THE STORY OF THE UNSINKABLE BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE

Like the Sergeant York Gun, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle was a classic example of the Pentagon's "buy now, fix later" philosophy that was so prevalent during the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s. In fact, when the decision was made in December 1979 to begin full-rate production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, limited test results had shown that the vehicle's armor couldn't even protect its occupants from hostile fire. ¹⁴ Full vulnerability testing did not begin until 1980, a year after the go-ahead to buy the system was made.¹⁵
"This information [on the weapon's vulnerabilities] was not reported to key decisionmakers," the General Accounting Office said in a 1986 report. "Even though the system had been deployed, the vehicle's vulnerability is still a major concern as demonstrated by test results."¹⁶
Once again, a lack of independent testing allowed an unsafe weapon to be placed in the hands of the nation's fighting men and women.
The Bradley, named after the famous World War II general Omar Bradley who led the D-Day assault on Normandy, is an armored carrier that transports cavalry units and infantry units to and from the battlefield and acts as a scout vehicle for reconnaissance and security missions. Ironically, the Bradley was intended to replace the M-113 whose armor wasn't thick enough to protect a squad of troops from anything larger than small arms fire. For that reason, many soldiers refused to ride inside the M-113, instead choosing to ride to battle atop the vehicle.¹⁷
But the Bradley, first deployed in 1983, wasn't put though any live-fire testing to determine if it would be better able to protect its occupants than the M-113. Live-fire testing wasn't done until 1985 when it was discovered that the Bradley was highly vulnerable to anti-armor weapons.
It also was having performance problems with its "swim capability" (some Bradleys were sinking while attempting to transport troops over bodies of water), transmission, electrical systems, and integrated sight unit.¹⁸ From 1980 to 1987, a total of 11 Bradleys sunk or swamped during swimming training operations. In 1987, after a Bradley sunk at Fort Benning, Georgia, the Army suspended Bradley training swims worldwide until problems could be corrected later that year.
"The Army has been testing certain modifications designed to increase the vehicle's survivability," General Accounting Office Associate Director Mark E. Gebicke told a House Subcommittee in 1987. "As a result of these tests, the Army has decided to modify the approximately 3,200 Bradleys still to be produced and to retrofit many of the vehicles already produced with certain survivability enhancements."¹⁹
Since it was live-fire tested in the late 1980s, the Bradley's reliability has improved - but only after it has undergone a number of fixes and upgrades totaling billions of additional dollars. Yet, as late as 1992, nearly a decade after the Bradley was first deployed, studies by the U.S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratory had still not drawn any firm conclusions on the vehicle's survivability.²⁰

THE B-1 BOMBER: VICTIM OF A "BUY BEFORE YOU FLY" PHILOSOPHY

Originally conceived as a long-range, nuclear bomber in the 1960s during the height of the Cold War, the first of the B-1B Bombers was delivered to the Air Force in 1985. By the time the 100th - and last - copy of the supersonic aircraft was delivered in 1988, testing had revealed a number of critical shortcomings.
Once again, the Pentagon's troublesome habit of failing to operationally test its new aircraft until after deciding to begin production had taken a serious toll. In fact, initial operational testing did not even begin until three years after the aircraft's production decision was announced by then President Ronald Reagan. Rushing to deploy the B-1B by 1986, the Air Force decided to develop and produce the B-1B concurrently, a practice that the General Accounting Office has repeatedly criticized as too risky. With a $20 billion price tag, not only was the program costly, but it had a "compressed" development and production schedule.
It wasn't that the dismal test results were any secret. As early as 1983, the General Accounting Office said that flight tests on the earlier B-1A model between 1974 and 1981 had shown that the aircraft's defensive avionics countermeasure system never had time to mature to a level needed for operational testing.²¹
By the time the B-1B was fully deployed, testing had revealed that the aircraft's sophisticated avionics systems - its threat-warning defensive system and radar-jamming offensive system - were jamming each other. The result was that the pilot had to choose between protecting himself or carrying out his mission.
Three years later, in 1991, when the U.S. launched the air war against Iraq, the entire B-1B fleet was grounded due to catastrophic engine blade failures. Munitions limitations, inadequate crew training, and electronic warfare deficiencies also played a role in the B-1B not making an appearance during the Gulf War. That same year, it was publicly revealed that although the B-1B's mission included flying at high altitudes, its de-icing system didn't work, an essential component at high altitudes, did not work.
Since the Gulf War, upgrades to the B-1B have cost taxpayers billions of added dollars and some of the upgrade testing will continue for years to come. Upgrades have recently been estimated to total more than $11 billion.

