Defense Dept. doubles spending on systems that don't deliver

The price tag on the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (PDF) has gone up 168 percent--just one of the military's flagship programs that cost more, take longer to produce, and deliver less, according to a government report.

(Credit: GDLS)

The military has doubled the amount it will spend on new weapons systems since 2000, but many are behind schedule or cannot deliver on the crucial technological innovations, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) found in an annual review of 72 high-profile programs.

Proposed spending has rocketed from $790 billion to $1.6 trillion since 2000, a 26 percent increase, according to the congressional watchdog agency. But more money has not meant better results. Even at increased costs, the GAO found, weapons programs are failing to deliver promised capabilities and are almost never on time. This means that the military must settle for "suboptimal" acquisitions and late delivery to the battlefield, even though the "warfighter's urgent need" is what's often cited when these weapon systems are pitched.

The average delay is 21 months, according to the report. Of all the programs assessed, none had met the "best-practices standards" for mature technologies, stable design, or mature production, which are essential to meet cost, schedule, and performance targets.

(Credit: GAO)

Money misspent on weapon systems means not only reduced buying power for defense, but also less money for other priorities--such as the global war on terror and growing entitlement programs, Acting Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro warned Congress.

The report identified four major problems with the Defense Department's acquisition process: program changes (63 percent of performance requirements changed mid-stream), frequent program manager turnover (making it hard to hold anyone accountable), reliance on private contractors to support and oversee contracts (fox guarding the hen house), and weapon systems dependent on increasingly complex, yet-to-be-developed software (we need more H-1B visas).

[Mikeatle]

It pisses me off that we throw money at the military and require little or no oversight as to the effectiveness of the spending, yet we howl to heaven every time anyone proposes more money for education or public infrastructure. What have we become in this nation but slaves to the military industrial complex whose soul pupose it is to keep us perpetually in war so that their budgets will remain fat with tax dollars. Frankly, I would propose that the military budget be cut by at least 75% and most or all of that savings be returned to the people and/or spent on education and sorely needed infrastructure repair.

[sal-magnone]

The military has huge oversite, The DoD itself, outside auditors, the GAO, and more. Miltary projects almost always go overbudget because in many cases they are building what does not exist yet - often including the underlying technology. The system vendors works in forces them to offer the most optimistic possibility for delivery and cost.

The GAO is doing its job pointing out the problems. No problem with that. However, most of the nuts you see demanding their money back sound allot like the retro quacks that said the M-1, the Bradley, the F-16, the F-18 would never work in 1980. Of course, these are some of the world's best pieces of equipment (in their generation) now.

I would counter that we've been throwing huge money at eductation for decades with little or no improvement. And in fact, the largest portion of the US budget is entitlements (when you add state funding its off the rickter scale). I would argue that we have become slaves to social programs that designed to keep the poor in poverty under the guise of charity and social responsibility.

[mpeskin]

The issue is not the fact that developing cutting edge military hardware is expensive and difficult. The issue is the fact that all of the incentives in the current military procurement process lead the participants to substantially underestimate these costs. The problem with this is the total lack of realistic cost/time estimation makes it virtually impossible to spend our defense development money rationally, and thus the whole system gradually devolves into a welfare program for wealthy defense contractors.

Oh, and while US entitlement spending (education spending is not an entitlement, BTW) is also out of control, the vast majority of that spending is on programs directed at the elderly irrespective of income (Social Security and Medicare), not necessarily at the poor.

[sal-magnone]

IN any case, left-right aside, I will agree with this. Better management is required to better rationalize the spend. However, you can't do that without better structuring the political process that oversees the allocation and spend. Trying to fix the military build/buy process by cutting its budget is like trying to fix a patient by cutting his Oxygen. Living in an area close to Northrop, Lockheed and allot of other smaller contractors, I know these guys feel like they are working in the looney bin when ever the government comes up. They would like nothing better I think than to work in a sane system.

[sal-magnone]

"thus the whole system gradually devolves into a welfare program for wealthy defense contractors " - THAT'S a big leap to the left.

I never said education was an entitlement program - even though you are entitiled to it, funny how that works - the comment I replied to brought it up,

If you are old, but not poor, you don't need entitlements. Yes, you pay into the system but system is substandard gives you a substandard return.

So based on your comment, can we eliminate those "few" poverty programs like Medicaid from the federal budget (and state too)? Shouldn't be too much right?

[Jake Leone]

"and weapon systems dependent on increasingly complex, yet-to-be-developed software (we need more H-1B visas)."

This is the dumbest comment ever made.

Thankfully the people at the Pentagon are a little smarter than the average editor. If you look at most defense related jobs, they usually require citizenship.

So the answer, frankly, isn't to hire h-1b workers into those sensitive jobs. Like an h-1b from China, like that makes any sense at all. The answer is to keep developing citizen talent. Unfortunately the h-1b is often used to fill the lowest ranks of software and IT and so it actually damages this process.

[charliestl51]

When you post a diatribe against the American educational system, you might be well advised to use a dictionary, unless you are claiming that you yourself are a victim of an inadequate educational system.