(1) Back in the 1980's when I managed the Navy's weapons budgets, I suggested that development schedules be compressed into as small a period as possible, with unlimited amounts of money thrown at it to see if the technology worked. If it did, move to manufacturing production and field it. Then upgrade it as technology and performance indicated. Seems we're going back to the future. (2) Like the 3% penalty concept, but the contractors should pay half of that. Real cash! That's the way to enforce discipline on their side.

I propose we consider 'best North Korean practice' of firing the PM and the Contractor management ... with AAA.

I should hope that the services in their development contracting, would add clauses that allow the service branch to either collect penalties or award competitors should the contractor fail to meet a deadline or requirement.I do agree that this should be put into law though, because it would shift any enmity a contractor might have to congress rather than the military.

Mr McCain that's Scrod (past perfect for...)

When you want something badly that's the way you get it, badly. The example of what you get when you cut through the 'red tape' is called MDA. To date they expend 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire DOD RDT&E budget, deliver slowly and badly if at all (with a terrible record on the test range). 240+ billion spent with perhaps 30 billion worth of delivered assets of dubious operational value.

For the rapid lasers; that will waste another 8+ B USD if we try it seriously, physics is not your friend as Ashton Carter showed in his youth at OSTP.

The "welfare state"? I presume that those who use the term mean the M.I.C., not the people down in the trenches" All this "new and that" being talked about/planed, adds another layer to the already over layered DoD. How about just a plain good old fashioned house cleaning? The usual methods employed, only serve to cover up, what should have been shit canned long ago.

In this austere budgetary environment we cannot afford to build special purpose craft that can only do one thing, and then not do that one thing everywhere. Cant send LCS to the Arctic. Cant send one to the South China Sea without the PLA Navy Bird-dogging it the whole time. That first sentence does not describe the A-10!

One can only hope the directed Energy Weapons come on faster.

There is nothing "austere" about the majority of the federal budget, the welfare state is growing at an ever increasing rate. For some reason the only time we hear talk of "budget austerity" is when the subject of defense comes up, even among advocates of a strong defense.

Exactly, one week you read how the US can't afford to add a few billion to defense and the next week Obama allocates $9 billion for 'unaccompanied illegals immigrant children' wow where did that money come from?

Whom he's trying to make voters. Redefinition of Citizenship!

Although there is some truth in your statement, the welfare state in not in the constitution, defending the country is in the constitution as a singular and primary responsibility of the federal government of These United States. This is the most dangerous time for our nation's defense I have ever experienced in my life, and I turn 60 in a month. We are building some things we have enough of, and do not need (tanks perhaps), not building enough of some things we need (F-22s), building some wrong headed things (LCS either flavor), and not building some things we that are absolutely essential (a real small surface combatant and an A-10 replacement, and that replacement is not the single engine stealth F-35). The wrong powers are running procurement and planning, and a blind man can see it. Just look at all the USAF 707 aircraft powered by TF33 engines that must go away or be upgraded in a fairly short period of time. If a shooting war started out in the Pacific we would be looking for C-5Ms in every nook and cranny, and the C-5As are not in the conversion list. Can't replace that airframe and capability for the cost of the mods, that just happen to be at their most efficient level at present. The USAF has decided, contrary to the lawmakers decision, that they WILL NOT modify Legacy C-130H aircraft in the Guard and Reserves. There are some very interesting things going on in defense these days, and many of them are not good.

As I review my Air Force Magazine (May issue - Almanac), so many things just leap off the page at you. the Air Force and Navy are my two things I understand the best. these things are:

A-10C - There really is no replacement. Unmanned and smart weapons aren't good enough yet, and there is no substitute for 'eyes on target'. Who determines this? 'The CUSTOMER', and that is the combat troop on the ground! Obviously the USAF has not talked to (unless it was carefully orchestrated . . or . "It's Treason to say anything but the party line"), or does not care, about the customers opinion of the service THEY (the customer) receives. So much for "Do unto others...). Until a multi-engine aircraft is built, that can meet the same specification requirements for CAS (this "CAS is a platform agnostic" thing is BS, and the statement is made by those who do not know, have not done, or do not care about our troops on the ground) and absorb the damage, and still get home, this debate will persist, because the opposition is "On a River in Egypt".

