Speaker A
You really got to get rid of that janky IKEA thing you have behind you. That's got to go. We got to, I got to behind me.
Discussion on A-10 Warthogs, $1.5T defense budget, hypersonic tech, and defense startups on Goat Rodeo Podcast episode #50.
Key Takeaways
- Herus is advancing hypersonic uncrewed aircraft technology with significant funding.
- Defense venture capital remains active with major deals like Shield AI's $2B raise.
- Hypersonic tech development is rapid but still debated between hype and feasibility.
- Podcast balances technical defense topics with informal, relatable host interactions.
- The $1.5T defense budget prompts discussion on which programs might be cut.
Summary
- Hosts discuss personal anecdotes and casual banter before diving into defense topics.
- Coverage of recent defense venture news including Shield AI's $2B financing and acquisition of Echelon.
- Focus on Herus' $350M Series C funding and their Quarter Horse uncrewed hypersonic aircraft project.
- Explanation of turbine-based combined cycle engine technology called Chimera for hypersonic flight.
- Debate on the realism versus hype of hypersonic tech and rapid aircraft development timelines.
- Insight into cultural references such as punk vs post-punk music and personal style choices of hosts.
- Mention of the $1.5 trillion defense budget and programs that could be cut, though details are limited in excerpt.
- Casual tone with humor and personal stories interwoven with technical defense discussions.
- Hosts include Garrett Smith, Dave Codle, and returning guest Simon, with producer Ian managing transitions.
- Podcast blends defense industry updates with personality-driven commentary and listener engagement.
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah. This crate and barrel bookshelf. The crate and barrel janky IKEA. This is like my nicest piece of furniture.
Speaker A
It's like my [ __ ] out of here. It looks like it's going to buckle under the weight of all of your accomplishments.
Speaker A
Stern, no, I'm going to stay in Northern VA over the next trip, and then I'm going to come to Richmond and you and I are going to do that.
Speaker A
Yeah, you come check out my place. See how [ __ ] up my baseboards are. That's what's really going to hurt your heart.
Speaker A
They're bad. They're not touching the floor. I'm not replacing your baseboards.
Speaker A
You got to talk to how to fix that. I'm not replacing your baseboards. Let Simon, let Simon the adult handle his own household. And there's so little.
Speaker A
There's a giant framed print of a cybernetic tiger fighting a cybernetic dragon sitting on the floor where it's going to get hung eventually at the top of my staircase.
Speaker A
It's been sitting there for weeks. I am amazed. I am amazed that you have women over there and they don't immediately leave, Simon. Like it must just be very few women are allowed in this house.
Speaker A
Just magnetic personality alone. Yeah. You got to, it's all about withholding.
Speaker A
Some women really like a very, very comfortable house cat. Yeah. What about Simon's house cat? Simon doesn't have a house cat. Simon is in my late 30s. I'm not bringing over strangers. Anyone that comes to my house knows me well and knows exactly what
Speaker A
they're getting into. So there are laughs occasionally, but there are very few.
Speaker A
Oh, hey. Yeah. Let's do it. I've got a, I was walking by the beverage options in my house and decided this was the one
Speaker A
for the day. This can of America right here. This is caffeinated carbonated liquid America in my hand. And for some reason, it's got like a digital pattern explosion all over it. I mean, ripping.
Speaker A
So you can, it's so you can chug it while you're playing Call of Duty and streaming on Twitch, which is my typical weekend activity, as you know, Dave. That's where I live on the weekends. That's where I live on the
Speaker A
weekends. Another little piece of America I want to show you guys. I was gifted this custom hat by none other than John Martin, famous cowboy hat maker here in Bozeman, Montana. I'm not usually a
Speaker A
big cowboy hat guy, but what do you think? What do you think? You like it?
Speaker A
I like the hat band, Dave. I feel like it is going to have more your comments, Dave. You know, send them.
Speaker A
Yeah, I got nothing. Be further customized. Or you know what, Dave? For you, I don't have to wear it at all. If it's offensive in some way to you, I don't have to wear it at all.
Speaker A
Not at all. You're your own to your Bozeman neighbors and what you can get away with there. No, I have no comments.
Speaker A
No comment. All right. Well, do the people of the north wear cowboy hats? Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Speaker A
It's ubiquitous. You go out in the country far enough, you're going to find cowboy hats and cowboys.
Speaker A
That's what I figured. Just wanted to check. Ro and Dodge Ram 25. You know me, I never like to say things unless I know for sure. I'm always very well researched, so I don't want to commit to something without
Speaker A
I can't tell what flavor this is. This is insane. It's orange camo. Duh. It's high fructose corn syrup flavor.
Speaker A
Got it. It's the taste of orange camouflage, which is most useful in a city environment. Got it. Dan, hold on. I'm going to put this back on.
Speaker A
I need you to actually comment on the hat. You basically said no comment, which to me actually, I'm a guy who I'm in need of affirmation at some level. If you don't want to opt that, that's fine, but at least like
Speaker A
give me the straight dress. Make me look fat. There's no good answers here, dude.
Speaker A
Well, no. What? That looks like a very high quality hat. With all of that, welcome back, fellas, to the Guilt Rodeo podcast. I'm your host Garrett Smith, regular host I should add, and I'm joined by regular
Speaker A
co-host Dave Codle, and returning the prodigal son of the podcast, Simon [ __ ] returning from a week off of laziness, travel, and being a nerd.
Speaker A
Well, thanks Simon for condescending to join us. I know that we usually do this at the end of the podcast, but explain your clothing.
Speaker A
I'm wondering about the shirt and the hat. That's what I'm wondering about. The hat is just a Montana National Guard patch, which I think is one of the coolest patches. Pretty cool in all of the National Guard. I think
Speaker A
it's really underrated because everybody wants to look tough, but this thing is just like classic Americana. Just the mountain with the sunbursts. Awesome.
Speaker A
Great. The shirt's a band called High Viz, British post punk, hardcore band. Awesome band. Highly recommend.
Speaker A
What's post punk as opposed to punk? It's just a different, it's like a cultural signifier as the wheel sort of turns. So a lot of people will call Fugazi post punk, like the first big post punk band I would say.
Speaker A
And those guys, after having been punk legends in DC, wanted to make more nuanced and sophisticated music and it didn't really fit the idea of we're going to play three chords as fast and as loud as possible and just be angry
Speaker A
all the time. So, it's often people who came out of punk rock, but they are trying to mature musically, sonically, etc.
Speaker A
Do you feel like you are more attuned to the OG punk or to the post punk scene? Which speaks to you?
Speaker A
We're going to really step inside the psyche assignment here. My preference for, I've been trying to do this for over a year at this point in the podcast, trying to get you to come out of the
Speaker A
shell. So, come on out. Yeah. My preference for punk and alternative music is that which sounds the most violent. That's what drew me in.
