The vital concern of tb_ e weapon reformers is not cost-effectiveness, per se, but a concern that America will not survive if the use of utmost technology causes our weapons to be second-best in combat and fewer in numbers than those of an enemy using simpler weapons.
Most reforaers are not looking for economies to fund other non-defense prograu but instead are looking for ways to assure America’s survival with sufficient numbers of weapons that work and are effective in combat. Reformers are opposed· to high technology that forfeits to the enemy the advantage of surprise. They are opposed to high technology that is unreliable and unsupportable in the harshest war conditions. They are opposed to high technology that is unproved in realistic battle-type testing. They are opposed to high technology that warns the enemy of one’s presence and perhaps serves as a homing beacon for an enemy weapon. They are opposed to high technology that costs so much it cancels programs or causes cutbacks or stretchouts. driving up unit cost and denying funds for additional numbers of weapons that work. They are opposed to high technology that is disproportionately costly for the advantage gained. They are opposed to high technology that in fact makes a weapon less combat-effective rather than more combat-effective. And they are opposed to high technology that makes a weapon into a multirole item that does several things but does nothing superior. as needed in combat.
Reformers do not believe that the military is infatuated with high technology. They simply understand and are trying to communicate the fact that reality in battle is far different from what many perceive during peacetime. There is a big difference between what the user perceives in weapon performance and reliability and what the designer conceives.