Posted on Mar 6, 2015
0
0
0
Being a business minded individual I always like looking at the numbers to see if the benefits of a particular something truly outweigh the costs in acquiring it. When I began looking at the financials relating to the demise of the A-10 Warthog I began to understand perhaps the real reasons behind the dynamism coming from both the Air Force and the legislative branch, political engineering.
It seems that senior leadership in the military has figured out how to advance their careers in conspiring with politicos cutting off the military’s nose despite its face. Now to be fair I’ll present two narratives of political engineering. The first perspective is avarice in nature where senior leaders look for rank by satisfying the political needs of Senators and Representatives in delivering lucrative government contacts to their states or districts. The other logic is this is necessary in order to acquire the latest and greatest in military weaponry.
An example of this trend is with the B-2 bomber. In the late 1980's, a financially conscious coalition in Congress tried to cut funding for the B-2 bomber. They failed miserably after realizing work for the project was being carried out in 46 states with no fewer than 383 of the 435 congressional districts being beneficiaries of B-2 contracts. The end result was an overly complicated supply chain driving costs to a staggering $810 million per unit resulting in an operational expense of $135,000 per flight hour.
I know it was the 80’s. The economy was doing well and hammers cost $500 bucks back then. However one would think that we would be wiser and more frugal with the money, especially now with the recent government shutdown due to raising the debt ceiling and all the sequestrations. Well the truth is it seems to have gotten worse as in the case of the multifaceted F-35 that has unsurprisingly failed to excel at any of its future roles. This boondoggle is sourced from over 250 locations around the globe, spanning 11 countries and, in the U.S., from more than 90 congressional districts. You don’t have to have an MBA from Harvard to understand the associated manufacturing cost in maintaining such an elaborate supply chain. The result is an under performing platform costing $101 million with an additional $100 million for its weapons system. Ironically the original concept of F-35 project was to lower operational cost but with over runs in the 50 percent range an internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project reviled that "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar".
To play out all the possibilities a third narrative is that both parties are guilty and are happily scratching each others backs and profiting from this relationship; Senior leaders landing jobs with companies where they once managed projects and the politicians getting financial support via campaign contributions from the companies getting the contracts.
So who is to blame for this new trend in political engineering and what is the fix for these c suite shenanigans that are taking money out of the average Joe's retirement pay, medical benefits, and other financially constricted resources?
It seems that senior leadership in the military has figured out how to advance their careers in conspiring with politicos cutting off the military’s nose despite its face. Now to be fair I’ll present two narratives of political engineering. The first perspective is avarice in nature where senior leaders look for rank by satisfying the political needs of Senators and Representatives in delivering lucrative government contacts to their states or districts. The other logic is this is necessary in order to acquire the latest and greatest in military weaponry.
An example of this trend is with the B-2 bomber. In the late 1980's, a financially conscious coalition in Congress tried to cut funding for the B-2 bomber. They failed miserably after realizing work for the project was being carried out in 46 states with no fewer than 383 of the 435 congressional districts being beneficiaries of B-2 contracts. The end result was an overly complicated supply chain driving costs to a staggering $810 million per unit resulting in an operational expense of $135,000 per flight hour.
I know it was the 80’s. The economy was doing well and hammers cost $500 bucks back then. However one would think that we would be wiser and more frugal with the money, especially now with the recent government shutdown due to raising the debt ceiling and all the sequestrations. Well the truth is it seems to have gotten worse as in the case of the multifaceted F-35 that has unsurprisingly failed to excel at any of its future roles. This boondoggle is sourced from over 250 locations around the globe, spanning 11 countries and, in the U.S., from more than 90 congressional districts. You don’t have to have an MBA from Harvard to understand the associated manufacturing cost in maintaining such an elaborate supply chain. The result is an under performing platform costing $101 million with an additional $100 million for its weapons system. Ironically the original concept of F-35 project was to lower operational cost but with over runs in the 50 percent range an internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project reviled that "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar".
To play out all the possibilities a third narrative is that both parties are guilty and are happily scratching each others backs and profiting from this relationship; Senior leaders landing jobs with companies where they once managed projects and the politicians getting financial support via campaign contributions from the companies getting the contracts.
So who is to blame for this new trend in political engineering and what is the fix for these c suite shenanigans that are taking money out of the average Joe's retirement pay, medical benefits, and other financially constricted resources?
Senior Leaders
Strategy
Military Budget
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
3
3
0
This is a problem, SPC David S., but it's also a fact of life. No matter how strenuously a politician might rail against this sort of spending, when it comes to his/her district and his/her constituents (and his/her reelection), nearly all will take some. There might be the odd exception here or there, but for the most part, our political system and these large contracts sit squarely on (maybe even in) a pork barrel.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Sadly, this type of inefficiency tends to be the cost of democratic representation. In an ideal world, the most efficient supplier would be chosen regardless of where he was located or whose state/district would benefit but Utopia is Latin for nowhere.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I completely understand respect the research you have done and this is a great topic SPC David S..
I voted both because senior leadership is responsible for their subordinates but they are also have to look out for themselves in future endeavors. For example, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force will eventually retire and may want to enter the political world and will need help of the politicos or he may choose to enter private business and work for say Lockeed-Martin but they may be hesitant in hiring him because he fought them tooth and nail or it could be an advantage.
Now for the politico they are responsible to their constituents and although they do not always remember that they do not want to lose too much of the votes. They also have to build allies within their respective house of Congress so if that means getting into bed with some who has a bigger dog in the fight they might do that.
Bottom line the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are the losers in political engineering.
I voted both because senior leadership is responsible for their subordinates but they are also have to look out for themselves in future endeavors. For example, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force will eventually retire and may want to enter the political world and will need help of the politicos or he may choose to enter private business and work for say Lockeed-Martin but they may be hesitant in hiring him because he fought them tooth and nail or it could be an advantage.
Now for the politico they are responsible to their constituents and although they do not always remember that they do not want to lose too much of the votes. They also have to build allies within their respective house of Congress so if that means getting into bed with some who has a bigger dog in the fight they might do that.
Bottom line the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are the losers in political engineering.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google