Speaker A
Interesting. Still? Yeah, that was the original kind of draw, but is it still draw? Still, I have a much more diverse taste now, but I think when it all boils back down to it,
Speaker A
yeah. Yes. With all of that, I'm sure producer Ian is going to weave all these things together in a clean, non-abrupt segue of sorts. But to get us back on topic, there wasn't a ton in the last week
Speaker A
or so of defense venture news. Aside, you know, we covered a lot of mega round type stuff last week with Seronic and, you know, Andre still on the move. Shield AI, together, I think, $2 billion financing package in
Speaker A
part to acquire a company called Echelon, which I mispronounced last week. I didn't know how to pronounce it, which is, I think, shame on them, honestly, for naming their company something that nobody can pronounce right off hand. But whatever.
Speaker A
Echelon. And interesting kind of depth of deal structure there that I found to be very interesting with JP Morgan involved in a range of other things.
Speaker A
But this week I want to talk about friend of the podcast or at least friend of the company Zack Shore, who's the president over at Herus. Herus just announced a significant $350 million series C. And Herus is building
Speaker A
a platform called the Quarter Horse, which is an uncrewed aircraft that is, I think, on track for, you know, like hypersonic turbojet to ramjet transition type capability. They've got an engine called a turbine-based combined cycle
Speaker A
engine that they've called Chimera, which is all about building the fastest possible aircraft that can go toe-to-toe with or even overmatch against adversary capabilities in the hypersonic realm. I may have gotten it wrong. Zack, if you're
Speaker A
listening, give me a poke and tell me that I'm wrong. Would love to have you on to talk about it.
Speaker A
But what are you guys, are you guys paying attention to this?
Speaker A
something like a third of the company. So what um what say you? Um is this just tech bro hype? Is it real? Zach comes from kind of a legacy of androl high performing androl operations and a bunch of other stuff. What say you about this
Speaker A
class of technology? I mean the uh the quarter horse went from like clean sheet design to a flying airplane in 18 months.
Speaker A
Yeah. Which is insane. Yeah. It's crazy. It is. People don't make quadcopter drones that fast from design.
Speaker A
Uh so is it real? Absolutely. That thing flies. There's there's no two ways about it. That is an uh a hypersonic jet that doesn't have a pilot sitting inside of it. And like it is the most science fictiony version in my mind version of
Speaker A
this um this autonomous concept because if if you like get really into the space of super high-end jets, the limiting factor becomes the human. Like it's how much force can a human actually receive upon them? how long can they fly stuff
Speaker A
yada yada yada. So the quarter horse is like the only that I know of autonomous platform that is like let's go faster than humans can tolerate with a plane.
Speaker A
Uh which is fascinating. I think it's awesome. I also think yeah it's going to take an extraordinary amount of money and infrastructure and those guys are always in that game like they're testing infrastructure is whole companies worth of of capital alignment and and
Speaker A
investment. So part of the uh fundraising is going toward a a transition of headquarters move from Atlanta to Elsagundo, California in Southern California, which is you know like one of the major Wow, I didn't know they were moving to
Speaker A
California. Interesting. Yeah. One of the in and Elsagundo and kind of that that Southern California corridor is all about space, defense, aerospace, all that stuff. And um they're building a full-scale production facility um as I understand it in one of
Speaker A
these locations. um for Darkhorse, which is the multi-m missission hypersonic drone that um they've kind of marketed in advance of reality. But I mean, they've they're on pace to deliver capability in my estimation. And I just talked with Zach a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker A
maybe a month or so ago, and um he was very very optimistic and excited and uh I have a huge respect for him and the team.
Speaker A
Yeah. I guess the the question the question now right is the pivot from essentially building uh a bay style construction of a single thing to can you scale can you can you crank out that's right a whole number of platforms which is
Speaker A
also another hard challenge was that our conversation last week Dave um is volume and scale and manufacturability is like the key lynchpin factor that the US seems to kind of stumble on every time we can build great prototype capability at low
Speaker A
volume can we get to volume and scale Yeah, absolutely. And this one's this one's interesting because and I haven't followed them closely since they were the early their early strap by five days as we were approaching ours as they were
Speaker A
also working with DIU, but I mean we used to uh I used to track them pretty closely, but haven't haven't in years, but they seem to have a real foothold in the hypersonics and they sort of have hedged their bet here. they can go into
Speaker A
production and they're, you know, going to position to scale production. But if they're also the folks that have the infrastructure to do test on hypersonics, then every they also have every customer of every defense contractor in the defense industrial
Speaker A
base. So they don't even have to and you know from my perspective um they will win production contracts. A significant part of their business is going to be the hypersonics smearkhorse.
Speaker A
I think it's pretty interesting too that um in that uh effort to chase manufacturability and scale there are other companies um you know Hrien Hrien is one of those that um is kind of you know manufacture the spare and
Speaker A
replacement parts for everything kind of a company and they just opened a a facility called factory 4 which I understand is still kind of like just a big empty former uh train manufacturing or servicing depot that doesn't actually
Speaker A
it hasn't yet produced things and They're not actually like building stuff there yet, but it's kind of vision and they're raising money on just that vision. In in my estimation, we need to see more Hermus type activities that are
Speaker A
transitioning actual real capability and manufacturability into scale, which I'm I'm hoping they can stand up quickly.
Speaker A
And I I I just love the kind of set an aggressive goal, hit it, deliver capability on time and um and at scale.
Speaker A
So, um, I'm looking forward to goodness coming from these guys and I think the I'll double down on the I think the infrastructure component of this is interesting. I don't actually know what you need for test infrastructure for hypersonics, but I
Speaker A
assume you know the wind tunnels like I assume the wind tunnels that the Boeings and Loy Martins use are not sufficient.
Speaker A
This is probably a whole new set of infrastructure ex expensive exquisite systems that you need to position yourself as the hypersonics test center.
Speaker A
There are famously so few that uh TRMC had to like take an old mothballed NASA wind tunnel and like repurpose it with DoD dollars just just to get some like hypersonic test infrastructure up and running. Um I I think um I've read a
Speaker A
couple of articles over the past week or so about a transition in the venture investor space, specifically in the defense venture space away from pure software where it's kind of challenging as we've discovered even though I think we're a rare case of success in building
Speaker A
and deploying and selling at at scale real software capability that is pure software. It's not just you know hardware with embedded software or a services package with embedded software.
Speaker A
But there is a transition underway from uh pure software SAS solutions to enriched or rich hardware or hardware richness and Hermes is an example of that where obviously there's going to be a heavy lift on building the software to
Speaker A
adequately pilot run maintain operate uh build uh you know the whole the whole value chain there for for their systems.
Speaker A
um ditto the seronic stuff, ditto anderol. So like there's a there's a a bit of a transition or a pivot away from the pure software plays to hardware centric uh capabilities. I that's I think in my mind been quite obvious.