The biggest factor in the B-1B program's problems resulted from its concurrent development and production, according to the GAO. "Air Force procurement regulations dictate generally that development, production, test, and deployment of a major weapon system be conducted sequentially," the report said. "Many of the problems being experienced today provide lessons about the risks concurrency poses for complex, high technology weapon system procurements."²²
Nancy Kingsbury of the GAO, testifying at a Congressional hearing in 1991, said that the Air Force's acquisition strategy resulted in a situation where more than half of the B-1B fleet was delivered for deployment before testing had even begun on the aircraft's defensive avionics.²³
"So you had a full-blown system out there in operation, accepted by the user, with a system with a major design flaw," Kingsbury said. "If you had had a different acquisition strategy, you might have discovered that somewhat sooner. You might have been able to recognize you couldn't fix it with that design architecture and had the opportunity and the funds available to go do something different."


THE C-5: A BIG CARGO AIRCRAFT WITH A BIG PRICE TAG

Investigative reporter Jack Anderson once called the C-5 cargo jet the "notorious granddaddy of Pentagon overruns." ²⁴
The C-5, first conceived in 1961, was intended to supplement the Lockheed C-141 Starlifter and to replace the Douglas C-133. Specifically, the military wanted a plane that could carry a payload of 100,000 to 200,000 pounds over intercontinental distances and one that could operate from semi-prepared runways. But events in Vietnam caused the C-5 to be rushed into production and operation before its fatal flaws were detected.²⁵
The first "operational" C-5 took flight on June 6th, 1970. As the plane landed at Charleston Air Force base, a tire on one of the main landing-gear trucks blew out, and a wheel from another truck fell off and bounced down the runway.
In the years prior to this embarrassing incident, the C-5 had endured the largest cost overrun in history. One Department of Defense official, A. E. Fitzgerald, infuriated the Pentagon when he came forward and told Congress in 1968 that the 115 C-5s would cost $2 billion more than anticipated, due largely to a wing defect that was discovered only after production was long underway.
Even after the costly wing repairs were made to each of the 77 planes already produced (the wings were fully replaced in the 1980s), the C-5 was plagued by further problems with the landing gear, and the delays and problems continued.²⁶
Originally, the Department of Defense planned to purchase the planes in three production stages, in lots of 57, 58, and 85 aircraft respectively. But when problems with the wing developed - and were finally noticed - 40 planes had already been built, and wing parts had already been manufactured for an additional 20 of the aircraft.
Lockheed agreed to fix the problem, but didn't follow through on the agreement, leaving the military with 77 defective planes. Although the Air Force wanted another 115 copies of the aircraft, President Richard Nixon reduced the number procured to 81 - and also gave Lockheed a $250 million loan guarantee so the defense contractor could avoid bankruptcy.²⁷
Like other weapons systems nightmares, the C-5 program left the contractor in charge of research, development, testing, evaluation, and production with virtually no oversight.²⁸ In the end, the gigantic cargo aircraft joined the Pentagon's procurement hall of shame, becoming another victim of a misguided acquisition strategy, this one known as the "Total Package Procurement" concept.


