Wasteful Defense Spending Is a Clear and Present Danger
WSJ
We could afford a stronger military if we implemented some contracting reforms.
JOHN LEHMAN
When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, he was flying an A4 Skyhawk. That jet cost $860,000.
Inflation has risen by 700% since then. So Mr. McCain's A4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars. Applying a generous factor of three for technological improvements, the price for a 2008 Navy F18 fighter should be about $18 million. Instead, we are paying about $90 million for each new fighter. As a result, the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers. This is disarmament without a treaty.
The situation is worse in the Air Force. In 1983, I was in the Pentagon meeting that launched the F-22 Raptor. The plan was to buy 648 jets beginning in 1996 for $60 million each (in 1983 dollars). Now they cost $350 million apiece and the Obama budget caps the program at 187 jets. At least they are safe from cyberattack since no one in China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that runs them.
There's a lot of false numbers out there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Schmedlap
I wonder how good of a comparison that is. Was an A4 designed for the same mission as an F18? Is a "factor of three for technological improvements" really generous?
First off, the F-22 doesn't cost $350 million... that's essentially including the development cost, most of which is sunk. Somewhere around $115-$130 million is probably more accurate. If the F-22 was built at the same rate (approx 2900?) the A-4 was, it would certainly be a lot cheaper. Or even the rate it was supposed to be built. Or even half the rate it was supposed to have been.
The A-4 is not really comparable to the F-22 either... roles and missions wise, we don't really have an equivalent... the ROKAF T-50, Hawk, or M-346 would probably be a more apt comparison. From the A-4's timeframe, the F-102 or F-4 are probably better comparisons.
If you compare the effectiveness increase of the F-22 (perhaps kill ratios?) over other fighters to the cost increase they are probably pretty close to proportional.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... the US military needs to be able to fight at all levels of the spectrum of conflict. Without the high end forces (armor, artillery, carriers, fighters) needed to fight at the high end, wars may not stay small.
Personally I think we should be able to afford a force that allows a moderate level of risk across the spectrum.
Read the title of the WSJ article
Cliff, Lehman isn't saying that we shouldn't have the F-22. From the title, and the article itself, he's saying that the bloating of costs due to the screwed-up nature of our acquisitions bureaucracy, plus the fact that we've essentially let the contractors take over the job of telling us what we need, is killing us on defense spending. I'd argue that, while the F-22 makes an attractive example because of the sheer dollar amounts involved, you can see this contracting bloat everywhere. The answer to everything seems to be to hire contractors, who will then work into their study, their procedures, whatever, the trojan horse of how you are going to need them forever and how you need to increase the scope of their contract so you can pay them more money.
Pots, kettles, skillets and Dutch Ovens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pjmunson
...that the bloating of costs due to the screwed-up nature of our acquisitions bureaucracy, plus the fact that we've essentially let the contractors take over the job of telling us what we need...
Seems to me the former leads to the latter. Both failures ably and forcibly supported by our superb Congress.
The emasculated the former to to stop backbiting and evading of Congressional preferences They assisted DoD in shutting down the P&C folks by passing some really dumb laws and requiring a 'compliance' bureaucracy that would be hilarious in its lack of value if it weren't sad.
They really like contractors -- contractors are BIG campaign contributors and many of them hire Union workers, a twofer for the Congroids.
There's plenty of blame in this for many -- including a number of folks in uniform and DoD civilians, appointed and career. The industry is reacting to the people it sells to. Contractors are subject to uniformed scrutiny...
Well, I think both of you are correct. You are not
talking past each other but you are focusing, it seems to me, on different aspects and perhaps, as they say the truth is somewhere in between. The process is flawed, we all acknowledge, contributors to problems exist in all categories of persons involved, I think we all said one way or another -- so the problem is that we -- Whoa! I'm retarded, -- YOU are both victims of that flawed process and you're hacked off by it.
I'm not even a victim -- now -- and I'm hacked off. The problem existed back in my day but it has gotten significantly worse in the last few years. It is borderline criminal and it sure needs to be fixed -- for the sake of the contractors, the services and the nation. :mad:
Never vote for an incumbent!!! :mad:
As I've been reading through the thread
I do think J Wolfsbergers last
Quote:
It's your adversarial attitude I'm responding to. Here's some free advice: Stay out of acquisition. If you ever go into the acquisition side with the attitude you've shown here, you will enjoy a self fulfilling prophecy. The only contractors who will want to work with you will be the ones who live down to your expectations.