The Legacy C-130H modification program is where the United States Air Force is displaying its greatest contempt and disrespect for our elected form of government, placing our airmen in danger, thumbing their nose at the State Governors (particularly during times of Emergency, Disaster and Distress), and not seeing to the safety and security of our citizenry. Shows you their true heart. A modification program for every Legacy C-130H for:
A) structural inspections for wing box cracks and other structural items
B) T56 v3.5 engine upgrade
C) Hamilton Sundstrand NP2000 propeller mods
D) already paid for CNS/ATM modification with AMP packages . . . the USAF has just decided they will not do it.

Replacement, upgrade, and mandatory modification of Boeing 707 based aircraft with TF33 engines.
JointSTARS - P-8 AGS hangs in the wings, but I would get the RAAF E-7A Wedgetail and put the Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS) canoe on it, and mod it over time.

The P-8A airframe would be a better candidate for this concept. This aircraft would replace JointSTARS and AWACS in a single program, with multi-mission capability right up front. Many things that used to be console modes are now software modules. Commonality of platform world wide makes sense on so many levels: training (maintenance and operations), logistical support of the platform readiness regardless of AOR, and CNS/ATM plus emission and noise requirements are all met, with a platform with room for growth. For RC mission aircraft just leave off the overhead fairing . . . perhaps.

KC-10A Extender. The desire to retire this Joint asset is more a cost saving item, and designed to capture maintenance troops than anything else (Bean Counters on Parade). The USAF has not structured the replacement schedule to fill these key Joint Refueling Capability slots first. Until the KC-46A is out in numbers, bringing with it availability of the Dual Refueling capability, and be out in sufficient numbers to respond to Joint tasking in a timely manner (and that support could be sooner than 96 hrs, we are talking about Real World Here!), the USAF should give up any attempt to retire the KC-10A Extenders. As it is, the USAF has tried to leave their sister services in a lurch by just canceling the program, with no 'plan in place' to handle this very important tasking. If the USAF developed a KC-10A Extender Replacement Program with KC-46A Pegasus basing priorities in mind, as they are introduced into the inventory, then the sister services, who depend upon this Hose & Drogue capability, would not be so concerned. That plan has been lacking to date. USAF myopia is concentrating elsewhere. As in almost every modernization program the USAF has fielded, its as if they develop it in a vacuum, with no consideration for sister service (or Allied) needs, desires, or requirements. One force huh?

USAF Leadership is LACKING across the board.

Curtis - I presume that you believe that physics is correct. I presume you accept the value of T&E with real articles and live-fire? Dr Carter did the lethality scaling, its correct. T&E with megawatt systems showed vast problems that were not tied to the laser systems.

Given those 2 presumptions, directed Energy "Weapons" aren't weapons. Why exactly do you keep subscribing to such hopes?

I have often thought that working with Plasma is how we are going to have to address this issue.

I'm not a physicist, but an optimist. G-d in His wisdom has not given me all the answers, but when a light begins to glimmer on the horizon, I see the sun rising.

My emphasis for guided projectiles coming out of 5" guns is something we do have a good handle on, and the US Navy has seen fit in its infinite wisdom to leave it lay, while the rest of the planet (and the US Army) march forward with very capable guided projectiles coming our of artillery tubes guided by GPS, and sometimes laser energy. Facilitating that is supported, in any initiative that involves lasers aboard ship. The demonstrator that went to the Arabian Sea was a case in point, not just as a so - so weapon, but an outstanding sensor/director. Passive combat system capability - here we come.

As for lethality . . . I believe man in his finite knowledge and ability, that is increasing in leaps and bounds on an every increasing exponential way, is going to reach the break-point at some point. When that occurs, multiple deck spots large enough to handle Mk15 CIWS and equipment spaces, with room for the Capacitance Modules, and ample power supplied to provide rapid recharge, will be necessary. If that work is done up front, with what we know now, I believe we will have technological breakthroughs very shortly (months not years). THAT is what I believe. Although I do agree with the statements that "there are liars, damn liars . . . and then there are laser people".

Ok, you doubt (which is healthy). Optimism has a price that we seem to spend again and again. Belief in lasers / railguns costs in terms of robbing the Navy of near term capabilities with improved conventional artillery. Choices cost.

I wanted the artillery, and they made the decision to abandon that path before I left in '97. Where would we be now if we had persisted. We would be killing aircraft with 5" projectiles going after IR signatures, and seeing laser illuminated targets. And that technology has been mature for some time (Bird in the Hand). but I still like that Bird in the Bush. As you lament, it has burned up too much budget, for too little return.