Comments on: Death Stars Bad, Droids Good

By: Mike in Boston

Mike in Boston — Thu, 08 May 2014 16:39:55 +0000

“Cheap winners, expensive losers” also makes for a good investment strategy: it seems to me that when low-margin producers of small, low-cost equipment start coming out with bigger, higher-end stuff, they generally eat the lunch of the slow-moving, high-cost, high-margin incumbents.

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Wed, 07 May 2014 18:45:16 +0000

I had forgotten about that Zhukov quote, but it is very apropos.

I had actually intended my “yet” to imply that it was not yet under development by a potential adversary of the US but likely soon would be, rather than your (amusing) interpretation that the country in question was not yet an adversary but might become one. In this case that seems rather unlikely, but in general you make a good point.

By: Toddy Cat

Toddy Cat — Wed, 07 May 2014 18:19:32 +0000

I believe that it was Zhukov who said, “Complexity should always be done in the simplest way possible”. And yeah, “Yet” is probably the proper phrasing. Who knows, the country in question might fail to recognize gay marriage or take steps to stamp out cishet privilige, thus rendering them our enemy.

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Wed, 07 May 2014 18:10:04 +0000

Thankfully not. Yet.

By: Toddy Cat

Toddy Cat — Wed, 07 May 2014 18:03:37 +0000

“There was essentially no interest expressed, and earlier this week I saw that the concept is now being developed/tested by another country’s armed services.”

That’s gotta drive you nuts. With any luck, it’s not being developed by a potential adversary…

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Wed, 07 May 2014 17:48:22 +0000

I agree, Toddy Cat. I find Sprey’s analyses refreshing; I’m especially interested in his strong pro-APC, anti-IFV perspective. He, and those like him, do tend to overdo things in the manner you describe. The M48 vs. M1 comparison in the linked document is especially groan-worthy, for instance.

I have some personal experience with the DOD’s preference for big, complex, contractor-fattening systems of marginal value. For the last couple of years I’ve been repeatedly trying to interest the Army or a contractor in developing a concept I originated that would represent a cheap, easy-to-develop/deploy, and robust way to solve a serious problem and greatly improve the combat performance of certain systems. There was essentially no interest expressed, and earlier this week I saw that the concept is now being developed/tested by another country’s armed services.

By: Toddy Cat

Toddy Cat — Wed, 07 May 2014 17:30:13 +0000

The “Military Reformers” like Sprey almost always overstate their case and cherry-pick their data, which leaves them open to criticism, but they do have some valid points and insights. Even if one believes in complexity with regard to weapon systems, there’s no doubt that we pay too much and get too little.