DoD is unable to account for 96% of 9 billion dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Grignard**

LordofHats wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
I was simply responding to his counterpoint of the "replacement" of the U.S. military AR, which has been a single companies product for almost half a century. His was a very bad example of military "competition". No bid contracting is most rife in security and reconstruction fields, or at the very least thats where it's most visibly prevalent right now.

This is true in a lot of cases but even then, there are only so many companies that can do whatever task needs to be done (and only so many willing to enter a war zone to do it). When you've only got three companies to chose from, the Government can save money by just picking one, giving them an offer, and seeing if they bite. That's good way of handling the hiring of contractors... on paper... Sadly it's kind of evolved to the point where a lot of contractors have continually been picked for doing the same jobs. In some cases it's just that they get the job done right, in others bribery or favors are involved. It's an environment prone to abuse and where corruption can grow easily.

Most contractors do just fine. They actually help local economy in some places because for some jobs they hire locals to do the labor (construction for example). But every now and then you get someone who comes along and thinks he can swipe some cash.

In the case of this missing money it's hard to know if contractors were involved. It honestly could have been an accounting error. 8.7 is a rather big accounting error, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. If contractors had the money there should be a record of which contractors. Documents don't just disappear, so either someone tossed them in the shredder, lost them (unlikely), or call me crazy but it's entirely possible the DoD knows exactly where the money went and just doesn't want to talk about it

Picking one company that is the lowest bidder is great in theory, but it doesn't guarantee you'll continue to get the lowest price, and then the government is contractually locked in. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be paying 3 times as much as we need to for glassware, as an example. Obviously the government can't manufacture everything, but the amount of privatization and contracting is getting ridiculous.

**Krak_kirby**

If we want to save money on the military we just need the equivalent of lasguns, leman russ tanks, and chimeras. Cheap, easy to build and maintain, runs on anything.

Even more efficient would be a Commisariat and Ordo Inquisition. Good luck being a profiteer or black marketer. Eventually we will catch you, and it'll be shot to the head after questioning...

**Stormrider**

Are you advocating space fascism Krak_kirby?

**LordofHats**

Grignard wrote:Picking one company that is the lowest bidder is great in theory, but it doesn't guarantee you'll continue to get the lowest price, and then the government is contractually locked in. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be paying 3 times as much as we need to for glassware, as an example. Obviously the government can't manufacture everything, but the amount of privatization and contracting is getting ridiculous.

The problem is that the government doing it is even more expensive than contractors. If anything blame government more than the contractors. I mean, does the Speaker of the House really need a $10,000 set of glassware, or their own private jet

Contractors are a problem in a lot of cases but equally problematic is government waste and unnecessary extravagance. Look at some of the R&D projects under the DoD. I'm sorry. But have the projects are completely redundant, and another third seem to be complete wastes of time and money; like mounting a chemical laster into a 747 to shoot down missiles when shooting missiles down with another missile is more versatile, cheaper, and more likely not to get shot down by enemy aircraft.

**Phryxis**

That and fattening the stock portfolios of clan Bush and the associated good 'ol boys network...

This type of talk is ridiculous. They didn't go to war to get rich. They won the Presidency to get (more) rich. At that point, it's a done deal. You don't have to start a war to make it happen, you just conduct business as usual, appoint your cronies to positions, cut breaks to their businesses, etc. etc.

There's no need for conspiracy when business as usual is conspiratorial to begin with.

And yet one company has produced every m-series AR the U.S. military has used for 40 years

What exactly is the "m-series?" Ones with an M military designation?

Regardless, it hasn't been a single company for 40 years. FNH has been making them since 1988. Previous to that it was Colt.

FWIW, this is also not necessarily the best example of where competition for contract is applicable. There are patent issues at work. You can't simply pay for another company to make M16s if Colt owns the rights to the design. You could potentially choose an entirely new design, but at that point you're losing efficiency in your training, spares, etc. etc. etc.

**dogma**

LordofHats wrote:... like mounting a chemical laster into a 747 to shoot down missiles when shooting missiles down with another missile is more versatile, cheaper, and more likely not to get shot down by enemy aircraft.

R&D only accounts for 11% of the DoD's overall budget. If you want to point the finger at something regarding cost overruns, then you should look at procurement and personnel; both of which are prerequisite for a professional military.

Also, missiles and lasers only overlap in the sense that they are both forms of interceptors. They each have unique advantages that make them both worthwhile projects in terms of research, if not necessarily implementation. Notably lasers have a far greater potential for accuracy, and require far more complicated countermeasures to defeat.

**LordofHats**

dogma wrote:Also, missiles and lasers only overlap in the sense that they are both forms of interceptors. They each have unique advantages that make them both worthwhile projects in terms of research, if not necessarily implementation. Notably lasers have a far greater potential for accuracy, and require far more complicated countermeasures to defeat.

They're also ridiculously expensive to maintain and have limited range. The laser in question only works within 5 km, and must be able to target the launch site. It's too restrictive for practical purpose. And it was just an example (this thread is full of one that could have been better

)

**Phryxis**

They're also ridiculously expensive to maintain and have limited range.

Yeah, but we just started working on them, relatively speaking.

Look at the internal combustion engine. It's basically a bad idea, but we've put so much time, thought, and effort into it, that it's now quite effective.

If we has as much time into laser technologies as we do into the combustion engine (or into rockets and missiles), I think we'd get a lot more out of them.

**dogma**

LordofHats wrote:
They're also ridiculously expensive to maintain and have limited range. The laser in question only works within 5 km, and must be able to target the launch site. It's too restrictive for practical purpose. And it was just an example (this thread is full of one that could have been better )

The only reason the launch site must be known is the limited range of the weapons system, at least as I understand it. When fully developed, the system is supposed to possess EOH capability.

Let's also not forget how expensive missile-based ABM systems are; especially given that they will very likely require sea-based deployment in the not-so-distant future.

But anyway, the main point I was trying to make is that R&D is probably the most useful component of the military budget; whereas procurement and personnel are likely the most wasteful, but also the most necessary due to the nature of our military.

**Grignard**

LordofHats wrote:
Grignard wrote:Picking one company that is the lowest bidder is great in theory, but it doesn't guarantee you'll continue to get the lowest price, and then the government is contractually locked in. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be paying 3 times as much as we need to for glassware, as an example. Obviously the government can't manufacture everything, but the amount of privatization and contracting is getting ridiculous.

The problem is that the government doing it is even more expensive than contractors. If anything blame government more than the contractors. I mean, does the Speaker of the House really need a $10,000 set of glassware, or their own private jet Contractors are a problem in a lot of cases but equally problematic is government waste and unnecessary extravagance. Look at some of the R&D projects under the DoD. I'm sorry. But have the projects are completely redundant, and another third seem to be complete wastes of time and money; like mounting a chemical laster into a 747 to shoot down missiles when shooting missiles down with another missile is more versatile, cheaper, and more likely not to get shot down by enemy aircraft.

You're doing the same thing the local newspaper does. You're pointing out extreme irresponsibilities in government and generalizing it to mean government waste. You're not seeing the day to day workings of state. When I'm paying 300 dollars for a sticky mat I can order from another catalog for 30, but can't because of contract, then I feel I'm being hosed by a contractor. It would not be more expensive to test most of this stuff in house rather than ship it to some contractor across the country. Government is also accountable to the people, while contractors are not, other than by their contractual obligations.

Also, you're comparing the value of R&D to the effectiveness of current state of the art. The entire point of R&D is to test prototypes to develop better technologies for future use. The goal isn't to have the prototype behave better than the current state of the art.