Arms Fiascoes Lead to Alarm Inside Pentagon

NY Times ^ | June 8, 2005 | TIM WEINER

[neverdem]

Nine years ago, the Navy set out to build a new guided missile for its 21st-century ships. Fiascoes followed. In a test firing, the missile melted its on-board guidance system. "Incredibly," an Army review said, "the Navy ruled the test a success."

Recently, the Navy rewrote the contract and put out another one, with little to show for the money it already spent. The bill has come to almost $400 million, five times the original budget.

Such stories may seem old hat. But after years of failing to control cost overruns, the most powerful officials at the Pentagon are becoming increasingly alarmed that the machinery for building weapons is breaking down under its own weight.

"Something's wrong with the system," Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld recently told Congress.

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 the civilian world, next-generation technologies, like cellphones and computers, rarely cost much more than their predecessors. But the Pentagon's new planes and ships are costing three, four and five times as much as the weapons they will replace. As prices soar, the number of new weapons that the American military can afford shrinks, even with the biggest budget in decades.

"We're No. 1 in the world in military capabilities," said David M. Walker, who runs the Government Accountability Office, the budget overseer for Congress. "But on the business side, the Defense Department gets a D - giving them the benefit of the doubt. If they were a business, they wouldn't be in business."

Neither the Pentagon nor Congress nor the weapons contractors have any prescription to...

[Red6]

Seldom is this the case.

Military aquisition is a near empiracle (decision matrixies-Declination indicies and so fourth) operation which is open to review by Congress and others.

The $400 tiolet seat is a cute little example which you can find at Boeing, GM, or even Procter and Gamble. That's called fraud! It exists, but its not the norm.

Look at the source of the story. That should tell you a lot. The NYT always trys to construct stories like this.

Here are some other over priced failures! Patriot, M1, F15, Apache, Seawolf, New aircraft carriers, the Bradley. All of these were failures according to the MSM. All of them were overpriced, unaffordable military pork which didn't work. Remember the Patriot and how it was so bad according to 60 minutes? Ever see or hear ANYTHING after the second Gulf War where they shot down 13 missiles with PAC3? No.

The DoD spends money fairly prudently.

Red6

[ScreamingFist]

The DoD spends money fairly prudently.

FRiend,the DoD squanders money just like any other branch of the government. The difference is that the DoD actually produces results every now and then......it just take 10 or 15 years.

[mbynack]

One of the problems is that the new military systems are pushing the technology envelopes. In some cases the technology doesn't even exist when the systems are funded. The military fronts the money for the technology development and then the contractors use the technology for civilian spin-offs. That's why high tech civilian systems are getting cheaper - because the military (i.e., taxpayers) have already paid for the R&D.

[familyop]

"Do you think I shouldn't post stories like this when it's on the Times' front page above the fold?"

IMO,...not stories that demand cutbacks in military spending while an anti-American axis is building against us overseas, building new navies and trying to figure out how to own new ocean routes. ...and not dishonest stories when recent missile tests have been more than good enough. The piece posted above uses omissions to tell lies.

"Here's the pic, which looks like the back of a M113 fitted with the RPG screens used on the Stryker. I would appreciate any comments about the vehicle."

...one of those "where's Willy Booboo in this picture" puzzles?

Improvised armor has been added in just about every conflict. I was with the regiment that started adding it during WWII (although I only trained at clearing hasty, primary lanes, equipment destruction, infantry work, and the like).

The M113 might be a rough, hot ride, but hell, if it works,... It's armor, and it's better than anything that has tires without tracks. And just about anything would take a lot of time to PMCS, clean, and for motor pool to maintain in sand like that--something that no one likes to do as often as needed.

Most new vehicles, on the other hand, need a few years of engineering updates before they're reliable.

So far, our military has only accumulated about half the soldier deaths expected in the original pursuit into Iraq and far fewer deaths than in any military job of that kind in history. The only glaring mistake I've seen was lack of flank support on the road for units like Lynch's (which lack of support for service, maintainance, supply and the like was obviously to facilitate faster road pursuits for the combat units that were way out in front of them).

As for competition between branches for materiel, infantry divisions would like to have continued support in the air and from the waters. It would be a real bummer if they someday called for fire and didn't get the fire that they needed. ...or if a nuke wasn't stopped from hitting them.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

If you mean TWA 800 then get a new brain. The Navy was not involved. Now a couple of terrorists with some kind of shoulder fired missile that's a different matter.

But the government says that it was faulty wiring.

If you think it's terrorists then the government says you need a new brain.

[68skylark]

Is it unpatriotic, or anti-military, to remind everyone which branch of the government brought us the $400 toilet seat?

Well when I compare defense to something like public education, I'm a LOT happier with the money we spend on one than the other. Yeah, I think it may be unpatriotic to slam on the military without keeping in mind lots of other government waste that's a whole lot worse.

[highball]

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not willing to give Congress a pass when they waste money in the military budget just because it's the military budget.

I have no problem with spending money on national defense. That's a legitimate role of the federal government. I just want it spent wisely, so our troops get the best use out of it.

[dakine]

In the FAR?....

[dakine]

You won't be poor....

