The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Testing the V-22: Ain't what it used to be?

Thomas Laux, a senior Navy official, has certified the V-22 Osprey for Operational Testing and Evaluation, according to Inside Defense.  The decision when to begin testing will be made by Marine Corps Col. Glenn Walters, commanding officer of the V-22 squadron. Testing is expected to begin in mid-March. But how thorough will this testing be? 

In May 1, 2001, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the V-22 Osprey program. At that hearing, Norman Augustine, member of the V-22 Blue Ribbon panel (which was created to investigate the April 2000 crash which claimed the lives of 19 Marines) and former head of Lockheed Martin, said this about weapons systems testing:

“… over the years the test program for defense systems has gotten to be one where it's more a case of filling out a report card, that if you don't fill in this square properly, your program will be canceled, whereas in the past, test programs focused more on what can we break; how can we break it; and can we fix it? And can we break it safely in tests? And so I think today testing is much more cautious and less exhaustive, less probing than it used to be."

The V-22 is part of a trend being pushed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to procure and test weapons systems using “spiral development.” Rumsfeld calls this “an evolutionary approach to acquisition, seeking to deliver technology as it is available, rather than waiting for entire systems to be complete.” That’s Pentagon code for sending a weapon into battle before it’s thoroughly tested. Even DoD’s own advisory group, the Defense Science Board, has said that the worst time to test a weapon is in actual combat.

Augustine argued that testing has not only been timid, but that it has been narrowly defined.  As weapons systems become more complex and expensive, you would think testing would become more rigorous, instead of "less probing." 

Pentagon Officials Going Through Revolving Door Get Closer Look

According to Government Executive, a “pool” of former Pentagon officials who went on to work for defense contractors are being investigated for “possible criminal violations of federal conflict-of-interest rules.” This is one result of the Procurement Fraud Working Group launched by U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty on the heels of the sentencing Boeing’s former CFO Michael Sears this month. POGO’s investigation of this issue last year found that the revolving door between the government and its contractors is poorly understood and largely ignored. The report revealed that senior officials, who have much more ability to steer contracts to favorite companies, are not as stringently regulated as are mid-level contracting officers. POGO’s research also found a large loophole which allows former government officials to work for a company that benefited from their decisions as long as they do not work in the direct branch of that company. This is how former top Air Force acquisition official Darleen Druyun made her way to Boeing, landing as head of the missile defense division after shepherding contracts to other divisions of Boeing. Although the Pentagon has made slight improvements in reporting requirements so potential conflicts of interest are flagged, much more needs to be done to restore the public’s trust following the Darleen Druyun Boeing tanker leasing deal scandal.

Wanted: Inspector General Ruling on Roche

Readers may have seen the excellent Bob Novak column “Military Industrial Complex Thrives” detailing the heroic efforts of Senator John McCain and his hard-working staffer Chris Paul to root out corruption in the Pentagon’s weapons buying, despite its resistance to their oversight. Apparently, the Defense Department Inspector General has issued a review of former Air Force Secretary James Roche’s role in helping to move forward the Boeing tanker leasing deal, particularly personal favors to other government officials that helped grease the wheels. However, only Jeff Smith at the Washington Post has gotten the goods. According to Novak: “Even the recent ruling by the Pentagon's inspector general that Roche violated military ethics laws was labeled ‘For Official Use Only.’ It is not supposed to be publicly distributed, and a Feb. 10 report in the Washington Post constitutes its only publication, with Inspector General Joseph Schmitz paraphrased rather than quoted.” POGO has been told that the Pentagon’s black magic markers are out, and that if the document ever sees the light of day, some information in the review will be redacted. If you have a copy, send it here. We’ll post it on the web so that the public can really find out what happened.

UPDATE: Thanks to KA down in the comments we have the redacted version of the DoD IG report on Roche.

Government Contractors Oversee Themselves

After Government Executive reported that the General Services Administration planned to hire contractors to supervise contractors, a few contracting experts on the excellent PubKLaw listserv had a few things to say:

#1 (our personal favorite): “I know of people who hire others to clean their houses.

I know of people who hire others to mow their lawns.

I know of people who hire others to repair their vehicles.

I know of people who hire others to perform services of many kinds.

I don't know of any people who hire others to spend their money.

What do people know that the Government doesn't know?”

#2: “Among the many issues that arise with the increased use of contract support services by Government acquisition offices is the waiver of attorney-client privilege during the conduct of the acquisition process.  Government counsel provide legal advice to contracting and program officials during all stages of the acquisition process; from acquisition planning through contract award.  Indeed, most departments require legal review of acquisition documents.  How can the attorney-client privilege be preserved with the involvement of contract employees in acquisition efforts?”

#3: I would ask if anyone else sees a problem with the listed exercise of options and execution of modifications as support-contractor performed activities. I would have expected those were inherently governmental contracting officer functions.

Ashcroft can't put the milk back in the jar

The Justice Department reversed its position on documents related to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, resulting in a victory for advocates of open government.  Some information from an unclassified briefing was classified after letters based on this briefing were publicly available for two years.  Essentially, the Justice Department tried to kill public debate on Edmond's allegations of serious problems in the FBI by attempting to yank documents out of the public's hands.  Yet it's hard to make a case for classification once information is already out of the box.  In a Washington Post article today, "Former attorney general John D. Ashcroft had strongly defended the practice in this case by likening it to putting 'spilt milk' back in a jar instead of simply saying, 'well, it's spilt.'" 

Retroactive classification in this case seems to have been abused for dubious political ends--to hide government corruption that goes unheeded.  POGO is looking for additional cases of classification of government information in the public's hands by any government agency.  You can send your tips in to POGO here or if you wish to remain anonymous and send us a tip go here.  In either case, do not use a government computer when you send in tips.

The latest on the C-130J from General Jumper

General John Jumper on the C-130J from an Air Force press release last Friday:

"Take the price of a C-130B (Hercules) we paid in 1964,” he said. “Inflate it to (today’s) dollars and the price comes out be about $11-and-a-half million. Compare it to what we’re paying for the C-130J and it increases over 500 percent. Capability is certainly better, but it doesn’t give 500 percent more (cargo capacity).”

POGO to Boeing Tanker Cons: Choose Us

After they do their time at Club Fed, ex-Boeing chief financial officer Michael Sears and former top level Air Force acquisition official Darleen Druyun will be looking for a place to complete their community service. We’d love to put them to work here at POGO.

The possibilities are vast – even considering the duo’s questionable reputation for truth and veracity in the community. They could shred documents, stuff envelopes, cut and paste news clips, answer the phone, maybe even give us a few investigative leads on their ex-buddies.

MORE: Boeing says in a news release that the sentencing of Michael Sears’ “brings this matter one step closer to closure.” Maybe. The Pentagon announced earlier this week that they will be investigating eight other contracts managed by Druyun. Four of these involve Boeing, in addition to the four Boeing contracts Druyun named in her supplemental statement of facts for a total of eight Boeing contracts being investigated. Instead of “closure” this might be the tip of the iceberg. Stay tuned.

AND MORE: The GAO released a statement today regarding Lockheed Martin's protest over the delivery of the Small Diameter Bomb contract to Boeing (hat tip to this AP article).  Here's a few snippets:

GAO sustained Lockheed Martin's protest because the record showed that Darleen Druyun was involved in the decisionmaking process that culminated in changes made to evaluation factors--including deletion of specific technical requirements.

Yet the GAO questioned Lockheed too, noting its use of the revolving door:

GAO deferred ruling on Lockheed Martin’s request for reimbursement of proposal preparation costs because review of the record raised concerns regarding the handling of post-employment restrictions with respect to a retired senior Air Force official, who is currently employed at Lockheed Martin...GAO recommended that the Air Force review this matter and report back to GAO.

A "Pitiful Argument" for the F/A-22

"Pitiful argument" from Jumper.

Defense Tech blogged on the "pitiful argument" Air Force/Lockheed carnival-barker General John Jumper is using to justify the F/A-22 Raptor.  Jumper conjured up the Russian bogeyman in an attempt to stave off proposed cuts to the Cold War-era program. Inside Defense wrote that

Jumper warned “the design for the Sukhoi 40 is on the boards right now,” in a Feb. 8 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee [POGO note: this hearing actually occured on the 10th not the 8th].

Defense analysts said Jumper was referring to Russia's plans for a fifth-generation fighter that is to replace the Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrum. A design for this new fighter aircraft program, known as the PAK FA, is being crafted with a prototype expected in 2006 and production beginning in 2010, according to a May 6, 2004, Aviation Week article.

Aviation industry analysts, however, believe the enormous costs required to design and build such an aircraft... are beyond the means of the Russian government.

Use of this fledgling Russian aircraft program to make the case for the F/A-22 raised the eyebrows of some analysts. One, who asked not to be named, called it a “pitiful argument.”

POGO Supports OPEN Government Act

Cornyn: Pro-FOIA, Pro-Blog

Today, Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) introduced new legislation to strengthen the government's administration of the Freedom of Information Act.  POGO endorsed the bill, entitled Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2005 (OPEN Government Act, S. 394), in this letter.  For a relatively non-technical summary of the issues addressed by the OPEN Government Act, check this document out.

