Powered by JP-Freedom

The NYT has a great editorial today on the recent quality control problems plaguing the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).

Let’s quickly get up to speed. For years, MDA has been imposing financial penalties on contractors that fail to perform. For example, after components failed repeatedly during tests, MDA withheld award fees from Boeing in 2006. But the problems didn’t disappear. So, on February 1 of this year, MDA executive director David Altwegg came out firing. He said:

Well, I'm not going to name names today, but I'm going to tell you we continue to be disappointed in the quality that we are receiving from our prime contractors and their subs -- very, very disappointed; quality-design issues, but more in quality of products delivered, which then results in rework and which reserved -- because most of these contracts are cost contracts, it costs the taxpayer more.

This week MDA continued its offensive. MDA director Gen. Patrick O’Reilly said “I am withholding funding because I don’t see the level of scrutiny and the level of culture necessary for the precision work that’s required.” That was followed by the revelation that Coleman Aerospace is apparently one of the culprits.

Background info aside, let’s consider the broader challenges. First, as the NYT points out, GAO reported in 2009 that:

a Missile Defense Agency (MDA) contract signed in December 2007, awards the contractor up to 84 percent of the award fee pool for satisfactory performance, which the agency defines as meeting most of the requirements of the contract. This leaves only 16 percent of the award fee pool to motivate performance that fully meets contract requirements or is considered above satisfactory.

Some of these missile defense contracts are just wacky. Imagine if a student could pull straight Bs just by meeting "most of the requirements" in his or her classes! (Wait, can you do that?)

Second, as the NYT notes, if a contractor knows that its award fee will be reduced if a missile defense test is unsuccessful, a strong incentive is created for the contractor to guarantee that the test succeeds. In other words, imposing financial penalties on contractors may lead to less realistic, more scripted missile defense tests - which reinforces the problem that missile defenses are nowhere near as demonstrably effective in realistic operational conditions as they need to be.

This is not to say that MDA shouldn’t dock contractors. MDA just needs to wield the penalty skillfully so that it doesn't lead to more skewed tests.

Ironically, a leading proponent of this “don’t thoughtlessly punish the contractors” policy, Philip Coyle, has become the victim of a witch hunt led by conservatives who have no use for an informed and dedicated missile defense reformer.

These conservatives are not only obstructing the nomination of someone who is quite sympathetic to the conundrum facing contractors, but also is a recognized expert in the testing and quality control problems facing MDA today. Coyle is a constructive critic who knows what it takes (e.g. more testing, better quality) to make U.S. missile defenses more effective.

Hey, missile defense theocrats! Get out of your own damn way and let the White House put a technical expert in place who understands that bottled Reagan Freedom Tears aren't enough to make our interceptors fly!

Read more

Security Matters, Missile Defense, Right Wing Rant (all tags)

With an annual budget of $48.4 million, you’d think the Heritage Foundation could do better than this:

Arms Control: Out of Control

First it was the cancellation of the Third Site, now Obama is persistent with the ratification of the START follow-on treaty which will reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and the number of strategic delivery systems. President Obama’s new emphasis on negotiations with Russia isn’t exactly aligned with the ballistic missile threat that the U.S. faces elsewhere. An effective defense strategy is essential to defend our country and President Obama needs to keep this in mind as he moves rapidly towards concluding negotiations with Russia. This treaty, established by the Obama administration, is comprised of linkages--the most prominent among them, the decision of the Third Site, poses limitations to missile defense options. These limitations should not cause Senators to not rush the examination of START follow-on treaty.

If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say some Heritage intern got a little carried away one Thursday night and this passage was the unfortunate consequence on Friday morning. But OMG I just love Smith Point so much!

My personal favorite:

These limitations should not cause Senators to not rush the examination of START follow-on treaty

We agree (I think) that examination of the START follow-on should be expedited.

In fairness, the actual content Heritage analysts produce is much better. And by better, I mean grammatically coherent and useful if you are a Republican Hill staffer who needs to come up with some killer TPs so that your boss can give a good account of himself at the Armed Services Committee hearing that starts in like 5 minutes.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, START, Missile Defense, Right Wing Rant (all tags)

Could I interest you in a 2-stage GMD system?

Let me show NOH readers how Peter Brookes gets down. It’s all about favorably defining your variables...

Read more

Iran Watch, Security Matters, Nukes on a Blog, Missile Defense, Russia, China, Right Wing Rant, Obama Administration, Defense Spending (all tags)

“There is mounting evidence that the President not only identifies with Muslims, but may actually still be one himself,” Frank Gaffney wrote yesterday.

When you publish things like that, you should not be given the opportunity to express your views on serious foreign policy issues in popular forums. Gaffney ought to be disqualified from being quoted in a mainstream news source ever again. The Washington Times, Commentary, National Review, and other right-wing rags don’t count, of course. Our side publishes the less-than-credible in our partisan outlets, too.

But what about USA Today’s op-ed page? Hardball with Chris Matthews? The Boston Globe? Politico? These are widely-disseminated news sources with a responsibility to the public. You can’t feature some old white guy just because he is willing to be provocative and say destructive things.

I’m not saying the Center or I are the be-all-end-all of analysts. We make mistakes and bad calls (CSAR-X sticks in my mind). But at least we try to base our research and recommendations in reality.

Stop quoting Frank Gaffney! He is not a serious analyst. If I read one quote from him on arms control negotiations in any of the big papers this year, I will lose a grip. I’d rather see John Bolton’s name than Gaffney’s. And that's saying something.

Read more

Right Wing Rant (all tags)