The department of war just shot the accountants and opted for speed

6 hours ago (steveblank.com)

Remember Fat Leonard? This time there's going to be more than one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Leonard_scandal

  • Damn. Didn't know about this until now but it looks like, at least, he sure put in the effort.

    "exploited the intelligence for illicit profit, brazenly ordering his moles to redirect aircraft carriers, ships and subs to ports he controlled in Southeast Asia so he could more easily bilk the Navy for fuel, tugboats, barges, food, water and sewage removal."

    The devil works hard but apparently Fat Leonard works harder.

A big assumption with this change is that the "Modular Open Systems Approach" (MOSA) [0] [1] will be adequate for integrating new systems developed and acquired under this "fast track". MOSA appears to be about 6 years old as a mandate [2] and is something that big contractors - SAIC, BAI, Palantir [3] - talk about. But, 6 years seems brand new in this sector. I'd be curious to see if LLM's have leverage for MOSA software system integrations.

[0] https://breakingdefense.com/tag/modular-open-systems-archite... [1] https://www.dsp.dla.mil/Programs/MOSA/ [2] https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2016-title10/USCO... [3] https://blog.palantir.com/implementing-mosa-with-software-de...

Based on this article alone, I can believe this is a good thing. The US military suffers incredibly from its monopsony position and without a doubt will get a heavy wakeup call (read: dead young people) next time it has to fight a real war. In addition the army should be the most accountable and results oriented branch of government, since it’s the only one that’s actively oppositional. If we can’t fix procurement there then what hope do we have for the rest of government?

So fast forward five years and 50% of our war materials are produced in foreign countries?

I can't help but believe this is going to weaken our war footing because the dumbest people in the room are behind it. Thirsty Pete does not inspire confidence in the Department of War Thunder.

I mean on the surface it sounds good, but LEAN is why we had no PPE on hand during covid.

In order to have off the shelf supplies we are going have an active international arms market by definition. Is this what we want?

  • The lack of PPE manufacturing in the US after 2021 is a travesty that does not simplify to LEAN is why we didn't. Dismantling the pandemic response unit didn't help. Not replenishing a stockpile of masks that existed for that specific reason didn't help. A lack of tooling supply base didn't help, Straight up corruption; no bid government contracts going to friends of the administration with no. proven capability to deliver (and they didn't). By the time this was discovered, months that could have been used to build and certify actual factories had been wasted.

    Worse though, is 3M and Honeywell built factories to make masks, only to get fucked on it. Factories (must grow but also) take time to build. In the 6-9 months it took for them to build those factories after the initial delay, China started allowing exports again, and those factories folded basically before we got any use out of them. I wouldn't expect 3M to build needed factories a second time we need them to save our asses.

Embarrassing regurgitation of propaganda. This is basically the military DOGE. Are these systems dysfunctional in some ways, could well-intended sweeping reforms improve them? Sure, maybe, I don't know much about it.

Is that what's happening here? No, this a way to get the existing functions out from under the oversight and constraints of acquisition laws to reduce friction for corruption and war profiteering.

If you fell for DOGE don't fall for this too.

  • Steven Blank (the author) is a respected member of the startup community and is not partisan. He's been working with the defense department for 10 years (across both administrations) to modernize the way the military buys technology.

    His work to create the "hacking for defense" project to modernize things is not at all like DOGE and preceeds it by many years

    https://www.h4d.us/

    • > Steven Blank (the author) is a respected member of the startup community and is not partisan.

      Then that makes it more disgraceful for him to regurgitate propaganda.

  • It's also allowing for "good enough" solutions to enter the field of battle.

    Which is fucking frightening. We don't want "good enough", we want weapons that are fully capable and best-in-class. After all, that's why the Department's budget is nearly a trillion dollars a year. We aren't paying for good enough, we're paying for the best of the best of the best.

    We should first solve for why we've allowed massive scope creep in the development of our flagship fighters, and why that scope creep has come at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to our nation. Yet we can't ask why the likes of Boeing or Lockheed Martin are allowed to function as entities that need to please Wall Street and lobbyists instead of scaring the living shit out of anyone who wishes to do us harm via pure technological prowess. We've allowed the management class to take over our defense manufacturing at great cost to our country.

* Department of Defense, there is no dept of war, just a cute nickname they gave themselves to feel tuff

Out of all of the hires of this new administration, Hegseth is the most surprisingly competent.

> The DoW is being redesigned to now operate at the speed of Silicon Valley, delivering more, better, and faster. Our warfighters will benefit from the innovation and lower cost of commercial technology, and the nation will once again get a military second to none.

So move fast and break things, and now the thing we’re breaking is our national defense?

More weapons more quickly. This is what I want.

I'm sure they will be used for good.

/s

I'm sure there are good reasons for this, and the approach doesn't seem totally unreasonable, to be fair. I'm just personally woefully unequipped to understand how to deploy weapons humanely and morally, and naively think less weapons is better. Thankfully there are adults in the room making these decisions for me...

  • >deploy weapons humanely and morally

    A bit of an oxymoron there wouldn't you say?

    >naively think less weapons is better

    This I agree with. We should really only have a few dozen nuclear weapons, and nothing more. The whole point is to have a clear line of "DO NOT FUCKING CROSS AT ALL", and that's it. You cross us? We nuke you. We don't bother you, you don't bother us unless you want to face nuclear annihilation. Seems to work for North Korea.