| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| DOD on a Glide Path to Bankruptcy |
| 2008-07-22 |
| It may be hard for most people to believe that our defense establishment is in a serious decline at a time when we are spending more than $400 billion a year on defense, excluding supplemental appropriations. However, the facts bear out this alarming state of affairs.9 U.S. defense forces will continue to shrink and age, and we rapidly will cease being a dominant military force in the world, unless we make major changes soon. To avoid failure, leaders need to focus on fixing basic problem causes, not treating the symptoms. The problems have been self-inflicted; the solutions can be as well. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #10 These people ought to be selling sub-prime paper. Oh, wait...never mind. Posted by Procopius2k 2008-07-22 15:58|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top Whahahahahahahah.... |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-07-22 18:00 |
| #9 And don't forget that COngress gives the DoD their allowance; as they change their mind, the DoD is forced to make changes in programs and when total number of units to be bought gets cut, that drives the individual unit cost up, as R & D and design are independnet of quantity. and if the production is forced to be stretched out, that also drives up unit cost and the downward spiral begins. Think back to the B-2 program; originally over a 100, finally shut the line down @ 22. pretty spendy silver bullet. and no plan for attrition either. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2008-07-22 17:47 |
| #8 If you played real accounting games and moved retired pay and medical support out of the DoD budget lines, you'd be amazed how much gets opened up. However, like Social Security, the people cooking the nation's books [i.e. Congress] don't want that long term obligation to appear to zero out the rest of the budget. As with Social Security, if people saw it and demanded obligation on the contract, there'd be no 'slack' for all those lovely earmarks and set asides. These people ought to be selling sub-prime paper. Oh, wait...never mind. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-22 15:58 |
| #7 Politics also plays a huge role for inflating costs. The DoD and the appropriations committee has their own version of pork. A senator's pet project that the DoD doesn't need or want gets pushed in since it will go to his/her own state and it won't be the lowest/best bidder either. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-07-22 14:39 |
| #6 The military is using up gear bought when the DoD spent 6% of GDP. Now that the military gets 3% GDP, excluding war costs, contraction is inevitable. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-07-22 12:03 |
| #5 The cost of fuel to keep all of it running is exhorbitant, adding to expenditures. UAV fuel is about three times more than the average for regular to begin with. An energy policy and new technologies are simply a national security issue and imperative for our own defense. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-07-22 11:59 |
| #4 Anonymoose When Genarl Motors was required to build comabt planes during WWII she had to make a cultural adjustment: she was used to keep the same model in production with zeo modifications for years in order to cut cost while the military was constantly requiring modifications. Most of them were too small for introducing a new model but they required modifying the production cahin, decreaded production and increased costs. But this was what the pilots facing comabat had asked for. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-07-22 11:54 |
| #3 Moose, another thought about structural modifications. Many times structural mods are necessary to keep the old stuff flying. A case in point is the current C-130 center wing box replacement. From a more personal perspective, back in the early 70s, three B-52Ds crashed into the Pacific off the end of the runway at Anderson AFB when fatigued metal gave way and a wing fell off during takeoff. Structural modifications were made under RIVET PLANK (essentially welding an I-beam across the wing root) and later PACER PLANK to keep them flying. As for other structural mods, the BIG BELLY mod allowed the B-52D to use all the space in the bomb bay increasing the internal carrying capacity to 84 500lb bombs. Both mods were certainly cheap at twice the price. |
| Posted by: RWV 2008-07-22 10:38 |
| #2 Moose, from the perspective of someone who has been in the defense business on one side or the other for over 30 years, most program cost overruns arise from the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative ignoring what the contractor proposed (and based his costs upon) and demanding whatever change happens to strike his fancy. Procurements are competitively awarded based on technical proposals AND price. If the Government can't be bothered to accept what was proposed, it shouldn't be surprised when costs are adjusted to cover the new demands. In a few particularly horrific examples, the Government never can make up its mind what it wants and the program slowly dies as all the time and money are frittered away leaving the troops screwed again. |
| Posted by: RWV 2008-07-22 10:14 |
| #1 Yet, with a few small administrative changes, the problem vanishes. To start with, cost overruns: 1) Once designs are formalized in a contract agreement with a contractor, modifications to those designs can only be made in the next production contract, not the existing one. This alone will eliminate almost 1/3rd of cost overruns. 2) Contractors must be bonded and insured by major non-government underwriters for cost overruns prior to bidding. Thus low-balling bids will come out of their pocket, or their underwriters. The same rule applies for shakedown repairs. 3) Upgrades are limited to modular replacements, not structural modifications, which must be next-gen. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-22 10:01 |