I'm not sure that there is really anything new, here. All the writer is doing is shining a light on a fire.
Corruption in the Pentagon isn't new, nor is it limited to the Air Force. Look at the Bradley Fighting Vehicle that cost $1.5B and 15 years to develop because the Pentagon brass kept changing the requirements. Or, the $600 toilet seat/$900 hammer/$1200 coffee maker nonsense of the 70s.
The Pentagon does purchase unique systems that can't be bought off-the-shelf. However, that doesn't mean that every screw, nut, bolt and rivet that goes into the construction and assembly has to be unique as well.
Fiscal responsibility is NOT a Pentagon hallmark, however, the weapons they control are what make us safe and free. There are corrective actions that can/should be implemented to reduce overall government waste and spending on frivolous stuff, but we need to make sure we draw the line carefully and not just start slashing at everything that moves.
Much of the cost overrun is due to the Pentagon brass changing requirements AFTER production starts. The vendor shouldn't have to eat the cost of the Pentagon constantly changing paddles in mid-stream . . . . . but, neither should the taxpayer.
There's a happy medium that may simply be implementing more technical contract review before approval. Or, it may be a "corporate culture" issue in the Pentagon that requires more strenuous policy changes.
Billy Mitchell's battle with the Navy is no different than the present problem.
One way to reduce waste and bad system choices is to permantly severe the "JOBS FOR "HELPFUL" GENERALS syndome that invites high corruption, waste, and weakened defense.
Congress and the CNNization of current operations has its hand in changing requirements also.
Witness uparmored HMMWVs.
I don't deny corruption exists, but I think it has been shown here and elsewhere that the "$600 toilet seat/$900 hammer/$1200 coffee maker nonsense of the 70s" was largely a distortion of reality by a news media hungry for a dramatic story and anxious to discredit the military.
That's a damnable myth. The toilet seat "cost" $600 because of the accounting procedures of the military. If a contractor provided a jet engine, a toilet seat and a wing replacement, the total cost was divided by the number of items. So the toilet seat "cost" $600, but so did the jet engine. Get real, and stop parroting the liberal line.