The new commander-in-chief made some sweeping pronouncements earlier this week regarding procurement and acquisition reform. He specifically called out the defense industry and the services, two of the three legs of the “iron triangle” of the defense business. But what’s key is the leg he basically left out: lawmakers.
Without changing the way Congress protects jobs back home no real change will happen. The Washington Post framed the nature of the beast nicely today:
It was Democrats who stuffed an estimated $524 million in defense earmarks that the Pentagon did not request into the 2008 appropriations bill, about $220 million more than Republicans did, according to an independent estimate. Of the 44 senators who implored Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in January to build more F-22 Raptors — a fighter conceived during the Cold War that senior Pentagon officials say is not suited to probable 21st-century conflicts — most were Democrats.
And last July, when the Navy’s top brass decided to end production of their newest class of destroyers — in response to 15 classified intelligence reports highlighting their vulnerability to a range of foreign missiles — seven Democratic senators quickly joined four Republicans to demand a reversal. They threatened to cut all funding for surface combat ships in 2009.
Within a month, Gates and the Navy reversed course and endorsed production of a third DDG-1000 destroyer, at a cost of $2.7 billion.
So with this kind of chasm between word and deed is procurement reform a wave President Obama can surf?
I’m predicting a wipeout. And Kerry and Kennedy don’t surf.
Read the entire Post artice here. (Registration required.)
–Ward
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Vulnerability to missiles? I must not have caught that DTech article…
Anybody have more info on it?
I see the Dems are really into Waste, abuse & fraud with this budget that even the DoD says NO to.
Im stunned.
For Contract & procurement reforms I urge:
o CUT Corporate bureaucracy
o CUT DoD bureaucracy
o change regs.
o change policies.
o readopt to Todays climate warwise.
o BE flexible
o CUT abuse & fraud alone
o Streamline?
o Downsize process.
o Invite New ideas.
o If DoD says NO It means NO.
(why waste funds we dont need vs other weapons that should be funded).
o DoD should have Final Word
o Scrap politics from Defense budget.
o Hire those with NO defense exp to run Procurement etc BUT have business exp.
o Hire ex veterans.
Then see things change.
Vulnerability to missiles? I must not have caught that DTech article…
Anybody have more info on it?
Posted by: Charles at March 8, 2009 10:48 AM
From what ive seen the dd1k has pretty much 0′ anti missile defenses…it uper decks are wooden to help it cut down on radar signature…..WOODEN
The DDX has many wonderful ideas and technologies inbeded in them but there a waste of money at 2.7 billion. Hell there a was of money at 1 billion. The current planers in the pentegon have decided that the old maxim of “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” is a lie. They believe that stealth is a god weapon unable to be found ever.
I will say that some of the features of the ddx can be keept but i think the overall program needs to be scrapped.
Also why does the US navy seem to have such a resistence to trimaridian or catamaran hulls? From what I’ve read there more resistent to torpedo attacks more stable more efficient.
One of the excusses for the ddx is that its a nfs platform. That is a joke. The navy needs to just build a type of heavy crusier nuke powered with 8 to 16in naval guns or a some type of long range missiles like atacms or that type. And alot of AA and Anti missile systems.
hell make em dual perpose so that they can provide great AM and AA for invassion forces.
The Washington Post article commits a two-fer that we all should be constantly on guard against.
Specifically, it presents ‘conceived during the Cold War’ as a self-explanatory statement: it presumes the mere fact that it was conceived during the Cold War means it was only relevant for the Cold War. The requirement was to transform the F-15′s Air Superiority objectives and apply it to the next generation such that the F-22 would extend the F-15′s Air Dominance effect into the next generation fighter design. Air Dominance transcends past present and future opponents. The only safe wager is that if you don’t have it — you WILL need it.
