I also think it is Obama who is advocating cheaper designs. To the extent that in December 2009, at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base, he had his people remove the F-22 that had been parked as a backdrop and had it replaced with a F-15. Why? Because he was against the F-22 program and wanted the cheaper/more numerous Eagle.
While it is true that quantity has a quality of its own, in the modern battlefield there is a limit to the value of that 'quality.' That is a strategy used by nations that simply do not have the qualitative capacity to match up with technologically advanced nations. This is why Iran, for example, has been churning out dozens of small watercraft with the hope of overwhelming the USN. They cannot match US quality, and thus their only option is to try and compensate by having a lot of targets in the hope that a couple of them will survive long enough to do some damage.
The moment a country is able to not have to rely on 'quantity' it immediately stops doing so. Case in point? China (and India for that matter). China had the same strategy Iran now has ....churning out lots of sub-grade military equipment. Now that it has the money to invest in superlative equipment what does it do? Engage in the greatest military buildup the world has seen in half a century! Building AEGIS-esque ships (with phased radar arrays), investing in new submarine technologies, working on aircraft carriers (the ex-Soviet carrier plus indigenous designs), new planes, etc. Why? Because they know the value of one J-20 is better than that of 10 MiG-21s, and the value of one Type-52C Luyang II destroyer is worth more than five Type 51 Luda destroyers. Easily.
Romney is about building a stronger US military ...not building the appearance of a stronger military simply by having more numbers. For example, increasing the production of the LCS would very quickly add numbers, but in terms of capability the LCS is a ship closer to a target than a victor. I believe Romney is for strengthening the US military, and having many cheap (a joke, since the 'cheap' LCS and the 'cheap' F-35 are anything but) ships is not strengthening the military.
The Reagan navy had the numbers, but it also had the quality (for the era). It was not just numbers. If the US goes for a numbers strategy, of the type espoused by the article, then it may learn the same lesson Saddam Hussein received when his numbers were obliterated with ease by a technologically superior adversary.
The example of Germany has key lessons that show that quality is not everything, but that is a lesson that is often looked at in the wrong way. Germany did have amazing quality, but they also had significant drawbacks. For one they started using some of their super-weapons too late in the war (and for that matter Hitler, according to many people who analyzed the war, started the war too early ...had he waited 5 more years I'd probably be typing this in German). They also had significantly destroyed war infrastructure. They had the quality, but the numbers were simply not enough.
In the case of the US it has always, since it became a super power, had both numbers and quality. Not just one.
Going back to Germany it is easy to see where things broke apart using the Lanchester Square equation. It states that to stalemate a force N times more numerous you need to have N-squared effectiveness. E.g. to defeat a force that is three times as many as yours is, you need to be at least 9 times (3^2) as effective.
Now, take the JV 44 Luftwaffe squadron, which has been called the most dominant airwing EVER! The JV 44 used the Me-262 jet fighter in WW2, was comprised of 50 pilots of which more than 25 were aces (with the top 6 aces having over 1,100 kills, and the next eleven averaging 50+ kills), and flying jet fighters in propeller-era WW2. The ME-262 was 24% faster, could climb 70% faster, had 7 times the firepower, and reduced reaction time from first detection up to 62% ...compared to any adversary the JV44 would face. Basically, they were absolutely unbeatable. Even the F-22 will never have such advantages. But Germany lost. There were simply not enough of them. The Lanchester Square equation was against them.
People like to use the above example to show how quality is 'bad' (together with the Tiger Tank examples), but they are looking at it the wrong way. If JV 44 had ME-109s would that have helped? Nope ...by the time the war was already lost. Nazi Germany could have received F-22s and the war would still have been lost. It's like a human being armed with a M-4, stuck in the ground up to his waist, surrounded by thousands of fire ants. The war is lost! But what if the Germans had decided to wait until they had sufficient numbers of superlative technology? If that was the case then Deutsch-lernen would be critical for communication.
To win there has to be a mix of quality and quantity. I believe Romney wants to do both. The article makes it seem that he only wants greater numbers. That is not what he wants. He is not a fool.
Especially considering that simply making more 'cheap' designs would only mean expensive designs that are not effective. Again, look at the LCS designs. Almost as expensive as an Arleigh Burke destroyer, but less effective than Israeli and European frigates that cost a fraction! The only thing the LCS can do well is go at high speeds, but even that is not for a long period of time (and they cannot outrun an anti-ship missile anyways). It is not about cheap designs ...it is about effective designs that incorporate proper (and stringent) cost management.
I may be wrong about this, but I think the writer of the article is putting words in Romney's mouth to make a political counter-point to a silly remark Obama said in a debate. However, if Romney is really planning on having a lot of 'cheap but numerous' designs, then Romney is an utter fool and is nothing like Reagan.
"Stores supply uniforms in two sizes: too large and too small."
Maybe Romney should be looking past the current designs.
If the equation is One Burke, or six LCS, or (say) three Akizuki DD19, maybe the choice doesn't have to be between too few and too feeble.