Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Wasteful Defense Spending Is a Clear and Present Danger

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    97

    Default 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.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    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.
    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?

    I love the concluding sentence.
    At least they are safe from cyberattack since no one in China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that runs them.
    It reminds me of an anecdote that I shared with an Information Systems class in Business School, as I explained that - in the 21st century - we were using dot-matrix printers, floppy disks, and giant, low-resolution monitors to run the Army supply system. People thought that I was exaggerating. When the professor asked me for some plausible benefit of this, I pointed out, "well, I suppose you can't hack into an old 386 if it doesn't even have an ethernet port."

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default There's a lot of false numbers out there...

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    54

    Default 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.

  5. #5
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pjmunson View Post
    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.
    You should probably learn at least a little bit about how the defense industry operates before writing such slanderous nonsense.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Pots, kettles, skillets and Dutch Ovens.

    Quote Originally Posted by pjmunson View Post
    ...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...

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    54

    Default Hey J Wolfsberger...

    instead of insulting me and calling what I say nonsense, or at least in addition to insulting me, then why don't you explain how ill-informed I am. Sensitive because contracting dollars are lining your pockets? I have seen it in action, and I also know contractors who admit as much. Contractors (the companies) are businesses and if they do not justify their continued utility to the DoD, and also the expansion of their scope of work, then they are not going to survive. It makes business sense for them to be selling themselves. It also leads to bloat when no one in the DoD bureaucracy cuts the fat, or at least weeds out what we need from what we don't.

    Furthermore, some of the mechanisms through which the military is contracting out programs that are "urgent" leads to excesses, poorly written statements of work, and generally a lot of money wasted for not a lot of results.

    I am not a defense industry or defense acquisitions expert, but don't hide behind your huffy insults. Explain how I am off base.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •