« Morning Smoke: Senate Reintroduces Whistleblower Protection Legislation | Main | American Psychiatric Association's Ghostwriting Controversy Still Floating Around »

Apr 07, 2011



I should add, thanks for asking my question. Too bad I didn't make one without any room for bs answers. Perhaps I can work on that next.


Wow, first of all, to hold up the Harvest Hawk program as a success is beyond imagining. The fact that it took 3-4 years to put missiles on a wing where there were already hard points is hardly something to brag about. Where's the gun? There was supposed to be a machine gun mounted to the cargo floor, where is it? Oh yeah, that was too hard to do so they abandoned it.

Hell, Rockwell took less time to make gunships out of the A model C-130s, and they added 3 gattling guns and a modified 120mm cannon to those airplanes. We take neary 4 years to put some helicopter missiles on the wing of a C-130J and it is a big deal? Plus, I have to wonder how slow an airplane has to be going to shoot a missile developed for a helicopter? What was the problem there, did the A-10's use up all the Maverick missiles? I'm sure there were no politics involved in that decision.

Obviously the PowerPoint ranger has a different view of success than do the companies that contract with the DoD, otherwise there would not be so many contracts that are years behind schedule. Is there even one that is on it's original schedule? As for going to fixed price development contracts, the US taxpayer is footing the bill for development either way. And if the the DoD is going to renegotiate the contract every year to put the contractor on schedule and on budget, what difference does it make to us if they use "cost plus award fee" or "firm fixed"? The only real difference is that with the discretion of the award fee available, there is some chance, no matter how remote, that the contractor will not get 100% of the award fee. If they change to "firm fixed" contracts, the contractor will always get 100% of the negotiated fee instead of the mere 97% they get now. Way to go, Colonel, too bad cartoons are a poor substitute for a real policy.

Ronald J. Woodhouse

The Colonel makes a good point. I would ask if anyone followed
up on the F-22 fiasco. I know that Congress bought fewer airplanes but the inaction on that program was terrible in my view.

And the Congress argues on about the debt!!

The comments to this entry are closed.