A MOVE AWAY FROM FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT

The Rumsfeld memo also opens the door for a broader use of special contractual agreements called "other transactions." These types of contracts waive many of the financial oversight requirements of typical contracts for goods or services with the aim of attracting so-called "nontraditional" defense contractors. The theory is that some of these firms have promising research and technologies to offer, but shy away from the complex requirements of more highly-structured Pentagon contracts.
While such "other transactions" offer the government and defense contractors flexibility, they are nonetheless ripe for abuse and often misused. "Other transactions" allow contractors to avoid taxpayer protections and transparency requirements in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). FAR essentially requires contractors to provide the government with cost or pricing data supporting their prices and to certify that the data are accurate, current, and complete. CAS ensures that accountants do not use creative schemes that allow contractors to overcharge the government. These important protections give the federal government the information it needs to ensure fair and reasonable contract prices.
An "other transactions" contract can even exempt a defense contractor from undergoing government audits or providing the federal contracting agency and government auditors with access to the contractor's pertinent records.
Unfortunately, two "other transactions" have already been awarded by the Missile Defense Agency since the Rumsfeld memo was penned. Both went to traditional, large contractors. The Boeing Co. was awarded a sole-source letter "other transaction agreement" not-to-exceed $23.9 million for system engineering and integration work and Lockheed Martin Mission Systems was awarded a sole-source letter "other transaction agreement" not-to-exceed $23 million for the development and integration of battle management, command and control, and communications capabilities.²⁹
These two contracts do not represent the intent of "other transactions" agreements, according to the guidelines outlined by the Department of Defense Inspector General. The Inspector General has stated that "other transactions," first approved by Congress in 1989 and broadened in 1993, are intended to increase the technology and industrial base available to DOD and to foster new relations and practices within the technology and industrial base that supports national security.³⁰
Inspector General audits have noted that although such transactions are intended to bring new defense contractors into the fold, the process has generally failed to meet this objective. The Inspector General found that, from 1994-2001, traditional defense contractors have received more than 94 percent of the $5.7 billion in funds paid for 209 prototype "other transactions" agreements.³¹ Lacking this purpose, "other transactions" are of no benefit to the government and do nothing more than remove financial oversight from otherwise typical contracts.
A 2000 General Accounting Office study agreed that most of the other transactions business was going to traditional defense contractors. Among the 10 largest of these agreements, nine went to traditional contractors for projects ranging from the Air Force's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle program to the Navy's DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer.³²
In response to this use of "other transactions", the Inspector General stated, "We find this trend disturbing, as other transactions do not provide the government a number of significant protections, ensure the prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars, or prevent fraud. The traditional protections for the public trust do not exist, for the most part, for other transactions."³³
A recent Inspector General audit concluded that "DOD officials were not always aware of the actual cost to the Federal Government for other transactions," and that, "DOD reports to Congress did not fully disclose the actual costs to the Federal Government for other transactions."³⁴
The GAO report said that the typical other transactions agreements it studied regularly relied on means other than certified cost or pricing data to establish fair and reasonable prices, limited the governments audit rights, paid contractors based on accomplishment of agreed upon technical milestones rather than on an incurred cost basis, and did not provide the Department of Defense a right to terminate an agreement for default by the contractor.


THE "ANY WEAPON IS BETTER THAN NO WEAPON" ACQUISITION STRATEGY

At the heart of the Rumsfeld memo is a return to the fast-track procurement strategies of the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s that often resulted in the production of ineffective and overpriced weapons.
But the lessons of the earlier era have led to a new way of doing business. The normal path to successful weapons systems development and acquisition is now highly structured and sequential. Typically, when a weapons system is conceived, the military must first identify a need for it and set detailed requirements, or technical standards. These requirements - spelled out in what the military calls an "Operational Requirements Document" (ORD) - are almost always set by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), a group of experienced military leaders representing all the services and chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The JROC, independent of the service or agency developing a particular weapons system, draws up the ORD based on the needs of the military, rather than on the needs or desires of the contractors. These documents then become a testing yardstick as a weapons system progresses through the research and development process and eventually goes into full-rate production.
More specifically, the JROC is required by law to evaluate the cost, schedule, and performance criteria of acquisition programs.³⁵ Therefore, one of the JROC's important duties is to review and approve a specific weapons system's ORD that establishes the specific performance goals a weapon must reach before it makes it to the battlefield.
But under the new guidelines, the Missile Defense Agency will no longer be required to start the development process with specific military requirements generated by the users and formalized in the customary ORD. Instead, the agency will use a "capabilities-based" acquisition process for the nation's missile defense, guided not by military leaders, but by a political body known as the Senior Executive Council, chaired by the Secretary of Defense and including the civilian leaders of the three military branches.
The Bottom Line: The Missile Defense Agency is essentially committed to a subjective "anything is better than nothing" philosophy. Here's how DOD Acquisitions Chief Pete Aldridge recently explained the agency's new "capabilities-based" approach:

