Robert David Steele — the US military is shockingly badly designed and planned because it’s all about greedy contractors, not national defense

Even I was surprised. Russia may be able to actually win a war against the USA.

ULY 02, 2014
Why Secretary of Defense Hagel Must Choose the Next Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
On Defense Intelligence: Seven Strikes

The most shocking stuff here:

Acquisition: Strategic Generalizations. This is the area where DIA specifically and the entire US Intelligence Community (IC) generally have been abject failures by design.[18] The Services do not want acquisition intelligence. If they did, the US Army would not have been building 97-ton artillery systems because they would know that the average bridge-loading weight limit around the world is 30 tons. The US Marine Corps would not have bought into the M-1 tank, which invented the concept of gallons per mile, because the average line of sight distance is less than 1,000 meters everywhere in the world but for six countries. The US Navy would be building fewer big ships (and many more small ships) because it would know that 50% of the ports around the world will not allow for pier-side refueling or offload of existing naval vessels – the US Navy would also know that it is out-gunned by most Third World coastal artilleries, and that the standard aviation day world-wide is hot and humid instead of its standard, warm and not-humid – meaning that US Navy and Marne Corps aviation are able to carry half as much half as far and loiter half as long, all because of a refusal to design to reality. General Al Gray, USMC (Ret), then Commandant of the Marine Corps, created the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA) precisely to meet this need, only to find himself undermined at every turn by program managers intent on spending money instead of meeting needs. The study I designed and led, Planning and Programming Factors for Expeditionary Operations in the Third World (MCCDC, 1990) is still the only serious attempt to do acquisition intelligence as a departmental level; and still ignored. The Strategic Generalizations document alone is worth 250 billion dollars or more in near-term savings, if SecDef cares to achieve such savings. None of the Service Centers, or DIA, have such a document. They don’t want such a document.

I think Russia will be able to handle herself against the USA.


About Rob

Come with me if you want to live
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Robert David Steele — the US military is shockingly badly designed and planned because it’s all about greedy contractors, not national defense

  1. Stary Wylk says:

    If Vietnam could, and Iraq could….why not?

    • eradican says:

      Vietnam sure but not Iraq not even close. North Vietnam was a Soviet client state which put them at rough parity with the US. Iraq was just a bunch of stragglers whenever they organized they were decimated. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria might look fearsome now but they were nearly wiped out once before. Their original leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was tracked down and killed along with his inner circle. They rebuilt thanks to the renewal provided by the war in Syria. With their Iraq experience they established themselves at the top of the pecking order in Syria defeating both the regime and rival rebel groups. From there they launched back into Iraq in a speculator fashion but lets see if they can maintain/expand their gains.

      As for the US military itself I’ve definitely seen it growing weaker. Drones were in development in the 1990s under the Clinton administration. Budget cuts forced discipline and priority spending. Drones have proven extremely valuable even revolutionary but from the mid 2000s onward it appears military expenditure is just to keep contractors happy. This waste, corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence is very reminiscent of the USSR in the late 1970’s when their power and prestige also began to wane. US military personnel themselves have never looked more defeated and demoralized either.

  2. insurrectionist says:

    How can Russia out invade the United States. It’s not possible. The US is already occupied. Happy independence day!

  3. Pingback: Russia vs. USA Military Power | Revolt of the Barbarians

  4. Stary Wylk says:

    I always enjoy your comments and articles, Eradican.
    The U.S.Army could have occupied Hanoi. They still would have lost; while winning every fight they got into. The NVA only needed to continue as opposition over the long term, rather like William of Orange.
    The U.S.Army did occupy Baghdad. The opposition organized, but didn’t fight much while the occupiers were there. Now, they’re back. They’re winning by means of morale, not bullets and bombs. Do they even have an air force? If ISIS were attacked by the U.S.military they would scatter like roaches and come back later, perhaps under a different name.The U.S.military can still kill a lot of people, decadent as it is. What it takes to win is a different approach, one of less benefit to contractors.

    • PA says:

      The only lasting way to win an offensive war, be it in Vietnam or Iraq, is to (1) destroy the country’s military, (2) pacify its population, and (3) settle the land with your own people.

      The US, or any powerful country, can bomb other countries all it wants. But if they do not do “step 3” above, the native population will continue to claim the land and passively or actively, will continue to resist the invader.