Speaker A
That's where almost all of the large venture rounds the mega rounds are coming from. Um basically hardware companies with uh an infused uh AI or softwarebased capability. Ditto ditto maritime autonomy. It's not just in the aviation space, right? It's a maritime
Speaker A
as as we just mentioned with Seronic and and others. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see and that's going to fly in some ways uh in the face of this like MOSA push. Um, and there's like a there's a there's a tough
Speaker A
atom to split here of as venture-backed companies build more and more sophisticated and exquisite DoD solutions. It's it's kind of the nature of the game that when you build a worldclass six gen aircraft that you're going to build bespoke software for it.
Speaker A
Um and you're going to see DoD pushing for the opposite in some ways where they want, you know, uh autonomy packages and command and control softwares that can work across multiple things. This is this is an interesting space I think
Speaker A
particularly when you look at like applied intuition. Um who is still I think one of the few that's trying to do like truly pure software. Um and they're essentially trying to put you know autonomous agents on other people's
Speaker A
exquisite platforms now. They they want fighter jets and the next generation of autonomous drone drone wingmen to be using applied intuition pilots. Um which I'm sure everybody Andrew Northrup Grman etc are all developing their own autonomy software. Um so there's going
Speaker A
to be an interesting competition there as well. And if I'm the air force do I want unlike you think about it as replacing the pilot. It's Air Force pilots driving historical exquisite equipment, but now I'm going to rely on the company to
Speaker A
provide an autonomous pilot. Uh, and I'm going to have a different type of autonomous pilot in every platform. Not the ideal scenario, but maybe the reality of like building tech at this level of sophistication. Um, I'm going to use this as an opportunity to segue.
Speaker A
We're talking about uh crude or manned aircraft. Uh, we saw two different American aircraft shot down in the context of Iran, one over the mainland and one over the straits. One of the one of the aircraft, an A-10 Warthog, which
Speaker A
is a [ __ ] legendary platform. It's flown close air support for me in combat. Incredible platform. Um, over the straight of Hormuz, and an F-15E, am I right? an F-15 of some some variant of the F-15 shot down over the over uh the
Speaker A
actual mainland um uh in the internal spaces of Iran. And there was kind of a a daring uh pilot rescue by special operations forces. But it does underscore this idea that like crude aircraft are still the standard um for
Speaker A
significant uh air campaigns like what's happening right now between Israel, Iran, and the United States. Um so Dave, I'm going to hand the mic off to you. I think this is this gets into your territory um as we segue into Iran
Speaker A
context and what that means for the defense tech space. Yeah. So the the A the A10 itself is a really interesting case and I' I'd rather there's so many things to talk about in the context of Iran. Um but
Speaker A
from the you know defense industry side of things I think that the A10s are really interesting uh has a really interesting history and procurement history. So the you know this platform well and love it probably like I do
Speaker A
because this thing was, you know, purpose built for to support the ground maneuver elements to support the infantry and soft operations. So you know, you've got Vietnam going on, we've got fastoving jets and um the need for really intentional design systems for
Speaker A
close air support and we're looking at the Cold War and we need something to support the the ground pounders and the ground maneuver and destroy Russian tanks. So they take this exquisite depleted uranium round shooting gun and build the aircraft around it. Uh but
Speaker A
there was a lot of push back from the air force uh that sees themselves as owning the you know the close air support mission. Um but the United States Army the you know the uh key stakeholder in and protecting those
Speaker A
soldiers like no you know close air we have a lot of skin in the game for for close air support and the associated systems. So you got this sort of culture clash uh between the army and the air
Speaker A
force or the air force wanting fastm moving stuff that feel looks and feels like fighter jets and the army wanting a really long loiter time lowaltitude big gun uh to fly around and destroy things.
Speaker A
Um and so we've been talking about killing the A-10 for many years. I think the Air Force still kind of hates it. Um with the exception am rescue missions.
Speaker A
Am I right, Dave, in in saying that there has been like a spikes every so often of like a retirement program is just about to get executed or they're in the process of slowly downscaling and retiring.
Speaker A
Yeah, we're we're going to we're going to turn them in uh and divest of the A10 any day now. I feel like there's been an article on that every year for the last 10 years, right?
Speaker A
Um and it never goes away. And the the search and rescue mission is interesting just because you know what do you want in a I I feel like the search and rescue mission is part of the reason it's still
Speaker A
on board is because what do you want in a search and rescue scenario? You want a steel a pilot in a steel bathtub with a huge gun in a long winter time uh to uh to protect that pilot or the or their
Speaker A
rescue forces. Um I like you I love the airframe. I've uh I've done walk-in shoots with it. I've it's helped me out uh in a pinch before. Um but the air force just doesn't which has sort of a
Speaker A
bigger the larger topic there is using the aten as an example this is a problem across the board with uh systems development and procurement where there's a seam between the services and one size doesn't fit all um or there's
Speaker A
an argument over who owns what portion of the mission and we see this with UAS systems and who owns what altitude and who owns the airspace and who owns the ability to to strike um between the army and the air force and the airlatoral and
Speaker A
is it are we deconlicting by the size of system whose responsibility is it is it by group of UAS system and we see the same thing in the counter UAS fight. So this using the agent as example like
Speaker A
this seam between services and who owns what um is is playing out live right now uh as we move towards autonomous systems to Simon's point. So, real quick, I mean, there's a there's a bunch of interesting stuff on the A-10 in this
Speaker A
particular conflict because the A-10 got shot down over the water because the A-10 is not flying over the land because it cannot it is an unbelievable target.
Speaker A
Um, and the fact that they were deployed at all suggested like just the extent to which the air the the US forces had degraded Iranian air defenses. But they're basically using them to shoot mines out of the water. that like that's
Speaker A
what the A-10 is doing right now in Iran. It is strafing the straits trying to knock out mines and trying to keep the straits clear. Even with degraded air defenses, that thing is a sitting duck anywhere over land that has like
Speaker A
something close to an industrial air defense capability. Uh, and yes, the Air Force hates it. And the only reason it still exists is because of Congress.
Speaker A
You're welcome. Also, I'm sorry. A and I've got to believe that at some level there is there there are gaps as Dave is describing in conops and conmps where the A10 is still at some level relevant.
Speaker A
Right. So it's it's it's a it's a combination but absolutely Congress has been instrumental in keeping the the programs alive. Um I I think we're probably mothballing or selling those platforms to other countries at this point. I I seem to recall reading about
Speaker A
we've been slowly degrading those those units for a long time. And like the the other challenge of the A-10, which is the challenge ind the whole industrial base is like maintaining the A10 becomes psychotically more expensive all the
Speaker A
time. They haven't made an A-10 in decades. Those parts aren't being manufactured. Like all of that becomes much more difficult on on the maintainers because the industrial base is just not built to support it. So between what sits between what's your
Speaker A
third option then some between for ground support AH64 or F-35 like there has to be an in between right so well the the honest answer is the F-15 like that is the F-15E the F-15EX all those those variants that Boeing pushes uh
Speaker A
both are utilized much more heavily than than the A10 in in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Um, but the A-10 just leaves such a much bigger impact culturally on the people on the ground that they're they're really not interested in seeing the statistics on
Speaker A
what the actual workhorse of close air support is during the GW. It's not the A10. The A-10 does not come close to being the close air support workhorse of the GWAT. U it just when it's there, you know it's there. And when an F10's
Speaker A
there, you don't really know. You just see something blow up. You're like, "Ah, cool. The hand of God reached down." But the A10's like, "No, the hand of God is watching over me. It's very loud. I can feel the blanket."