Also, Cornyn mentioned the word "blog," in his speech. This is the first time the word has been spoken on the Senate Floor (His legislation would change the way media-fee status is determined, allowing a person's online and/or print publication history to qualify them for media-fee status, rather than institutional affiliation with a traditional news source.  Media-fee status allows for cheaper access to information provided under FOIA.):

The news media is of course the main way people get information about government. The media pushes government entities, and elected officials and bureaucrats and agencies to release information that the people have a right to know, occasionally exposing waste, fraud and abuse. And hopefully, more often than that, letting the American people know what a good job their public officials are doing. But we’ve also seen in recent years the expansion of other outlets for sharing information outside of the mainstream media – to online communities, discussion groups, and blogs. I believe all these outlets can and do contribute to the health of our political democracy.

The V-22 is defenseless

Pictures on right from top to bottom: A V-22 (note: the engines pose a problem for defensive gun placement), a UH-1 Huey with a mini-gun, and an artist's rendition of a H-60 Blackhawk with guns mounted.

We haven’t blogged much on the V-22 Osprey program, even though it's a program that the Pentagon is ostensibly threatening with the budgetary scalpel.  Relatively little attention has been paid in the media to this program when compared to the many thousands of words expended on the F/A-22 and C-130J systems online and in print. So here’s what shall hopefully become the first semi-regular blog on this expensive deathtrap.

The Osprey still has no defensive gun system. This is a serious flaw for a troop transport craft meant to take our soldiers into the thick of battle. Without a gun, the V-22 can’t suppress ground fire. So all the hype about the tilt-rotor being less vulnerable because it can “fly like airplane” is mostly meaningless since it still has to transition to a helicopter and fly low and slow to do its core mission. Fact: Most helicopters are shot-down in combat landing zones. Our combat helicopters with guns are downed by ground fire often enough as it is, imagine what would happen if we replace armed helicopters with the Osprey.

Putting guns on the Osprey is so difficult because of inherent problems in the craft’s design. Traditional helicopter designs have their rotor blades on top. This makes placement of a gun on the sides of the helicopter easy. However, the Osprey has its engines on its sides, in the way of fire directed from the sides of the craft. Also, guns can't be mounted on the sides of the Osprey because the nacelles rotate from the vertical to horizontal position. A gun turret mounted on the bottom is a possibility, but is troublesome because it would require redesign of Osprey’s undercarriage (costing more to develop) and also poses weight problems. Increasing the V-22’s weight means lower performance such as speed, cargo and lift capacity, and reduced maximum range without refueling.

By the way, in 1992, then-Defense Secretary Cheney said “You’ve [Congress] directed me to buy the V-22, a program I don’t need.…My problem with the program’s always been primarily one of affordability.” The estimated cost of the program has shot up from about $30 billion for 913 aircraft in 1986 to $48 billion for 458 aircraft in 2004. The price per copy cost has gone from around $32 million in ‘86 to $105 million a copy in 2004 [all amounts in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars, information from the September 2004 Defense Department Selected Acquisition Report].

MORE: On January 31, 2005, InsideDefense reported on developing plans for a gun mounted from the rear of the Osprey.  However, the gun may be too expensive even for the Marine Corp's taste:

By this summer, officials will likely finish trade studies that are examining two options for equipping the rear ramp of the Osprey with a gun.

"...The key is whether we can afford it,” said Marine Corps Col. Keith Birkholz, the head of aviation weapons systems in the service’s aviation requirements directorate.

We don't need Jack Bauer...this time.

If you’ve been watching FOX’s “24” this season, your nerves might be on edge that terrorists could whack out half a million people by remotely melting down America’s 64 nuclear power plants (a total of 103 reactors).

In the “24” world, an elite terrorist sleeper cell has used a fancy device to remotely melt down plants using the Internet.

Friends and family have asked us if this scenario is realistic. POGO has done extensive work on the physical security at power plants, but for this one we asked our old pal, Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, about whether nuclear power plants are setup for remote control at all.

Nuclear power reactors are not controlled by computers, let alone remotely controlled. "One of the reasons nuclear plants handled Y2K so well is that they are using vacuum tubes and analog devices. Digital components and computers are used at nuclear power plants largely to play Solitaire during breaks," Lochbaum told POGO.

So it seems America is safe from this kind of nuclear attack.

The Congressional Research Service last week wrote a report on nuclear plant safety and security, available on the Federation of American Scientists website. Although not as action packed as “24” nor as witty as our pal Lochbaum, the report gives a decent and brief overview of the issues facing plants and the government.

LANL Insider Blog

Some feisty Los Alamos National Laboratory employees have started their own blog to tell their side of the story at LANL: The Real Story [via DefenseTech].  Led by Doug Roberts, the blog's pretty critical of the senior management at the scandal-ridden Lab.  One of their prime targets is Director Nanos, who called LANL employees "buttheads" and "cowboys," which doesn't seem to have endeared him to the people he manages.  POGO hopes this uncensored channel for Los Alamos workers to air their grievances doesn't get shut-down.