"It's different from an ORD, which will say to you, 'You will not deploy a system until it achieves a .95 kill probability against 10 rockets or 10 ballistic missiles within five minutes,' If General Kadish could say, 'I can shoot down eight of these missiles, it's going to take me six minutes, with a kill probability of .9,' it may be sufficient that we say that's a capability we believe we need, it's adequate for or needs to protect our country at this time against the threat."³⁶

Ironically, this new capabilities-based, streamlined process, comes at a time when Pentagon tester Thomas Christie is making a push to eliminate the Army, Navy, and Air Force's ability to "waive" tests and operational requirements without first gaining DOT&E review and approval.³⁷ Christie recently sent a memo to all the services instructing them to "cease the unilateral waiving of the operational requirements."
This waiving of requirements was a common practice during the acquisition of the troubled V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. During initial operational testing, the Navy identified and waived a total of more than 20 major deficiencies. For example, the aircraft was not cleared for icing operations or air combat maneuvering, it carried no defensive weapons, had an inadequate cargo handling system and airdrop capability, and was spending too much time in the hanger for maintenance and repairs.
The Navy still recommended that the aircraft progress to full-rate production. Although there was no evidence that these deficiencies contributed to two fatal V-22 accidents before the aircraft was temporarily grounded in 2000, these problems should have been a sign that the aircraft was not ready for production.
"The process of handling waivers seriously undermines the training and evaluation process - and may have already had negative impact on weapon systems," the 2000 Task Force Report of the Defense Science Board concluded.³⁸
While he has not taken a public position on this new "capabilities based" approach, DOT&E Chief Christie, said recently that the new system will signal a change for the testing community.
"One of the features of this approach, up to this point, there are no hard and fast requirements, threat-based or otherwise, against which to measure the operational effectiveness or suitability of the system," Christie said in a recent speech.³⁹
Despite his optimism for the future of missile defense, even Missile Defense Agency Director Kadish hinted recently that the missile defense program is still technologically immature and that its capabilities-based philosophy could raise some tough questions along the way. "Right now we have zero probability of intercepting a ballistic missile, and some judgment will have to be made as to whether anything greater than zero is useful," he said in a recent interview.⁴⁰
In his speech, Christie focused on three weapon systems that have encountered delays and cost overruns - the Army's Comanche helicopter, the Air Force's F-22 tactical fighter, and the Marine's V-22 Osprey.
Christie attributed the problems of these three programs, and others, to a "lack of appreciation of the technical challenges faced by programs at their outsets."
"Clearly, we have failed time, and again, to do our homework early-on or to make the up-front investments required for an informed understanding of the technical and cost risks inherent in a program before we launched off into full-scale development and procurement," he said.
"Too often, over the past few years, we've rushed into operational testing when the results of development test and evaluation have clearly shown us that we were not ready and that our chances of success were minimal. In essence, we have been 'rushing to failure.'"⁴¹

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation should not be required to negotiate the nature of information it is provided by missile defense program managers. The office should have unfettered access, and be an active participant in early testing of missile defense systems.
Congress must require the Pentagon to successfully complete DOT&E's operational testing before deploying a national missile defense system, consistent with the provisions of section 2399 of title 10, United States Code.
The Director of the Missile Defense Agency should be required to follow the intent of the law permitting "other transactions." The Director should only be permitted to negotiate such agreements with nontraditional defense contractors that would otherwise not offer their expertise.

Home I Archives I Expose I Search I Donations I Investigations I About Us I Contact Us I Press Room
Site Map I Web Overseer I Site Policies
---
© The Project On Government Oversight 2002
updated:Thursday, February 12, 2004