Speaker A
A10 goes burr. A10 goes. I mean, it it was it's like as psychologically effective as it is materially, physically effective, right?
Speaker A
I mean, it's it is loud and angry sounding and brutal. Um it it um it ended firefights often uh simply by virtue of being there and being loud rather than actually affecting some kind of like physical effect on our adversaries along the near
Speaker A
border region Afghanistan and Pakistan. So and and and uh and that closeair support item is just so critical for for ground forces and and it is interesting that the A-10 is actually not being used in in support of ground forces right
Speaker A
now. It's being used over the straight to kind of dismantle Iranian obstructions or, you know, drone or ballistic missile attacks over the straight.
Speaker A
I mean, if you can shoot down an F-15, then shoot shooting down an A10 is easy light work.
Speaker A
I do think it's very funny. Sorry, Dave. I know you're trying to get us into the meat of your topic here, but I think it's funny how um the global press used this like single F-15E shootown scenario as like evidence that
Speaker A
the United States is losing the war after like we've executed like 10,000 targets on the Iranian mainland and we lost what? One aircraft. Okay. Okay.
Speaker A
like show me the perfect example of the difficulty we're going to have if we ever lose like a ship. I mean, we paused operations across the whole country to do that search and rescue. The Israelis even paused their strikes while we like
Speaker A
search for those pilots. We have very little appetite domestically and internationally to see American troops be harmed in any way. We are supposed to be invincible. That is like the baseline of operation and anytime that we fall short of that baseline, everyone freaks
Speaker A
out. Um, sure. Yeah. I don't I don't disagree with that. Domestic politics drives our international ability to force project.
Speaker A
But Dave, back over to you. Sorry. No, the A10 is an example here of the of the seams between services and who owns what and that affects the entire procurement process. Um, and impacts the requirements. So, who owns good points
Speaker A
about the A-10, Simon. So, who owns the autonomous strike aircraft? And like this is it's a culture question, right? Because what you're really talking about with a lot of this autonomous strike is putting organic fires directly in the hands of the
Speaker A
infantry element which is like a whole new it's not a weapons company or a mortars platoon or something. It is that dismounted infantry squad who now has their own organic fire capability and that is a cultural anathema to so many
Speaker A
different places in the services. So the if you look at it from their perspective though, you know, the air force and the fast movers and the the high altitude fixedwing stuff is shaping a deep fight and they're striking
Speaker A
strategic targets and the brigade commander, the division commander that's facing the fight in front of them, they want their own organic ability to nominate and strike their own targets.
Speaker A
I think both are both are right. And the Air Force is saying, you know, the Air Force is saying like, "No, hey, if it flies, uh, if it flies, it's us. You guys can have AH64s, um, and super low altitude small, uh,
Speaker A
UAS systems." But I think that the the battlefield, we're thinking about it, deconlicting it by altitude. But I think the what the the army is saying or the infantry as a whole including the Marine Corps is saying is um I need the ability
Speaker A
to to do my own to nominate my own targets and strike them uh and provide to some extent my own close air support as you're striking deep which I think is very logical.
Speaker A
Yes, I agree. Then then then flip it over then flip it over. Who has the responsibility for counter UAS for counter countering kinetic autonomous systems? I think that's a that's an even harder one.
Speaker A
Well, something our company cares a lot about which is the dismount like the dismounted soldier marine special operator right there. There has to be somebody who owns uh maintains, deploys, tests, experiments, advances the counter UAS capability for the dismount. But that
Speaker A
doesn't mean that only the US Army or the US Marine Corps or ground forces and SOCOM should be the owners of counter UAS because they're obviously different levels of or echelons of assets and fixed installations and you know
Speaker A
vehicles and all that stuff that need their own. So the short answer in my opinion is like uh who knows there should probably be some kind of joint umbrella over everything but also an asset or a service specific thing makes
Speaker A
sense. I I don't know. That's a very complex question, but this is why there's a joint office right now, right?
Speaker A
Joint inter agency task force 401 has the counter UAS mandate. It is joint for a reason because it is otherwise we would be looking at like a giant redundancy problem.
Speaker A
My point is the the current I agree. Um the current food fight that I think is happening is very similar to the food fight that happened over the A10. If you have the LCS or whatever, you know, the
Speaker A
the floating thing, whatever you guys use over there in the Navy and Marine Corps, the floating thing, and there's Marines going on the beach and there's Army and there's Army guys parachuting in and there's, you know, some we see
Speaker A
some auster airfield and we got some Air Force stuff there. Um, who's responsible for the protection like the protection warf fighting function of all of those Marines that are assaulting the beaches?
Speaker A
Is it the Navy on the ship? Is it the air force installation and their radars and their uh missiles? Is it the unit themselves?
Speaker A
I think this will be a competition between services. I think this is going to be a much smaller food fight within like the uh the maneuver elements.
Speaker A
And I and there's two two major reasons that I would say that. One is lessons learned from the IED fight, which is like the idea that like I'm going to counter IDs. That all happened. You know, put them on the trucks. Put put
Speaker A
whatever counter ID tech you have, stick it on the truck. So, a lot of folks that are in the leadership echelons of the military grew up in that same thing. So, they're looking for put a piece of tech
Speaker A
on my truck in in a lot more places than they're not in my opinion. Um, but at the same time, I mean, like every service is going to have to touch this.
Speaker A
We still talk about drones like they're an asymmetric threat. They're they're not they are a conventional weapon that conventional militaries are going to put into all their conventional formations.
Speaker A
This is not like a This is where the ID comparison falls apart. This is going to be a ubiquitous piece of the toolkit for every aspect of the military. It's not going to continue to be this like, oh,
Speaker A
crazy. They have drones. Let's report on it. It's going to be business as usual.
Speaker A
So, everyone's going to have to have a touch. Over the past four or five years, maybe four years, I've been involved as a reserve officer with Marine Innovation Unit, which is a kind of a a new experimental almost uh reserve component
Speaker A
uh unit that is uh supposed to be partnering with the active component to solve weird kind of emerging problems.
