It’s interesting for sure.
Sounds good on paper, plays well to the public…but I have literally no idea how it is actually supposed to make anything better, and can also see where if poorly applied, could actually make things a hell of a lot worse.
For example, in the acquisition nerd world, there’s always been a 3 star in charge of the Navy Trident missile program, since like the 1960’s. Since it was stood up, in addition to maintaining that capability, they’ve had hypersonic missiles and nuclear cruise missiles thrown on top of their portfolio.
The entirety of Missile Defense Agency is a question mark. Definitely a new addition post WW2 and GWN. But should they be headed by a 3 star? Honestly…probably. On the other hand, I know there are folks in certain circles of influence to JD Vance (Big Tech) that advocate for Combatant Commands effectively running their own acquisition.
That said, I’m sure there are examples to the contrary of doing less with more too.