[68skylark]

I have no problem with spending money on national defense. That's a legitimate role of the federal government. I just want it spent wisely, so our troops get the best use out of it.

That makes a lot of sense. Like you, I'm also in favor of effective defense spending and I'm opposed to useless waste. And I'm sure there's lots of waste.

I'm sorry if I sounded testy -- I get ticked off at those people who are always harping on defense spending and who never look at far larger sources of waste in our social spending and education system.

[highball]

No sweat. I should have made my point clearer from the start.

I would have addressed wasteful spending elsewhere (where to start?) except that wasteful military spending was the subject of the thread.

[WOSG]

Forty years ago, the NY Times and its retarded but wealthy inbred liberal constituancy set out to build a new level of socialistic governmental interference into the fabric of the US. Fisacos followed. In the next 40 years, the new social programs melted the fabric of American society; destroyed the lives and hopes of tens of millions of blacks, American Indians, and other minorities; and created a ten trillion dollar national debt equaling the total spent on its lethal and hypocritical welfare programs. Incredibly, the Times and the coastal elites ruled this chaos a "success..."

---

Good answer!

What's NYTimes agenda here?
Government boondoggles abound - what about eg the Big Dig, the most costly ($20 billion) piece of highway ever built?

Did NYT ever do an expose on that?

There seems to be a braod brush being applied here.

[neverdem]

IMO,...not stories that demand cutbacks in military spending while an anti-American axis is building against us overseas, building new navies and trying to figure out how to own new ocean routes. ...and not dishonest stories when recent missile tests have been more than good enough. The piece posted above uses omissions to tell lies.

"The military gets only a fraction of the bang for the buck it once did, the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. John P. Jumper, said. "We have got to do something about it," General Jumper said in an interview, calling for "a national debate" on the costs of weapons. The Navy's top admiral, Vern Clark, echoes that view.

The story did no such thing as demand cutbacks or anything else except describe how costs are exploding for new hardware. Thanks for the link, but the Aegis system and the Navy's Standard Missile have been around for a while.

The gif below came with the fourth article in the series, IIRC. It states the U.S. Navy is the source.

[neverdem]

Air Force Seeks Bush's Approval for Space Weapons Programs

In comment# 15 on that link, you can find links to the other four unexcerpted stories in the series on future military hardware and technology. Three are between the two graphics, the last is after the Future Combat Systems graphic.

Isn't that a M113 APC in comment# 14 on this thread?

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Joe Brower]

I can't tell if that's an M113 or not. I spent most of my time on foot, or with AmTracs.

As for "If they were a business, they wouldn't be in business", well, that could be said for probably 99.9% of the programs our FedGov presently has instituted.

[Red6]

RPG screen-AKA Bird cage armor

Great stuff! It gives you about a 50% probability that the RPG fails because of the fuze not making any contact.

50%, that's the odds I want to have!

Birdcage style amor is better than nothing; it's hardly ideal.

(Opinion)

Red6

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Great stuff! It gives you about a 50% probability that the RPG fails because of the fuze not making any contact."

And, if you can keep idiots from using it as a stowage area, the "successful" detonations will not form a proper jet to penetrate the vehicle hull.

[Red6]

:)

Most of that improvisational, home made armor doesn’t work anyway. The force of an RPG hitting it would collapse it in most instances. In some cases the spacing between the bars/tubes is wrong. Often they put this improvisational armor over top of a surface that would serve them better left alone since it’s highly angled.

No doubt real armor works. But some of these “Hodgy specials” bring little and in some cases it's even counterproductive.

Red6

[archy]

And, if you can keep idiots from using it as a stowage area, the "successful" detonations will not form a proper jet to penetrate the vehicle hull.

Not the idea. Older PG-7 shaped charge warheads used the conical metal shaped charge liner to carry one line of the firing circuit to the initiator at the rear center of the explosive payload. The other was carried through the metal body of the grenade's exterior, initiated when the piezo crystal in the grenade's nose was crushed on impact, generating the electrical spark necessary to set off the blasting cap initiator.

But if the two metal components were crushed together, they shorted out, preventing the electrical charge from firing the detonater and resulting in a dud. That was the idea behind the chain link fencing used as night defensive position screening for armoured vehicles in Vietnam, and sometimes when rolled up for transport, while moving. The Russians in Afghanistan and Chechnya got a similar result by using water-filled steel or aluminum tubing as an extra water supply on light troop carriers, either crushing a PG-7 warhead *caught* between tubes, or dissipating the blast through the water inside.

[archy]

RPG screen-AKA Bird cage armor

Great stuff! It gives you about a 50% probability that the RPG fails because of the fuze not making any contact.

Well appreciated by the US troops in Vietnam aboard *Monitor Boats* who first used it wnen the Chinese B-40 copies of the Soviet RPG-2 became common. The armored river warfare boats were a primary target for the bad guys, and couldn't just pop up onto the riverbanks and chase after enemy gunners.

I am glad I don't have to hump the stuff on my back, however. And things aren't much better for vehicles like the Stryker, already pushed to the limit of its axles and off-the-shelf automotive components, and now unable to be transported by C130 aircraft should in-theater reaction forces be immediately needed during a planned enemy assault or localized uprising.