Speaker A
And it was um it was shocking to me how one of the projects that I ran um identified that at service level training exercises in the US Marines, infantry units still I not only were they not deploying their own organic
Speaker A
kind of squad or even platoon level ISR capabilities, drone platforms, but they weren't even looking up. In other words, they they weren't even identifying that there could possibly be a threat in the air from an enemy force, which was
Speaker A
shocking and surprising to me. So, I I'm not saying that um the Marine Corps is any more backward than it ever was. What I am saying is that um it's a major cultural shift to get a mindset shift at
Speaker A
relatively conservative in relatively conservative warfighting organizations like the US Marines or or others to simply like think about that as a dynamic threat that could exist in any kind of engagement asymmetric, conventional or otherwise. Uh period.
Speaker A
I really think about what do the blue bodies look like for drone training? Do we just like stick a speaker on a drone and fly it over a platoon and say you are all dead?
Speaker A
No, we we so we did this. We would we would uh we had dropper variants like uh you know and we would drop nerf balls and like if you hit within a certain radius of a fighting position or a CP or whatever
Speaker A
like they would assess casualties and it was a big eye opener to the uh to the battalions who were coming through these training exercises where they would be all of a sudden be under you know intense multi- drone swarm type
Speaker A
nerf ball attack right and like and it was a pretty it was a pretty lightweight set of attacks. We're talking like one drone platform per uh company, you know, area um or per company position, right?
Speaker A
And like that's not even a very aggressive threat. We're talking about like the bare minimum what what an enemy force would deploy on any given Sunday, right?
Speaker A
We use chalk. Chalk. Yeah. I mean, we use chalk. Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. I just don't want the first or I just don't want this to play out where, you know, the big exquisite detection and tracking systems on an airfield somewhere. Um, you know,
Speaker A
it's hard to classify these things. They move extremely fast. How big is it? Is that our responsibility? Is it the responsibility of the uh interdiction system to Simon's point that's mounted on the back of a truck? Uh, or is it the
Speaker A
battle carrier group that's sitting off the coast? like I it it gets real murky um when you are having to come up with this really multi-service layered defense and which one of those like stakeholders in this process because the
Speaker A
Navy's trying to protect their ships, the air force is trying to protect their aircraft and their uh and their installations and the you know the army and the marines are trying to protect their people and their vehicles. Uh who
Speaker A
is telling who is telling these joint inter agency forces what the requirements are and how this complete system is going to work? um that gaps it seems that presumes that a top down approach is going to solve the problem. And I I
Speaker A
part of my thinking is that you actually should accept if I'm like big DoD, if I like live over all, you know, the entirety of the joint force, I would be willing to accept some redundancy and lack of efficiency in coming up with
Speaker A
like true joint solutions and let a thousand flowers bloom or whatever the saying is, right? Like allow each of the services or allowed even like even more organic ground up echelon experimentation.
Speaker A
I think this has been tried at some level but who knows whether it's actually yielded benefit but I think you kind of have to like you cannot centralize it it becomes too slow it becomes too requirements burdened and
Speaker A
you end up never fielding a thing and then industry you know speaking for the industry side briefly if like the customer keeps identifying that this is a a critical emerging capability but never ends up buying anything like that
Speaker A
that like that will dissuade the best of the best of the private sector to actually engage on this problem. And then you get back to the same old problem we've been in, you know, the problem scenario we've been in for
Speaker A
decades where legacy prime contractors the only ones willing to gut through the decades long requirement and you know dev cycles to eventually field a program of record. They're the only ones who are willing to like wait that long and um
Speaker A
and then and then you end up with decades old solutions that never get updated and don't actually meet the current operating requirements. So I I think um I think some amount of inefficiency in this realm is necessary to get to real solutions that work at
Speaker A
each of the echelons in question. And you got to do it fast. And Dave, call a 101, baby.
Speaker A
Totally. This is give the cardinals a bunch of money and let them run with it. Which I I don't I I the longer we talk about it, the more time we spend bringing up this whole chestnut, uh the more I agree. It's just
Speaker A
like, yeah, you're going to lose some efficiency. you're going to have some graft candidly because somebody's going to find that colonel who's not very smart and like cool I could I can corner his budget but most of the folks and we
Speaker A
all know this are thinking about I got to take these young men into battle uh how do I like what what's the best tool for for what I'm going to run into what I expect kind of fight I I intend to to
Speaker A
wage uh so I agree I mean if if I have any capability at all and there's something overhead and I've managed to detect it I'm swinging the bat I am not waiting to find out the deconlict. I'm like, "Yeah, shoot our stuff. Figure it
Speaker A
out." I'm not I'm not waiting to find out if uh the Air Force was supposed to tag that one. I'm gonna shoot my interceptor every single time that I've got it and try to save some lives.
Speaker A
Funding, authority, a way to spend it. Like those are those all feature when we talk when we've talked about this historically. I've also added education is the way to prevent that grift, right?
Speaker A
Like the the folks the new commanders in the field need to be knowledgeable about supply chains. They need to be knowledgeable about RF spectrum. They need to be knowledgeable because they're gonna education's not going to stop that. Gift
Speaker A
somebody's money to be made, money will be made. It's not going to completely get rid of the grift. The grift will always exist.
Speaker A
Um, but what I think that the education component of this we really miss. If you're a commander in the field and you've been focused on, you know, shooting down small one-way attack stuff that's a threat to your dismounts and
Speaker A
then all of a sudden the adversary introduces, you know, a group three fix wing system that's flying 100 feet off the ground and closing six kilometers with you in a matter of seconds, you need a completely different thing. Like
Speaker A
you need the whole you need the function to uh the the function that exists in the Ukraine in Ukraine right now um which is the ability to design, test and employ a new thing. That is where that is how I think we should be educating
Speaker A
our battlefield commanders to think. Totally agree. Yeah. And accept and accept the inefficiencies along the way and the trade-off the benefit for that trade-off is speedto field capabilities that work for discrete echelons. I think that's the uh I think that's a
Speaker A
trade-off. Okay. Um, uh, Dave, we might or might not be rounds complete on that topic, but, um, uh, I think you I think you wanted to tee up a general purpose question for everybody. And maybe before we get to
Speaker A
that, Simon, any updates on Capitol Hill, etc. You mean it's time for the show?
Speaker A
This is the This is the most important thing in the world. Uh, uh, yeah, which is the budget. the budget came out and how the and how the federal budget weaves into the punk scene, maybe even the post punk scene.
Speaker A
So much like the punk scene, the federal budget does not work. It's not going to happen. First of all, DHS still shut down. We are in historic territory, 52 days. Uh the previous longest shutdown, 43 days, full government. We're we're at
Speaker A
just 52 for all of DHS. Uh it does look like DHS will open back up uh in the next handful of weeks, but probably not with CBP or ICE. Uh so we're we're we're running to the possibility they just
Speaker A
stay defunded all the way through midterm. I I don't see a political solution. But that being said, the president's budget request came out with a historic $1.5 trillion for the Department of Defense. Uh for some context there, that's that's
Speaker A
discretionary money, right? That's that's money that the government can spend as opposed to mandatory money which is like social security that has to be spent. Um but the total discretionary budget request is $2.1 trillion and 1.5 of that is for the DoD.
