Dina Rasor has been reporting on the Pentagon for almost thirty years; in that time her message has been fairly basic: we are wasting a lot of money with the present Pentagon systems. She has an interesting article on how some weapons never die, even if they have been failures from day 1. These weapons never die because they have developed a constituency in Congress; they bring jobs to the Congressmen's districts. One problem with these weapons is they are constantly being modified to meet the "current needs"; this is usually necessary because the weapons did not meet the needs for which they were originally intended.
Rasor discusses the Maverick missile as an example. This missile has been around for almost 40 years and has gone through six generations. One benefit to the defense companies when a new generation is built is that there is seldom any competition to develop a different type of weapon to meet the need; this usually translates into increased revenue for the companies and increased costs for us.
The Maverick is a "tactical, air-to-surface missile that is carried on the A-10 close air support plane, the F-15E and the F-16." It's job is to back up troops on the ground, which is exactly the same function that the guns on the A-10 do and at a much lower cost. Not only does the Maverick duplicate lower-cost functions, it does not work very well. The guidance system, kind of a key component, has never worked properly; questions about the system were raised as early as 1982. And naturally it costs a pretty penny to continually modify it so that one day it will work properly. 69,000 Mavericks have been built; we have used 6,000 in combat. Yet, we paid for 69,000 and we maintained 69,000. A wise use of our money?
As you have surmised, the Maverick is but one example of how our money is wasted. If our leaders want to lower the deficit, they must look carefully at the Pentagon.
Rasor discusses the Maverick missile as an example. This missile has been around for almost 40 years and has gone through six generations. One benefit to the defense companies when a new generation is built is that there is seldom any competition to develop a different type of weapon to meet the need; this usually translates into increased revenue for the companies and increased costs for us.
The Maverick is a "tactical, air-to-surface missile that is carried on the A-10 close air support plane, the F-15E and the F-16." It's job is to back up troops on the ground, which is exactly the same function that the guns on the A-10 do and at a much lower cost. Not only does the Maverick duplicate lower-cost functions, it does not work very well. The guidance system, kind of a key component, has never worked properly; questions about the system were raised as early as 1982. And naturally it costs a pretty penny to continually modify it so that one day it will work properly. 69,000 Mavericks have been built; we have used 6,000 in combat. Yet, we paid for 69,000 and we maintained 69,000. A wise use of our money?
As you have surmised, the Maverick is but one example of how our money is wasted. If our leaders want to lower the deficit, they must look carefully at the Pentagon.
No comments:
Post a Comment