      Interestingly, the US tried doing “step 3” by bringing in foreign contractors for skilled and menial work once they accomplished “step 2”. The Iraqi insurgents’ focus on spectacular beheadings of American engineers or harmless Nepalese dishwashers was likely intended as a message to would-be population-replacement immigrants.

      • mindweapon says:

        The Iraqi insurgents’ focus on spectacular beheadings of American engineers or harmless Nepalese dishwashers was likely intended as a message to would-be population-replacement immigrants.

        Excellent point, PA!

  5. Adit says:

    In a previous life I worked for a Gov’t contractor which sold stuff to the Military. There is so much waste, and BS that most people wouldn’t believe it and we were just a very small company. Military equipment seemed to come in basically 2 categories: The Gee Wizz James Bond type technology costing outrageous sums and utter crap that most shade tree mechanics could best. The whole procurement system is really broken and there is a lot of suspicious favoritism going on if you look closely. Just like in every other Gov’t business YKW gets preferential treatment and sweet heart contracts. It is also unbelievable at how sloppy the Gov’t is at keeping track of equipment and monies. When said company I worked for went belly-up and was bought by another outfit, the Gov’t had to come by and inventory stuff that belonged to them because they had no idea what we had. I could have literally ‘walked’ away with a Bradley fighting vehicle (20mm cannon & all) and classified comm systems because they had lost track of them and didn’t even know we had them.

    • mindweapon says:

      President Vladimir Putin expresses his full support for affirmative action in the USA Department of Defense.

      Actually KGB Political Directorate drafted affirmative action legislation back in Nixon era.

  6. Sam says:

    I’m of two minds about our military. True an enormous amount of money has been wasted. Much of it is unfocused and devoid of common sense when it comes to survival in modern warfare.

    On the other had you can’t spend as much money as we have and not have anything worth a poot. We have a tremendous amount of equipment. Some of it top notch. F-22 are stealthy and will destroy you. Our capability for battlefield awareness in the air is extremely good. Awacs and Hawkeye radar planes know “everything” in the sky. If they can see it they can also vector fighters to it. The immense amount of F-15’s,F-14’s, F-18″s and F-16’s (obsolete NOT) we have in inventory are far better than much of what is in the air.
    Once you have control of the air who gives a shit what kind of artillery the enemy has. It’s just another target. Remember we’re talking about real war here. Not peace action or building Democracy or any of that crap. After the air is controlled who cares about bridges. We can move whatever we want with helicopters, C-5’s and C-17’s.
    Just because we suck at guerrilla warfare and do good, hearts and minds doesn’t mean our military is incapable. Just how long did it take us to go across the world and kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan? Only because the rules were. Defeat them. People say,”well they’ll just retreat into the woods and fight a guerrilla war. Not if we burn the damn woods down.

    There’s a lot of talk about China kicking our ass. Ha. They do have a point that aircraft carriers are obsolete. They are overpriced for what they do and a waste of resources but they’re far from useless. They destroy three of our carriers. Well we have eight more. Anyone who wants to sink one has to get to it. Difficult. They say cruise missiles will take them out but it’s not easy to hit what you can’t see. If China attacked us in a real war how long do you think they would have satellite capability? Not long. If the battle was over Taiwan, which I’m against us guaranteeing the safety of, our nuclear hunter killer subs would…well hunt and kill. Troop transport would be a Chinese disaster.

    Lest you be confused I’m for removing ALL our bases from over seas except those to guarantee our access to oil. Without oil we would have a mass die off. Also getting out of all alliances. I’m not a war monger but far from a pacifist.

    We could also save a fortune with a little change in structure and equipment. Here’ a great link with copious amounts of simple good sense ideas from cutting bases and extra personal to innovative weapon systems.

    I particularly like this idea. 747 or C-5 aircraft fitted out with rotary internal bomb racks. 72 in each aircraft of, cruise missiles, or anti-ship missiles or bombs or whatever. 10 of these would be a global flying platform of death.

  7. Sam says:

    One tech that we really should have is concrete nuclear submarines. We have concrete good to 100,000 psi. It could be poured in a dry dock and floated out. Concretes cheap so we could make it big enough to put all our planes in. Surface to launch them. It would also be big enough for all our transport planes to land on. Here’s a paper on long term concrete sphere immersion.

    I’ve even though about propulsion and sensors on concrete submarines. Build a transformer that has the wires on each side of the hull. No holes in the hull. Electric drive for the motors and all actuators. An acrylic thru hull port would allow fiber optics for communication with sensors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s