do I know you?
Fixing US weapons r&d
Samuel Gonzalez
Isaiah Taylor
It's me, user.
Jayden Harris
Call in every C-level executive of every current military contractor, then execute them all for treason.
Proceed to hire new guys and tell them that they shouldn't try to treat the state as as their personal bottomless wallet unless they want to end up like their forebears.
Then start to focus on ruggedness and cheap/quick to produce stuff instead of the most high-tech stuff, because that's also good enough to kill hadjis and can actually win a war against a near-equal opponent instead of being unable to replace losses after the first week of fighting.
Josiah Nguyen
Just stop funding research and instead say "we won't buy your shit unless its good", let Lockeeb fund their own damn R&D. We don't even really need much of a military anyways as long as we have operational nukes, almost all of our funding should be directed towards space and missile defense. The only purpose that a standing army serves is protecting Israel through regime change wars, which we obviously do not need or benefit from. You can't take over the US without nukes because everyone here has guns, and you can't take over the US with nukes because we will just nuke you back.
Jayden Turner
Was Eisenhower right?
Nathaniel Hall
Not reading 90 pages unless you can assure me whatever policy is laid out doesn't put money in the pockets of the inherently jewish military industrial complex.
Connor Johnson
I used to work for a company that bought a lot of shit from state industry in china and lots of times you could ask for absolutely stupid tier deals and they'd agree because the guys selling and making shit had no idea what it cost to make or sell.
this is hyperbole but not all wrong. Look at California cancelling its hugely expensive high speed rail. This country is (due to institutional rot, de-industrialization, and browning and it's associated corruption) literally incapable of large industrial projects.
Cameron Fisher
Break up Lockheeb, General Dynamics and maybe Boeing for good measure.
Stop enabling kitchen-sink projects like the JSF where additional roles and features are added mid-development with no regard for whether the project can still perform its initial function. If the designers think they can adapt it to a new role then let them run with it, but the new variant must be broken off into its own project so the two variants don't drag each other down with incompatible or superfluous requirements (so the land-based JSF doesn't have to worry about the CATOBAR model's size limits and structural requirements, the CATOBAR model doesn't have to worry about the VTOL model's weight limits and the VTOL model doesn't have to worry about the other models' supercruise and stealth requirements). This actually saves R&D costs in some cases, because much of the Joint Shekel Finder's development problems were from trying to fit an increasingly long list of features into the already-overloaded VTOL airframe.
Stop authorizing projects like the LCS that have no clearly-defined role. In my hunt to figure out what the actual purpose of the LCS was supposed to be, I discovered that the USN literally just ordered them for no reason (aside from the (((usual reasons))), of course) and then invented a need for them years later to justify the investment:
The designers clearly knew they wanted some kind of patrol boat, but they couldn't seem to agree on what kind. The specification alternates between a relatively large and capable blue-water ASW corvette, a small and fast green-water gunboat or a multipurpose patrol ship with mine warfare capabilities, and somewhere along the line they threw in a requirement for amphibious warfare capabilities because it replaced a LHD in the budget. But because they never actually decided on a role, the result is this total clusterfuck of a ship that isn't good at any of these roles.
Along the same lines, stop waiting until all of our actually important equipment is 50 years old and literally falling apart before developing a replacement. This is a problem that affects every branch, but the USN are the ones feeling it the worst: we retired all our heavy ASMs twenty years ago, are just now adopting a stopgap replacement that barely improves on its predecessor, and haven't even drawn up the requirements for an actual successor yet. Our frigate fleet is the same story, our last FFG was scrapped in 2015 but we didn't start searching for a replacement until 2017 and won't actually order any until 2020.
Place strict limits on all future warships to counteract the size and mission creep that's been plaguing all our surface combatants since the 70s, and redesignate the Zumwalts as cruisers while we're at it. Arleigh Burkes get to stay because we can't afford to replace them in the escort role just yet and it would be silly to have a fleet of nothing but cruisers.
No, that was the exact opposite of the winning strategy. The USSR had the advantage in a nuclear exchange for most of the Cold War, but we could take the economic hit from a few Koreas and Vietnams a lot better than the Soviets could.
Sebastian Hernandez
Fuck the jews.
Fuck liberals.
Fuck darkies.
Colonial bloodline only R&D.
Pragmatism over progress.
Unified munitions and fuel.
Cheap, dependable, durable.
US only industry.
Camden Clark
...