Eric is right: this story in the Times today, about massive cost overruns in Pentagon weapons programs, is “something of an evergreen.” And no, the article doesn’t add many branches to the tree.
But still, we’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars going to waste here. We’re talking putting the future of the American military at risk. Isn’t that a subject that could use some repeating?
The Pentagon has more than 80 major new weapons systems under development, which is “a lot more programs than we can afford,” a senior Air Force official, Blaise J. Durante, said. Their combined cost, already $300 billion over budget, is $1.47 trillion and climbing…
In interviews and public testimony, military leaders, arms makers and government auditors generally agreed on why the nation’s arsenal costs so much.
They said the military conjures up dream weapons, like the Extended Range Guided Munition… It sets immensely expensive technological requirements that are far beyond the state of the art of war, weapons executives say. Officials at the handful of major military contractors cross their fingers and promise to fulfill those visions.
Almost no one flatly rejects the wish list for weapons and requirements. The military adds new technologies to many weapons already under development. Those systems add complexity and weight, which add costs to planes, ships and tanks.
Military officials routinely understate the anticipated costs of weapons… When costs rise far beyond the promised ceilings… almost no one takes responsibility.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
One might think removing the root cause of war would be a lot cheaper.
But then, I’m a liberal!
What do I know?
Interesting post. It makes me wonder what you perceive as the “root” cause of war, how you would accomplish its removal and how this removal would be effected world-wide.
If military officials are dreaming up the impossible and asking that it be implemented, it would seem to suggest that the relevant military officials don’t have a terribly good grasp on reality.
I wonder how many of these cost overruns could have been avoided if more people involved in making the decisions were more aware of the science and engineering behind the projects?
That’s because none of these decision makers have to pay for it. Spend the money on troops and basic equipment. Look at the Stryker fiasco. The requirements to make it go into the c130′s and the minimum size scewed it up. Underarmored and can’t fire when moving. Now to add armor and weight destroys the tires and axles. But the Generals in charge loved the smooth ride.
What a joke.
Simplify things instead of adding and adding requirements.
The people making the choices should get in trouble, but that’ll never happen.
We don’t need all these new weapons. We need leaders that don’t have the BS market cornered. Support the troops in the field and listen to what they say they need. The guys that do the actual trigger pulling. Not the remf’s
that yell at you for not being in uniform when they visit the front lines.
You know, this caught my eye also, and I had to wonder what all the ex-CEOs and business leaders now employed as defense officials are doing with their vast knowledge of “best business practices.” I mean if anyone could fix a problem like prioritizing and balancing books, you’d think it would be them.
For all of Rummie’s transformation talks, no real effort to match dreams against budget realities and what we really need. Disappointing.
I hear they are burning bound piles of $20′s to keep facilities warm.
Now if only they could switch to 10′s….
Colossal military bureaucracy of America: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/201... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/201... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/201... http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/16/zakaria-gop-should-he... http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/16/zakaria-gop-should-he...