Our out-of-control Defense Department

Lesson on How Not to Build a Navy Ship
By PHILIP TAUBMAN
Published: April 25, 2008
New York Times
... The program’s tribulations speak to what military experts say are profound shortcomings in the Pentagon’s acquisitions system. Even as spending on new projects has risen to its highest point since the Reagan years, being over budget and behind schedule have become the norm: a recent Government Accountability Office audit found that 95 projects — warships, helicopters and satellites — were delayed 21 months on average and cost 26 percent more than initially projected, a bill of $295 billion.

Single examples of waste are just that: single examples. In an of itself, the single example proves nothing. In this case, however, the single example is representative of "profound shortcomings in the Pentagon's acquisitions system".

Several worrisome specifics are cited:

"... a policy of letting contractors take the lead in managing weapons programs has coincided with an acute shortage of government engineers trained to oversee these increasingly complex enterprises."
...
"Lockheed [the primary contractor] had virtually no shipbuilding experience. But in keeping with a Pentagon policy that called for letting big military contractors run complex projects with minimal government supervision, the Navy made the companies primarily responsible for all phases of development — from concept studies to detailed design and construction."
...
"In theory, the contractors’ business and technological acumen would save taxpayer dollars. But the Navy agreed to reimburse the companies for cost overruns rather than setting a fixed price, leaving little incentive to hold down costs."

There's more - but this is enough.

We recently learned that DoD awarded a $300Mn contract to a start-up company to provide ammunition to our Afghan allies, with no oversight & no controls. What did the $300Mn pay for? 40-year-old, degraded Chinese bullets!

The article notes that the new "littoral ships" were conceived as a response to attack on the U.S.S. Cole by a small craft. The Navy desired an "asymmetric response" to counter this "asymmetric attack". In terms of $$$, the response is certainly asymmetric: a $500,000,000 ship to combat a $2,000 Zodiac!

The military is wedded to high-tech solutions to low-tech problems. Heck - it's wedded to high-tech solutions searching for a problem!

I've said before: U.S. taxpayers don't mind paying taxes if they believe they're getting something for the $$$ spent. Over and over we find ourselves paying for high-tech weapons systems that cost more than advertised, perform poorly, and simply fail to address current real defense needs.

We are currently losing two wars to third-world insurgents... at an ADDITIONAL cost of more than $100,000,000,000 per year.

Advice to ultimate Dem Presidential Candidate: fund maintenance of current assets; kill EVERY currently funded new project. Initiate 1-2 year review of current, real Defense needs, and fund new projects accordingly.

Stop the madness!