Posted on Sep 8, 2015
Have you heard? Navy’s $700 Million Minehunting System Doesn’t Work.
12.4K
20
28
1
1
0
A new report by Sen. John McCain in his publication series called “America’s Most Wasted” finds that the for the past 16 years, the Navy has spent $706 million on a remote minehunting system that continues to underperform.
“At a time when the defense budget continues to shrink while global threats emerge every day, it is absolutely critical for the Defense Department to stop throwing more taxpayer dollars after bad and start investing in programs that enhance the capability and readiness of our warfighters,” said a statement from McCain, reports Washington Examiner.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mccain-navy-program-wastes-700-million/article/2571406
“At a time when the defense budget continues to shrink while global threats emerge every day, it is absolutely critical for the Defense Department to stop throwing more taxpayer dollars after bad and start investing in programs that enhance the capability and readiness of our warfighters,” said a statement from McCain, reports Washington Examiner.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mccain-navy-program-wastes-700-million/article/2571406
Navy
Money
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
Not to sound like a know it all, but isn't almost every system that is ordered for the military lack initial performance and it takes years of upgrades to even reach initial specifications.
Take the F/A 18 for instance. From everything I heard about it and read about the program it took several upgrades and billions of dollars in overruns to reach its initial design specifications. I remember hearing on the ship how the F/A 18 had to top off its fuel faster than the F-14 shortly after taking off from the carrier. If I remember correctly it was more than 10 years before the F/A 18 met original design specs.
The reason we have so many under performing pieces of equipment is that our leaders constantly allow the contractors to fail to meet deadlines without consequences.
In my opinion if you are a contractor and you say you can deliver me a next generation fighter jet that is better than what I currently have and it will cost $500 million to design and each plane will cost $22 million and I can do it in 5 years, then that contractor should come in at 5 years at $500 million and not one penny more. Any and all cost overruns should be absorbed by the contractor as they figure in cost overruns into their initial budget. Unless I as the military service cause delays then I should never pay one cent more than the initial costs. If you the contractor fail to deliver on time and on budget then its your loss and not my responsibility.
Take the F/A 18 for instance. From everything I heard about it and read about the program it took several upgrades and billions of dollars in overruns to reach its initial design specifications. I remember hearing on the ship how the F/A 18 had to top off its fuel faster than the F-14 shortly after taking off from the carrier. If I remember correctly it was more than 10 years before the F/A 18 met original design specs.
The reason we have so many under performing pieces of equipment is that our leaders constantly allow the contractors to fail to meet deadlines without consequences.
In my opinion if you are a contractor and you say you can deliver me a next generation fighter jet that is better than what I currently have and it will cost $500 million to design and each plane will cost $22 million and I can do it in 5 years, then that contractor should come in at 5 years at $500 million and not one penny more. Any and all cost overruns should be absorbed by the contractor as they figure in cost overruns into their initial budget. Unless I as the military service cause delays then I should never pay one cent more than the initial costs. If you the contractor fail to deliver on time and on budget then its your loss and not my responsibility.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
PO1 Glenn Boucher, You're not a know it all. The government is used to wasting money. That's why those contractors don't worry about the contracts. If the government would start cracking down, then the contractor might, deliver on time. But, the government doesn't have any problems blowing our money out the window. So the waste continues.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Glenn Boucher
Your so right, but they have no problem cutting pay and benefits for active, reserve and retirees but will never speak about the gross waste of equipment procurement funding.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
SGT (Join to see) Yeah well, this or the F-35....I know which I'd rather live with. (Since neither isn't an option.)
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
SGT (Join to see) - I'm not sure what you mean, Sarge? Are you agreeing or disagreeing? If you disagree, you've probably not seen the reports that existing 4th-gen fighters out-dogfight it, out-maneuver it, and the A-10 is much better at ground support.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/report-in-test-dogfight-f-35-gets-waxed-by-f-16/
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/06/report-in-test-dogfight-f-35-gets-waxed-by-f-16/
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SN Greg Wright, No, I replied that way because of so much money invested in that aircraft that can barely be called fighter jets.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I read about the F-35 before I answered your question. I should have been more clear in my response.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google