Is fairly accurate both on the attitude perception side and especially the part about self-fulfilling prophecy.
As a contractor myself I have seen and experienced much of what each of you has mentioned but have to say that in general most of those who work for DOD do not approach everything from a "get everything you can" perspective. This from Ken
Quote:
Well, I think both of you are correct. You are not
talking past each other but you are focusing, it seems to me, on different aspects and perhaps, as they say the truth is somewhere in between. The process is flawed, we all acknowledge, contributors to problems exist in all categories of persons involved, I think we all said one way or another -- so the problem is that we -- Whoa! I'm retarded, -- YOU are both victims of that flawed process and you're hacked off by it.
I'm not even a victim -- now -- and I'm hacked off. The problem existed back in my day but it has gotten significantly worse in the last few years. It is borderline criminal and it sure needs to be fixed -- for the sake of the contractors, the services and the nation.
absolutely hits the nail on the head.
The larger problem however is that there are problems on the military/ Civilian sides as well which more often than not create that survival of the fittest/ CYA requirement since either of the above on a whim can bring a whole lot of pain for very little purpose other than that they are not happy with some aspect of a given mission requirement or position.
Want to really see what kind of impact this can have look at the current Civilian hire move as defined by those who decided on it and taker a deeper look at how it is being implemented at the lower echelon's.
Long and short, Yes some things gotta change; point is make sure your looking at the entire cycle and all players involved before devolving into the easier bash the contractor only to find in the end that rather then getting things right for the future you instead ended up knocking them back to 6 years ago and have essentially ensured things will stay there for the next ten.
As to this last-
Perhaps it's just my youth and relative inexperience but are you saying that it's a bad thing for organizations which perform services for a customer to actually work hard to know what the client may require for the future and do their best to provide options when and if the time arrives that they are asked for it.
(PS IMHO any good general analyst can have at least a fair idea of what those requirements might be w/o necessarily having the "inside scoop" )
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pjmunson
"Companies that perform studies and analysis for organizations like TRADOC are usually small and specialized, and generally aren't involved on the acquisition side."
Details aside because my example in the post you were responding to is real, the company doing the study is not small, and while it has a specialized analytical branch, evidently, it is heavily involved on the acquisitions side. Again, rational business behavior. Major defense contractors have the influence and economies of scale to operate more efficiently in all modes of defense contracting, plus when they branch out into analysis, they're helping their own cause out. While it may not be direct influence, as I do not know the ethical and legal obligations of fencing off such a study from the other branches of the company, they are at a minimum gaining insight into where DoD is looking for change and can clue their other branches to look for marketable activities there.
IF on the other hand your simply saying there are those who stack the deck then OK;Exactly how do you differentiate between the former (mentioned above) and the latter. (your apparent concern)
Chill is a good word. I think we should do that.
I'd hate to shut a good thread down because civility got lost. But I will.
ADDED: Ron's post snuck in while I was typing mine; he seems to be relatively chilled and I think I am...
We all need to remember that this is not a good communication medium, nuances and smiles get missed so one has to be pretty careful how one words things, else something not meant to give offense may not be taken as innocently as it was meant.
On my second beer, so quite chilled...
...which feels a lot better than being spun-up!
This thread reminds me of a contracting story told by RJ Hillhouse over at her neglected blog. It contains many elements of dysfunction that we probably all see in the current system. The one that strikes me is the experience mismatch between uniformed, government and civilian acquisitions/contractor personnel. In the Air Force, for example, many of the best acquisitions personnel, particularly the technical and science ones with advanced degrees, leave the service because the Air Force is stupid and doesn't mentor, nurture and promote them as it should. The result is that our supposed technology-focused service drives out the technical experts it needs to understand the technology and explain it to the service leadership who must make procurement decisions. I get the sense that the services often don't have the technical expertise to provide proper oversight and management.
Oh, and the process is probably just a bit overcomplicated. Click on the flowchart on that site - yes, it's one powerpoint slide! Need we say anything else? :D
Sheesh. What a mind bender.
Thanks for the link. I think. :eek: :confused:
The thing that really irks me is that those yo-yos in Congress, the institution who is responsible for much of this -- acknowledging that services do tend to drive out the really sharp techies who can translate things for those senior but unversed (and that I certainly wouldn't want to be an acquisition guy...) -- will get on their high horse in a fraction of a second over any kerfluffle in the process they created...
The terrible thing is that it's likely to get worse before it gets better. :(