The second half of the two-fer is unnamed ‘senior Pentagon officials’ asserting clairvoiance as to what 21st Century conflicts will need by way of weaponry. Aside from the suspicion they are most definitely NOT associated with the Air Force and have their own rice bowls they are protecting, history is pretty clear on the unpredictability of conflict beyond the maxim that you tend to get the wars you didn’t want or plan for.
Let’s discuss weapons and strategies by recognizing the 800lb gorilla in the room (again). Do we want to be a Superpower with the comensuarate freedom of action to act in our best National Interests? Or do we want to tune up the folk guitars, build a firepit at the beach and sing ‘Kumbaya’, and ‘HOPE’ the future turns out OK?
Hope IS NOT a ‘plan’.
Don’t plan on any real changes anytime soon. President Hope Change’s budget director just said “we’ll deal with earmarks next year.” Industry and the DoD will continue doing business as usual as long as Congress keeps the money flowing.
When you have politicians voting on budget issues what do you expect? You miss the point here, big military projects means lots of $$$$$ for some of these politicians home states. They are doing what they were voted in to do and if they do not do it well they are voted out. Kinda a catch 22 situations is it not?
So long as members of congress are elected and they are judged by ‘bringing home the bacon’ expect earmarks to stay alive and well.
It sucks but that’s the nature of the beast….it’s really disheartening to see people doing things for the sake of jobs back home for Bubba instead of what is best for the Armed Services.
I applaud Obama for highlighting the earmark issue but really it is out of his hands unless he can get the line item veto or use his political clout to bully these congressmen/women into reducing earmarks.
Frankly, I think that DoD funding needs to be done differently somehow…radically different.
I am going to post about this tomorrow. Look earmarks were there when the Republicans ran everything as well. Duncan Hunter used to be a past master at it. Part of the problem is that the companies lobby for them and as long as the Congressman believes it will be good for his district (and him) then he can do it. Most are not as blatant as Duke Cunningham. Heck, even government workers are in on it. See this: http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/topics/services/smdc/. The guy got earmarks for companies and took kick backs from them. He created a program out of whole cloth and sold it to various Senators. I agree with S. Russell it will take reform of the whole defense procurement process to eliminate this part of it.
Seems to me that the Navy just needs some administrators that are better at dealing with Congress. If District X is willing to throw money at the Navy, the Navy should have a worthwhile program ready to spend the money on in that district. And appointing that kind of politically-savvy civilian leadership is the President’s job…any word yet on the next Secretary of the Navy?
Simple way to break this.
No more ear marks, Make congress accually work 5 days a week IN washington at the congress building unless on special assignment. TERM LIMITS of 1 to 2 terms for congress and senate.
I MEAN WTF SERIOUSLY!
The problem won’t stop as long as politicians have to send money home to keep themselves in office. Many of these districts are as dependent on government military expenditures as some are on government checks to keep their economies going. No politician is going to sink his districts economy/career for the good of the country with constuents clogging his phone lines and, definately not when all the other states are doing it too. The states see the federal goverment’s treasury as an all you can eat deli, therefore ,the real culprit in all of this is the American people, who screw over the collective good of the country for their own individual states gain.
If you clear your browser cookies, you should be able to view Washington Post stories without registering. I think it only pops up a registration prompt after viewing a certain number of articles.
Valcan,
Yes, that’s easy. Just make Congress do that. Of course, that means Congress themselves will have to make those rules.
Please, don’t post stupid solutions and say “it’s easy!”
Please, don’t post stupid solutions and say “it’s easy!”
Posted by: Brian at March 9, 2009 01:56 AM
It is easy its just getting congress to do it which is hard ;)
now dont tell me wtf to write :)
Everyone should read TX Hammes – books and articles – basically he has said that forecasters of the “who we will fight and how we will fight next” have been wrong for centuries.
The only solution is too build a balanced force whether we like it or not. It means high end air superiority fighters, nuclear subs, tanks and COIN forces, etc. When Obama says “weapons to fight the cold war” should be cut or some such nonsense, look at his background HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!
