Stryker while the Irony is Hot

In the world of cutting edge military hardware, the costs inevitably seem to spiral upwards for any number of reasons. First, it is the insidious “cost plus” system of engaging military contractors to build and develop new weapon systems. So the more it costs, the more money the contractor makes? Gee, that’s not an incentive to make costs explode, is it?!

Second, it’s often a determination that only one “lead” contractor has the capability of building a particular type of military component. Gee, it’s good to eliminate competitors from the bidding process to keep the playing field seriously tilted!

Third, as anyone who has ever engaged a contractor to work on their home, it is the “change orders” which seem necessary as the military sees new values, upgrades, addresses new problems, newly-developed ancillary technologies (like better armor), more modern enemies and realizes it has totally missed some big issues that always seem to arise.

Fourth, the sheer volume and scope of our military demands – we have so many military commanders with getting the newest and the greatest as their daily mission – that all of these little birdie mouths to feed creates a demand cacophony such that Congress people (with lots of defense contractors spread across their districts) just cannot resist the noise.

And last, in a technology race, complex weapon systems are really, really expensive. Whew, we’re like heroin addicts without the benefits.

The argument is always: money or lives. Soldiers’ lives. American lives. But the focus is on the hardware itself, not on the fact that having too many weapons makes us the “king of the hill” target for any terrorist army worth its salt, the go-to “they’ve got those [insert name of specialized weapon system that America has in spades] that we need so let’s ask them to join us” force, and a huge temptation to use our military to settle diplomatic situations that drag on interminably. To make matters worse, even when we are invited to join the fray or are retaliating for a direct attack, given our proclivity for our armed forces to linger beyond reason, the United States is generally perceived globally as a great big, out-of-control bully. And when it comes to getting other countries to join our diplomatic initiatives, it’s hard to convince international leaders to join forces with a bully.

So Walter Pincus, writing for the April 8^th Washington Post, examines our procurement issues through an analysis of one relatively modest cost piece of equipment, a 19 ton highly mobile troop or gun carrier meant for modern combat challenges including urban areas, the Stryker (one configuration is pictured above): “The basic Stryker has a two-person crew and carries a squad of nine soldiers. It can travel more than 60 mph on highways and travel up to 300 miles on its 50 gallon gas tank…There are two basic versions: an infantry carrier and a gun system. There are eight other configurations: for reconnaissance; anti-tank guided missile; for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological warfare; medical evacuation; commander’s vehicle; fire support; mortar carrier and engineer squad vehicle.” The Post.  These million dollar plus puppies are pretty typical examples of development cost miscalculation decisions.

Sometimes, those lovely upgrades solve one set of problems and then create new ones. This happened in Iraq as the vehicles were upgraded with new armor that was not available when the vehicle was first built in the early part of the last decade. “When armor was needed in Iraq and later in Afghanistan, it added 20 percent to the vehicle weight. The result was ‘long-term durability problems [caused by added armor weight] were unlikely to be detected,’ [an Inspector General report stated].” The Post. General Dynamics had been determined by the Army as “the only known source with the unique engineering expertise required” to maintain the vehicles. It also “retains ownership of the test design plan.” Uh oh…

The technology was so new during the Iraq War that General Dynamics’ personnel had to be deployed in droves to maintain the vehicles: “There was also a lack of information on what the logistics needs would be — spare parts, other supplies, maintenance. That ultimately required 45 General Dynamics maintenance personnel to be deployed with each Stryker brigade.” The Post. Too tough and too new for the Army to maintain its own equipment? Oy! Testing consumed 400 Strykers that were destroyed in the process. Double oy!

Maintenance practices added costs as major defective parts were replaced and not repaired: “A 2008 study in the Defense Acquisition Review Journal reported that government auditors found that although General Dynamics exceeded the 90 percent readiness goal, ‘the contract is not necessarily effective at controlling support costs.’ The study cited the contractor’s practice of replacing an entire power pack, ‘very large expensive units,’ rather than repairing and/or replacing one cheaper element that failed… There were ‘shorter down-times,’ but that required keeping more power packs available. The result: Higher costs to the Army.” The Post. Triple oy!

Final score. Army 100, taxpayers 0. “The United States has spent $17.8 billion on the Stryker family of vehicles, the [Government Accountability Office] report on Defense Acquisitions released last month said. That’s more than 115 percent higher than original projected costs. In the past five years, the increases have been running at 23 percent of the initial estimates.” The Post.

Pincus says: “Money or lives? … The answer: Defense must learn to do both.” Dekom says: defense or offense?… The answer: we need to live with enough to keep us safe, not so much that it makes us a global target.

I’m Peter Dekom, and incurring massive deficits under the guise of defense belies that we are destroying the very economy and potential the military was designed to protect.