military/industrial/political complex to produce a design that will be efficient on the battlefield. Congress tries to send big pieces to their preferred companies and thus divide the contract so that huge compromises must be made on all aspects of the design. To get enough votes companies have to pool their pocket-Congressmen. Then, the military finally gets a shot at a new vehicle and every command wants that vehicle go be one they can use with no modifications. They fight over their needs and you end up with a race horse designed by a committee. Then Congress ladles on its green agenda, gay agenda, diversity agenda, consulting stuff for supporters, small business requirements, etc. By the time the contract is let it is essentially doomed to failure, like the Future Combat Systems vehicle. If I cancelled a meeting on that project I’d get angry emails and calls telling me I had to hold it because they had “charge numbers they had to burn.”
The process is so broken it amazes me the military gets anything it needs. (Incidentally, everybody involved knows what the issues are. But nobody has the power to overcome them.)
True. Very true.
As much for the Air Farce (nowdays) as for the Army. Army missiles, army weapons, army uniforms, army vehicles.
The Navy? Similar: The designs are based on assumed “computer modeling of assumed battles.” The ships can be destroyed in harbors by mines laid overnight by pleasure boats, and torpedoes shot from fishing boats and trawlers.