The leftist political/military strategy is simple. Under the guise of “economic crisis” they will weaken the military so the US can no longer project power. Oh there will be plenty of “talk” just like under Clinton but the world will become an ever more dangerous place.
Everyone should read TX Hammes – books and articles – basically he has said that forecasters of the “who we will fight and how we will fight next” have been wrong for centuries.
The only solution is too build a balanced force whether we like it or not. It means high end air superiority fighters, nuclear subs, tanks and COIN forces, etc. When Obama says “weapons to fight the cold war” should be cut or some such nonsense, look at his background HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!
_____________________________________________________________________
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s the goal Secretary of Defense Bob Gates is striving for.
We have to strike a balance, like we do in everything in life. Spending ourselves into economic meltdown is not “protecting the country”. But neither is cutting expensive programs just because they’re expensive. Just because the budget gets tight doesn’t mean the need goes away.
You can’t fix the problem by simply ordering Congress to behave, and you can’t streamline the process or it would have been done already. Look around the world and everyone is seeing the same problems that we are. Nobody out there is getting a lot of bang for their buck. We’re all seeing prices go up and weapons get delayed.
The real problem is that we’re not facing a high intensity war like we did in WW2, or even Vietnam. We aren’t losing equipment due to enemy action. We’ve got bombers left over from the 1950s that still fly. It’s hard to justify replacements of still-functional weaponry to Congressmen when they have concerns of their own. If we want weapons to be affordable, we have to buy in large enough quantities to make it affordable. If we buy a small amount of fighters, we up their cost per aircraft and limit their utility and lifespan.
What we need is a comprehensive acquisitions plan that takes budget, cost, and likely funding into account. And we need to stick to it. We don’t need pie-in-the-sky predictions made for the sole purpose of protecting one’s turf (be it by the Army, Air Force, Lockheed, or Congress). We need someone who can generate a comprehensive plan that will work. It needs to be created with a vision towards maintaining it in the future. Thing is, we probably won’t get that until there’s a problem of some kind.
524 Mil is bad alright, but two questions:
Q: How much did Republicans grab?
A: I’m guessing it’s in the ballpark…
Q: How big is this compared to the yearly DOD budget?
A: Peanuts
Yes, pork is bad unless you happen to live in that state – then it saves jobs, etc. I think the best thing this administration can do is to make the procurement process more transparent. Right now it’s just too easy for bad planning, pet projects, and backroom deals go unnoticed.
Like hunter says, not like this is a new issue. And why are we obsessing about an amount of money that’s equal to less than one-fifth of one percent of the overall defense budget?
The earmarks aren’t the issue. It’s gravy. Start looking at what they’re putting in the main course – bloated, gold-plated defense projects that we can’t afford to buy in the numbers required for future conflicts.
This whole exercise is simply about taking money from the wealthiest in extra taxes, and pumping it into the economy via “make work” exercises (particularly all those middle class engineers).
Although I’m not holding my breath, if we get a second Obama term and he cleans up the ear-marks when the economy isn’t melting down, then I can live with this.
Given that defense spending is 4% GDP, and this makes it 4.1% GDP, I don’t think it’s such a huge deal.
I think the best thing this administration can do is to make the procurement process more transparent.
Transparent is not something this administration is accually for…unless it fits with there plans.
There the shake your hand and stab you in the back and blame it on the other guy type.
And look at all that has happened in the world sence january hell sence the world knew he was the next president….he is weak he and those in his administration want america to be weak, a puppet to the UN.
————————————
“The real problem is that we’re not facing a high intensity war like we did in WW2, or even Vietnam. We aren’t losing equipment due to enemy action. ”
been saying that sence this war started in 2001
@ Drake,
I will agree that is what Secdef Gates is “striving” for – POTUS has final say. Gates said just prior to or just after the election that it was an absolute imperative that the US renew its nuclear deterrent force, Obama has said he plans to kill any new nukes and radically disarm. Gates “striving” means very little.