Speaker A
It's a pretty wild uh set of numbers right there. But even then 350 billion of the 1.5 trillion is reconciliation.
Speaker A
Uh I don't think that happens if I'm being perfectly honest with you. I think that's a really hard political cell. Can I ask a uh a wonk a wonk novice question here on reconciliation? I remember I remember last year you describing and
Speaker A
and I think this is borne out by historical norm that reconciliation's only come around once per presidential term and so now we're seeing one year on year. Um and they they keep trying and Biden did two. Um, no. Biden did one. He
Speaker A
did two big bills. Did the the the, you know, Build Back Better and then the Inflation Reduction Act. Uh, so it's not impossible to do one um each year if you really wanted to swing at it. You do it
Speaker A
based off of your your budget bills. So every time the budget committee releases a topline numbers bill, it triggers a bunch of things. And and that essentially is where reconciliation happens. happens in line with the budgeting process because reconciliation
Speaker A
is supposed to be used to balance the budget. Uh which is deeply ironic. The whole process of reconciliation was written around the idea that it would reduce spending and it has basically only ever been used in the last 20 years
Speaker A
to dramatically increase spending uh and and really harm revenues. Um, but yes, we're they are they are teasing the possibility of using reconciliation to add an extra $350 billion to the defense budget. I don't see how they do that.
Speaker A
Candidly, I think the timing is really tough. Uh, it took us more than a year to finish the first reconciliation bill that this this admin got through Congress. You know, Congress is very tough right now and they essentially
Speaker A
only have 6 months left in the year, right? um less cuz Congress will not be in session for all of August. Uh it I don't think will be in session at all for October either. So you're going to
Speaker A
lose two full months just so people can campaign and go do like the typical we got to get home and work the home state stuff. So you've got three or four months left of actual congressional work. And in that time you want to pass
Speaker A
the entirety of the the government's budget for fiscal year 27. uh a reconciliation package to add money into fiscal year 27 and you also want to fund ICE and CBP for fiscal year 26 with that same reconciliation package uh and then
Speaker A
presumably do any other business at all uh in the House and the Senate there just the math is not mathing because as soon as those midterms hit it's going to be total freeze bedum nobody everybody's going to vote no I don't I don't see
Speaker A
this rubber meeting the road and I also think that, you know, the admin probably prefers that. Um, we're looking at like a really historic way in how the president's budget request and the the OM the admin is using the budget process
Speaker A
to like execute their priorities. Uh, and by that I mean, you know, last year we saw $5 billion essentially not executed for foreign aid programs. Um, and essentially the admin just waited to not spend the money and then the fiscal
Speaker A
year rolled and the money kind of just went went back into the treasury. Uh, and they're calling it a pocket recision, like a way to to pull that money out that was appropriate and that's going to that still has to go to
Speaker A
the Supreme Court. Like there's going to be a big fight over that as well. But even this budget request essentially there's a big cut to State Department.
Speaker A
State Department takes a 30% cut to all of its funding uh in this request and Congress is going to reject that and I think that the admin is probably just going to do whatever it is they want to
Speaker A
do in the face of Congress and once again dare them to do something about it. Um so we're we're in like the wild west of what's legally permissible in in budgeting and funding.
Speaker A
Um, how does that uh do you think trickle down into our part of the industry assignment? Like what what does that what does that mean between now and call it the midterms or now and next January when the new Congress takes
Speaker A
So let's put our big kid pants on and and talk about the check because I think everyone's lauding this idea that we're going to get a ton more money in there and we're going to re-industrialize and we're going to buy all this new tech. Um
Speaker A
there is exactly one weapon that was used in the strikes on Iran that was developed more recently than 15 years ago. Uh if you think that the political regime of America is designed to do much more than start a war in the Middle East
Speaker A
again, I got I got like a a thing to sell you because we're not about to take this budget and buy a bunch of cool stuff and reposture oursel for the Pacific. We've been saying we're going to do it forever. We're not going to do
Speaker A
that. Uh, so I think as always, I feel like I beat the drum a lot. I think it's going to be marginal. I think if we're lucky, we get from like 1% of the budget is spent on defense tech to maybe 2% and
Speaker A
we're all like really excited about that. But I think most of this money is going to go to refilling all the missiles we just shot at Iran and refilling all these big prime coffers that we spent on these legacy systems
Speaker A
because the machine doesn't really know how to do anything else. Um, I'm reminded of the uh General Jim Mattis quote from I think when he was in the chair at Sentcom. He said, "If you don't fund the State Department fully, I'm
Speaker A
going to have to ultimately buy more bullets." Right? And so the idea at least in the early 201s was uh soft power diplomacy positive engagement with the world is what should uh take prereeminence above, you know, war fighting capability. I'm
Speaker A
not saying that we shouldn't invest in I mean the numbers line up. 30% cut to State Department, 50% increase to DoD.
Speaker A
Let's go. All right. Yeah. Right. So uh again I I think um you know we collectively are all about deterrent force and uh deterrence is not just a military uh a military capability or a military effect. It is um it is about positive
Speaker A
engagement with the world. So I'm I'm uh I think a lot of the world is uncertain.
Speaker A
I'm not alone in my uncertainty about whether we're on the right track or not.
Speaker A
I'm uh at some level as a private citizen uh concerned uh as a private citizen who's running a defense technology company. I'm curious, you know, optimistic at some level hopeful that, you know, this is good for our business and that our good something
Speaker A
that's good for our business is potentially good for deterrence in the world. But I I'm not fully convinced all that is true. So, uh I'm going to reserve my um I'm going to reserve my judgment and do a do a wait and see. Um,
Speaker A
all right, Dave, take us down the home stretch. All right. So, what was it last year, Simon? It was like 900 billion.
Speaker A
It was a It was Yeah, it was just short of a trillion dollars for last year's budget request. And excuse me. And then there was reconciliation dollars.
Speaker A
Actually, I think it was like 850. Um, and reconciliation was what uh crossed that that Rubicon into the trillion dollar defense budget for the first time. So now we're we're at 1.15 trillion in base budget requests and 350
Speaker A
billion in reconciliation which once again I don't think either of those survives contact with Congress. So then the question I've got for the two of you it's going to be impossible for you to find you know 600 billion or something.
Speaker A
You know, you've always taught me something that it's not what's coming in, it's what's going out, right? If you didn't have if you did not have the ability to cut other programs or other spending in the United States government
Speaker A
other than just defense and you were trying to create additional space uh for the priorities you're going to spend this money on, what would you kill? What massive programs would you kill? And that's the easiest question. I got I got
Speaker A
two. Please let me add it. Can I do two? Sure. One. You need five. amphibious landing craft.
