Home » Budget Industry » Heritage Panel Offers Defense Acquisition Reform Ideas


Heritage Panel Offers Defense Acquisition Reform Ideas

Pentagon“Reform is absolutely necessary” because “every dollar we waste is another dollar not spent on missions,” a senior research fellow at the National Defense University told attendees at forum looking at how to make the Pentagon more efficient and effective in the 21st century.

Frank Hoffman, speaking at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think-tank, used the National Security Council as an example of where “our ends, ways and means are not well linked.”

He suggested the council needed “to go back to the formal planning process” at lower levels such as it did during President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration. He also thinks the NSC needs to re-look its role as “an honest broker” that “gets you up to the decision process” but then falls short on implementation.

Loren DeJonge Schulman, deputy director of studies at the Center for New American Security, said, “The NSC is way too big” and that has led to a “lot of duplication of effort” in the agencies involved. She believes the council should concentrate on strategy as a way to reform itself. “You have to make time for strategy,” and determine early on in an administration, “Here are our priorities.”

For crisis management, she recommended creating task-oriented groups that “are not part of the NSC itself.”

Looking at broader acquisition issues, Paul Scharre, director of the 20YY Warfare Initiative at the Center for New American Security, said all too often “what we do next year looks a lot like what we did last year.” He outlined a two-track process for procurement—one for large capital items such as aircraft carriers, other warships and aircraft and one for smaller programs.

With the services’ rapid buying programs, “we’re part of the way there.”

Schulman said former Defense Secretary Robert Gates had to micromanage the fielding of the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle and better systems of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to have them fielded quickly. That “works temporarily” but “not the fight for the future.”

Rapid fielding also comes at a cost to existing programs and possibly junking vehicles like the MRAP because they are no longer needed in those numbers when an emergency ends. Schulman said inside the Pentagon there needs to an “acceptance of failure” in some programs and an attempt to determine early on what can make those rapid buying programs succeed overall.

Selling the need for reform on Capitol Hill will be difficult, Justin Johnson, a senior policy analyst for defense budgeting at Heritage, said. “Less than one in three [members] in the House sit on a national security panel [Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence].” The Senate is slightly better.

To bridge that gap he recommended the Senate and House leadership create a system of more briefings on national security issues and take attendance. Congress also needs to examine its own structure where committees and subcommittees have overlapping jurisdiction over authorization and appropriations for departments, such as Homeland Defense.

“There’s always going to be budget pressures,” he said. “Effectiveness first, not dollars.”

  • PolicyWonk

    The time for half-measures w/r/t the DoD acquisition process is long past. Given the damage done to our economy and its lasting effects, one would think acquisition reform, that could save the government (and therefore taxpayers) trillions of dollars in the long run would be a very high priority.

    But it is not.

    The system we use if rife with waste and redundancy – and we have this absurd tendency to gold-plate practically everything in sight whether we need it gold-plated or not. The fact that all service branches will change requirements all the way from design through construction/manufacture with gizmos (or features) that haven’t been invented yet also remains (among many other problems reported here and elsewhere).

    Just one example of waste is the Littoral Combat Ship: the USN has two entirely different designs, and the designs and program of which has been scorched by every auditing agency, including the USN’s own Inspector General. The so-called SSC/FF versions will only have marginal improvements over the current LCS variants – and will cost more than our allies high-end frigates.

    Now we have Saudi Arabia buying LCS variants that are vastly better armed and outfitted, at a considerably better price point than our own navy gets.

    And the navy is hardly alone when it comes to acquisition boondoggles: the USMC’s EFV, the Army’s FCS, and the USAF’s oversight of the JSF come to mind.

    The USA would be well served to extirpate the current system and replace it with one similar to that used by the British. Failing that, in return for restoration to a full budget, the DoD (and Congress) should agree to have the entire acquisition process put under receivership.

    • Secundius

      @ PolicyWonk.

      ONE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE, The “LCS’s” of the US Navy are Flight 0 (WIP’s). While the Saudi’s are Flight I (Mission Specific)…

  • Pingback: Defense Gates | invisible fence()

  • Pingback: Sec Defense Gates | prestige - privacyfence()

  • Pingback: Defence Secretary Robert Gates | amazing - driveway gates()

  • Pingback: Robert Gates Secretary Defense Bio | cattle - electricfence()

  • Pingback: Gates Mrap Decision | picketfences()

  • Eric Arllen

    Good politics is bad economics. And vice versa.

    It’s a bumper sticker. So what? It’s true, isn’t it?

  • Pingback: Gates Heritage | cattle - electricfence()

  • Pingback: Gates Pentagon Reform | edging - gardenfencing()

  • Pingback: Frank Gates Bobby Watters | wood - trellis()

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    Another place to get ships built. In November 2007, Aker American Shipping signed a $1.3bn contract with its subsidiary Aker Philadelphia Shipyard for 13 more product tankers. These tankers are expected to be delivered to Aker American Shipping by 2015.

    In April 2005, Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG) signed a $1bn bareboat charter A deal with Kvaerner Philadelphia Shipyard (now Aker Philadelphia Shipyard) for the construction of ten Veteran-Class MT-46 product tankers. The number was later increased to 12. Construction of the tankers began in 2006. The first three were delivered in 2007, followed by eight in December 2009.

    The delivery of the 12th vessel in April 2011 marked the conclusion of contract.The product tankers have been built under the Jones Act. Passed in 1920, the act states that vessels used in the US have to be built and owned in the US. The act is meant to protect the US ship construction industry.

    • Secundius

      @ Sailboater.

      Senator John McCain (R/AZ.) Submitted a Senate Bill in the Summer of 2015. Too, repeal the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (aka, the “Jones” Act of 1920). Saying it was Antiquated and Needed to GO…

  • Pingback: Mrap Gates | white - picketfences()

  • Pingback: Gates Pentagon Reform | low - driveway gates()

  • Pingback: Nsc Security Systems | tips home security basics()

  • Pingback: Gareth Paul Gates Forum | fenceposts()

  • Pingback: Secretary Gates Mrap | mesh - trellis()

  • Pingback: Gates National Defense University | plastic - chainlinkfence()