Quote Originally Posted by bigbill View Post
What are the qualifications? It's a CEO job, what qualifies a person to be a CEO? The CEOs I've worked with typically had an MBA from an Ivy League school and experience at differing levels of management. I'd prefer a person with experience in every level of military service with a strong foundation in history. Our recent history shows a lack of understanding what the military needs vice what some think tank says we should buy. For example, we're building frigates based on the FREMM model used by the French and Italians. It is a simple design that is highly capable but we've altered the design, downsized the gun, and made it slower and less efficient. We should build them exactly like the European versions, complete with a 5" gun and just upgrade the weapons system to work with our other ships.

OT, but we spent stupid money on the LCS program for a bunch of problematic ships that benefited some constituents of influential members of Congress. We didn't build replacements for our aging cruisers which are quickly going away at the end of their hull life. We didn't need to build an identical replacement, but cruisers serve as component commander ships with an enhanced communication and radar suite and a metric shit-tonne of vertical launch missiles including versions that can shoot down ICBMs. My son is a Marine aviator who will be in an F-35 in about a year. Marines did not upgrade to Super Hornets and still fly legacy Hornets (F/A 18 C,D) from the 80s and 90s. They are upgrading directly to the F-35, which means they're competing against the other services and some foreign allies for airframes. The F-35B replaces the Harrier, so it's necessary, but the slow introduction means a lot of pilots are spending time in simulators instead of in the air.
I would think someone with a history of high level leadership in the military or military adjacent industry would be a better choice. I admit I have no military background and he does, but it seems like a bad fit to lead the DOD. Just my $02. It seems like an odd choice. In the case of Marco Rubio he picked someone who at least feigns loyalty and while I find him distasteful as a person, he’s probably as qualified to lead the Department of State as well as anyone. Pete Hegseth does not seem qualified to lead the DOD.