Speaker A
Get wrecked. We're not landing on any beaches. Get rid of the ACV, the AAV.
Speaker A
Cut it. I'd rather have tanks from the Marine Corps than I than I would want ACVs and AAVs. I would be all in on vertical insertion. And I would completely abandon this idea that we're going to come in over boat and just get
Speaker A
ripped to shreds by robot boats waiting off the latoral. So, that's my first one. And then number two is groundbased nuclear missiles. I don't buy it. In fact, I would say that the the the policy of your government also does not
Speaker A
believe in groundbased nuclear missiles because when we bought nuclear missiles, it was a presidential level acquisition program. And now it is not even DoD level like the F-35. It is air force level. They have bumped it all the way
Speaker A
down in responsibility and forced that service to eat it. Even though it's clearly no longer the bedrock strategic thinking, axe the groundbased missiles.
Speaker A
You would axe groundbased strategic deterrent. Yep. At the minimum, I would reduce it by 2/3. because I believe that the great state of Montana has enough missile field to cover the entire nation and you can get rid of the other two.
Speaker A
Can I ask a clarifying question because I I was I was on the I was on the wavelength with Simon about uh groundbased uh missile capabilities. So the Sentinel program, right? So this this is the this is the update or the refurbishment or
Speaker A
I'm I'm missing the word here. my lexicon has dried up um over the course of this conversation that started in punk rockland. Um uh so I think the the Sentinel program is supposed to replace the Minute Man series or the Minute Ant
Speaker A
version, the Minaman 3 or something like that. I I think not only the missiles but also the infrastructure, right? So it's not just a missile swap, it is all the silos get replaced, all the launch facilities, everything. It's a trillion dollar
Speaker A
investment. And the reason for that is that they like misunderstood the geometries of the existing Mintman 3 silos. It's just a missile that was built in the it was designed in the 50s and you know built in the 60s. Like if you want an
Speaker A
efficient groundbased strategic deterrent, you would not build your silos that size. You wouldn't do that again. You wouldn't do it the same way.
Speaker A
You would have less less control facilities. Like there's just a million modernization update things that you would do differently.
Speaker A
So you're not saying that you would get rid of groundbased strategic deterrence. You would just you would get rid of that entire program like the triad.
Speaker A
Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Interesting. My moderate position is that I would leave just the one large missile field, which is Montana. The Montana missile field could fit both of the other missile fields inside of it geographically. So, I'm like, why do I
Speaker A
need three missile fields when I I I just take the big one? It's it's already a pretty spread out piece, but I I don't really see the utility of that leg of the triad.
Speaker A
Um, well, I am I'm not going to comment further. I just wanted to ask that clarifying question. I thought you were all about groundbased strategic deterrence, just not updating it to kind of the the Sentinel standard. Um Dave,
Speaker A
here's my quick hot take and sorry we're dragging this one out probably longer than you intended. But the um Sim Simon's on his way to balance in the books. That gives us that gives us a trillion dollars, right? The trillion
Speaker A
dollars over 10 years, right? Probably five or 10 billion a year, something like that. But yeah, eventually gets trillion.
Speaker A
All right. you gonna help help us continue to balance Garrett? I don't know if I can take that big of a chop.
Speaker A
You know, that's a that's a pretty serious that's a pretty serious um pretty serious item. But I I this is a much parodyied or much poked at item and so it's probably low hanging fruit for most folks. But the Lator combat ship,
Speaker A
right, this is close to every Marine's heart. It doesn't make sense. It's the It's the ship that's good at moderately okay at many things and not great at anything. And the Navy doesn't like it.
Speaker A
The Marine Corps doesn't like it. It's wasteful on the order of, you know, billions of dollars. I I I still don't think like the existing footprint of LCS's costs something like a billion to a billion and a half
Speaker A
annually to maintain after. But I mean this that that's small potatoes compared to like that's not that's not going to move the needle.
Speaker A
It's not going to move the needle. I I I don't know. I don't know Dave.
Speaker A
I don't know over the life cycle that's that's probably 30 50 billion sent a year for 10 years.
Speaker A
Uh yeah I mean it go grabb a strategic deterrence and ICBMs. It's I mean it's a different order of magnitude problem right? we're talking about that's that's a strategic deterrence capability versus the LCS which is about basically operational and
Speaker A
tactical level force projection um in the in the lurals right so they don't stack up to me but my first example is probably even less like the the the ACV AAV I'm sure cost less money to maintain than the LCS I just think is nonsense I
Speaker A
think that as much as I love our our beloved core I don't see it in the post A2 world.
Speaker A
How about this? Um, this was my backup, but I don't really know if you can do away with the program at this point, but the F-35, right? I mean, it's just like often pointed at as like a massively
Speaker A
wasteful effort. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have incredible force projection capability. I mean, it does too big to fail.
Speaker A
It sure, but I mean, like, the life cycle cost is $1.7 trillion for that for that program, right? So like that is that's a meaningful chunk of that's a meaningful chunk of budget, right? It but you can't get rid of it because what
Speaker A
are you going to replace that kind of flying C2 massive EW? I mean it's just it's a monster, right?
Speaker A
I mean it's a boogeyman. It's the definition of overenered exquisite capability and I don't know if you can get rid of it, but it is massive. That would take a big bite out of the budget, Dave, if that's what we're going for. I
Speaker A
mean, I'll just identify it as a massively expensive item. All right, Dave, you're up.
Speaker A
Man, I got to be careful here. I don't want Why do you have to be careful? Let poke any of our customers in the eye on uh Jad C2 kind of topics.
Speaker A
Jad C2, you're going to go after C2 stuff. No. No. J2 is different. Not at all. Jad C2 is a vibe. All right.
Speaker A
J2 is in our heart. I actually don't know the named like I actually don't know the names of the programs. I'll stay away from our environment. And I'm like, this is lame. I want you to kill a tank
Speaker A
or a helicopter or something. Let's go hard. No, I'm gonna I'm gonna go after the I'm going to go after the grift that is feeding uh that is feeding all of our soldiers in our United States military.
Speaker A
What? Um you've got like feeding the troops. No food. You're going after feeding hates food for the troops.
Speaker A
No. No. Dave Codle doesn't hate food for the troops. Dave Codle hates bad food.
Speaker A
Um provided private industry will solve this. Pizza Hut can just deliver. few massive providers uh lowquality food to all the all the soldiers. This is solvable by giving again authority and funding down to every first sergeant.
Speaker A
Uh Dave and every senior NCO across the entire force. I got bad news. I got bad subculture Simon news. All of the food in America is just Cisco.
Speaker A
Famously, it's all Cisco. Uh there's a great series either in the Atlantic or the New York Times right now of a man traveling America, ordering food in different states at different restaurants, same menu items, same exact Cisco food everywhere he goes. That
Speaker A
we're all buying the same stuff we have. There's no way. Wrong restaurants. Simon, you're going to the wrong restaurants.
