GAO’s own data show that the supposed cost growth at the heart of the analysis does not exist at all. The patient reader will find that the real reason for this “cost growth” is increased purchase quantities. In plain terms, the Pentagon bought more weapons.
By Peter LevineWhen Washington heavyweights like Peter Levine, former Democratic staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Bill Greenwalt, former deputy undersecretary of Defense for industrial policy and longtime Republican acquisition expert on the SASC, say you got something wrong, people listen. That is especially the case if you were the folks who Levine and…
By David Drabkin and Lt. Col. Sam KiddWASHINGTON: Costs of the Pentagon’s major weapons programs — which make up a relatively small percentage of the military’s overall spending but attract enormous political and strategic attention — continue to improve. But a big question mark hovers over them. Are costs coming down only because the Pentagon has started very few programs in recent years and isn’t…
By Colin ClarkUPDATED: Here Is Bill That Thornberry Introduced On March 25 CAPITOL HILL: After over a year of preparation, House Armed Services chairman Mac Thornberry will announce Monday a plan to fix Pentagon procurement. In intentional contrast to past efforts at sweeping acquisition reforms, Monday’s child will be a relatively modest “increment one,” a committee aide…
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Peter Levine, former top staffer at the Senate Armed Services Committee and now with the Institute for Defense Analyses, penned a piece for us critiquing the GAO’s annual report on major weapons systems. The GAO begs to differ with Levine’s conclusions and assertions. Below is their reply, penned by Shelby Oakley, director at GAO. Read…
By Shelby Oakley