Are We Giving Them Our Best?

Good Morning, fellow veterans,

In my first article on this site (SENILITY OF COMMAND) I discussed the limitations on military success caused by the growth of incompetent leadership. Briefly put, during peace time the military promotes and accumulates cautious leaders who are afraid to take risks. Protecting their careers override anticipating and preparing for victory in combat.

Since then, I have begun to contemplate the forces in society that also work against military success. We are all familiar with civilian fear and distrust of military power. There has never been a point where the American military planned or plotted a military coup such as is common in many foreign countries around the globe. Yet, a significant portion of the U.S. population reflexively fears the fact that the military has a large number of armed, trained and obedient soldiers spread across the country.

That fear is irrational on two levels. First, it’s like buying a pit bull to guard your house then being afraid to go in your own back yard. The DOG works for YOU and he knows it! Second, the American military is made up of loyal citizens who never forget their allegiance to the people they serve. We served the American people; not a king, not and imam, not even the president. We obeyed the president but we served the people, our own people.

But there are three more powerful and more insidious forces that limit military success; a triune responsible for equipping our military for combat. The consistently outdo other nations but are unwilling to do better.

These three tout the fact that we have the “best trained and best equipped military in the world.” That is true but it could be better. Okay, you want to know who I’m talking about right now, right? Well, think about the how we get weapons to the troops. Who is involved in that process?

1. Scientists and engineers
2. Politicians
3. Procurement officers (military)

Each one of these contributes to the development and deployment of weapon systems, transportation and vehicles. They do well, but they can each do better.

SCIENCE and ENGINEERING

Sometimes breakthroughs in military technology are the result of the military recognizing a need, or it originates from the developers. Either way, the next big idea pops up. We have a long list of successful radical ideas such as stealth and the P-38 Lighting (honestly, you have to ask where that idea came from!)
But we also have examples of failures. Because most scientists and engineers are not end users and are not likely to ever be put in the situation where their inventions are used, they often fail to see the whole problem they are trying to solve.

Consider air-to-air missiles. When they first came on line the brain trust of the government declared that dog fighting was a thing of the past; that missiles would infallibly destroy the enemy at long range.

Two problems with that: missiles often fail, and the leadership decided not to use the range of the missile. They ordered pilots to visually identify the target before firing. By the time you can see him, he can see you—and HE has a gun! Many F-4 Phantom II pilots in Vietnam paid a price for this short-sightedness.

POLITICIANS

Elected officials have different priorities than the government as a whole and from the military. Congress controls the details of government spending and it is important for individual congressmen to get their share of the Big Pie. They owe political favors to the people who supported their election and to their constituents who voted for them.

Thus congressmen while influence military procurement for political reasons; reasons that are sometimes at odds with the needs of the military. For example, we pay a lot for the F-16 Falcon; more than $120M each these days. The plane it defeated in the procurement phase would be still priced at $4M each today—really.

Many USAF guys remember the F-5E Tiger. It was a staple in a number of roles including sales to allied militaries. When the Air Force announced the need for a replacement for the F-15 Eagle Northrop offered an upgraded version of the Tiger.

The F-20 Tigershark sported a two-engine design. It had an onboard APU for quick self-starting in an emergency. They added two cannons on the nose for close in combat. Performance through the envelope was superior to virtually everything flying. The plane was designed for ease of maintenance. One engine could be swapped out while working in the shadow of the plane.

To make the F-20 more appealing to the frugal government Northrop offered the F-20 at a guaranteed price tag of 4 million each—including spare parts! At that time the F-16 came with a price tag of 20 million, to start.

Congress (and other entities) decided to go with the more expensive Falcon because General Dynamics needed the money. Gen-Dyn is a major defense contractor and politicians wanted to keep them in business.

What about the Tigershark? It was killed by the same politicians. It would have made an excellent export plane but it was prohibited for foreign sales because it would make foreign air forces too good!

PROCUREMENT OFFICERS

This should be the best job in the military. It places middle to senior level officer in position to influence the development of future systems. They could address the concerns of the troops, concerns they had themselves back when they had direct command in the field.

The problem comes in when the officers choose instead to curry favor with the corporations instead of serving the interests of the military. They angle for a high paying job once they separate from active duty at the expense of the troops they leave behind.

As with the previous article, the conclusion is the same. Each of these groups is often aware of the shortcomings of their decisions. What they are banking on is that

a) The effect of their decisions won’t be discovered for a long time or will never be tested in combat.

b) The training and skill of the people in uniform will overcome material deficiencies.

c) Finally, the overall quality of the military will hide any deficiency.

Thus our troops usually start a combat cycle (war or OOTW) with substandard equipment. The US Marines went to Desert Storm with the M-1 A1 Abrams tank. The Saudis were already equipped with the up-gunned A2 model!

The Humvee was never meant to be used in combat; it was just transportation. But the Vietnam War should have taught all of us that in unconventional war there is no front lines area or safe rear area. Still, the Hummer is more useful and versatile than the old Willis Jeep, so I can’t complain . . . much.

What can be done to fix the system? I wish I had the answer. The biggest problem is the security of anonymity. Scientists, engineers, politicians and culpable officers are all active behind the scenes. No one seems to know who is responsible for failed equipment until it’s too late. Even then, they just find a scapegoat.

All we can do is hope that the fine men and women of today continue the traditions of their predecessor. Just as men faced the Panzers with the M-3 Sherman, faced the Zero with out of date P-40s and the AK-47 with the faulty, original M-16. Brave people will always find a way.