Speaker A
I mean, Montana's probably one of the best for getting out of this because it's one of the only places you can go and order like bison and elk, but otherwise I've been to plenty of places out in Montana that have Cisco food,
Speaker A
right? Like it's it's in every state. It's the vast majority of what is consumed by like So Dave, you know, average Americans.
Speaker A
I have a clarifying follow-up question for you. I realize we're we're way deep on what was supposed to be kind of a lightning round.
Speaker A
You can chop it up. It be fine. Yeah. Producer Ian can clean this thing up. Uh what are your feelings on Sedexo?
Speaker A
You know what I'm talking about? No. Well, this is this is the this is the this is the contractor that is brought in basically to provide messing facilities personnel on nearly every milit military installation I've ever been to. Right.
Speaker A
So like um famous famous like most visible and most famous uh most famously they employ uh they employ handicap folks who work behind the counter at mess halls and chowo facilities right across the United States. Obviously there's some there's some good virtue
Speaker A
there. Um but uh I wonder if this is maybe one of those prime contracting layers that is part of the problem that you're describing.
Speaker A
That's that's exactly that's a good that's a very good example of the problem that I'm describing.
Speaker A
I don't think I don't think it's how much how much of a of a how much of a budget you know benefit uh are you proposing would come from fixing the food for the troops problem? I think that the near-term the near-term I mean
Speaker A
I'd have to look it up or ask you know one of our LLMs or something to give me a hand. Um I feel like it's those contracts are probably significant to the Sedexo type firms. I mean I don't
Speaker A
know if they would register on the like lural combat ship level but we have a lot of people to feed. So I'll bet those contracts are very very big. Um and it also saves us money in the long run. Um
Speaker A
because if you took that budget and chopped it up and allowed units to hire an in-house, you know, whatever, like source their own uh fresh local stuff like we have other nations militaries do. Um what do you get in the back end
Speaker A
from taking care of unhealthy soldiers after they retire? Um like the like there's a there's a lot of cost savings to be had in just keeping our force healthy just despite just you know readiness and being prepared for war. Um
Speaker A
I hate them. So So hold on a second. This is why I'm spicy about this one.
Speaker A
that thing that we did in the national cap capital region right post January 6 there was 25,000 soldiers in Washington DC this was peak COVID or I think it was during COVID um and every restaurant in the national capital region was
Speaker A
struggling um and what we did was we paid a Sedexo or similar a gajillion dollars to feed everybody microwaved hash browns right if you took the budget of that contract and gave the authority to every whatever company, battalion, something. You're
Speaker A
saying that you don't have the trust, faith, and confidence in them to order locally from a like a DC restaurant uh to feed their soldiers and that you're going to centralize the budget and authority to the extent that we're going
Speaker A
to spend a gajillion dollars um on microwaved potatoes. I don't really have an answer for that. Here is um if not an answer, then a a layering on to the complexity of this problem. I've worked with some fantastic
Speaker A
first sergeants. I've also worked with some not great first sergeants um and gunnery sergeants in the Marine Corps. You know, beans, bullets, band-aids, right? And um some of them I would trust with my life and certainly with my meal, but some of
Speaker A
them I wouldn't trust with sourcing flatear, you know, like I you know what I mean? You know what I'm saying? I I absolutely do. But we cannot we cannot centralize authority because we don't trust folks to execute it or
Speaker A
because it's going to be abused. Of course, it's going to be abused. You put you identify, assess, and mitigate the risks of it being abused. Uh but the answer is not to continuously centralize authority to the point I mean where do
Speaker A
we start this thing? We started this thing with like Mr. Washington, go to Canada. Here's your 200 head of cattle and thousand soldiers. Write us a letter once a month. Let us know how it's going. And we're now to the you are not
Speaker A
allowed to control the temperature on your military installation. That's done at headquarters. You're not, you know, in the in your office building. You're not allowed uh you're not allowed to decide if you want your parking lot paved or if you want your soldiers to
Speaker A
have better chow. It's ridiculous. Yeah. Yeah. I could see this turning into something like um you know food assistance programs that are organized managed at the federal level, but individuals are left kind of mostly free to choose what they spend. Pizza in the
Speaker A
field baby. Logistics solved. You know what I mean? Like food assistance, uh, cards, you know, they can be spent on lots of stuff. Plenty of a voucher a voucher system.
Speaker A
What what I'm saying is like you Yeah. When left to their own devices, people are going to make weird decisions. And I think if you if you uh decentralize this kind of authority and budget down to lower echelons, but then it's
Speaker A
centralized again at kind of company level at the first sergeant or whatever, you're going to end up having company level graft, right? Like their their preferred local vendor, their their wife who just mysteriously started a restaurant, you know,
Speaker A
is that is that worse than the major frozen chow provider graft? I don't I mean like eat the chow hall. You'll be fine.
Speaker A
Is that is that worse? And maybe the maybe the chowo thing is too specific, but like that dark underbelly of all of the things that we do to feed and house and because my recommendations are going to be cutting.
Speaker A
Dave, buddy, your big problem is this is the wrong color of money and would free exactly zero dollars in procurement funding for anything.
Speaker A
We're just trying to balance we're just trying to balance back to we're balancing the budget. No, I thought we were trying to buy the cool stuff. My bad. Um, you know what would happen is if if we were to make any
Speaker A
progress here, what would happen is you'd keep it exactly the same as it is now, except you would you would like create out of whole cloth an additional program or budget that would then get additionally distributed and all of a
Speaker A
sudden it would become more of a compounding problem. I Yeah, it was a tricky Maybe I should have assumed y'all were gonna make me answer my own question. I'm dancing I was dancing I was dancing around a little bit because like publicly I'm I'm
Speaker A
not gonna I'm probably not going to talk about like drone programs or C2 programs. those things on a on a public podcast. The same way I'm not I'm going to hold my comments on my uh on my boss's cowboy hat.
Speaker A
I'll talk [ __ ] on that. Any backpack that's got a big antenna, stupid a bit.
Speaker A
No more antennas on troops. [ __ ] you're going to get them killed first.
Speaker A
No more antennas on troops. And that is the final word for this week's Goat Rodeo podcast. Uh thanks Dave for holding your your really spicy comments on the hat. Uh you can send them to me offline if you'd like.
Speaker A
Um, with that rousing conversation, I thank you for your participation and uh, if you have comments on what uh, what what programs you have in your crosshairs that need dismantling or uh, wholesale cutting um, in order to quote
Speaker A
balance the budget, which will never happen, uh, please send them in the comments on our social media or podcast feeds or on YouTube and um, we're looking forward to incorporating them into this ongoing conversation moderated by your very own Dave Codle.
Speaker A
We will see you next week. Bye-bye.
Topics:A-10 Warthogsdefense budgethypersonic technologyHerusQuarter Horse aircraftdefense startupsShield AIventure capitalpodcastGoat Rodeo Podcast
