Our current procurement process comes from an antiquated time.  A time when the prospect of showcasing our entire arsenal for open viewing by our enemies was still considered a bad idea.  Now exists a world where information is easily attained and is swarming across the internet.  It’s hard to imagine, say a time period like the 1920s; shows like Future Weapons and magazines like Janes existing (if they could exist that is, TV wasn’t invented until the 1980s, duh!).  We didn’t tell anyone what we had and we didn’t want them to know.  We didn’t even use the M2 .50 Cal machine gun during WW1 for fear the Germans would steal the design (more on the 50 Cal later, that’s a whole other blog).

Although the military denies it, our current system of procurement is hardly free market, effected heavily by politics and/or based on the lowest bidder.  Frankly, every single thing about the past sentence makes me sick to my stomach.  As a Soldier it makes me sick to think, ‘things I’m depending upon to save my life are decided upon by who bid the lowest price.’  It really effects my faith in everything from the boots I wear to the parts that keep those things my mother calls, ‘whirlie-birds‘ (AKA Helicopters, or in Arnold’s case, THE CHOPPER) from falling out of the sky like a rock, and then breaking into a million pieces like a ceramic vase being hit by a train.

The reason the B-52 lasted so long is purely political.  The B-52 which entered service in the 1950s has been in every major conflict up to and including the Iraq invasion.  Every time the airframe was sought to be replaced it found stiff opposition from every senator and congressmen wanting to keep his job.  The advantage of politics is that parts of the B-52 are not made in one single factory, but over several across the United States.  One state can be ignored, but when jobs from many states are on the line, heads of congressmen are on the chopping block.

I plan to write a lot on procurement but today it will just be my stance on a free market solution to corruption, old equipment and lowest bidder purchases.

The first week of basic training is when a Soldier’s clothing is issued.  The government has complexes full of boots, fatigues, berets (Gen. Shinseki your a jerk!), gloves, etc.  It’s your standard issue kind of stuff, standard being the important word in this sentence.  Military contracts wreak of standard (sometimes sub-standard) equipment, because they are based on lowest bidder and not on competition.  So while their are an array of different kinds of boots, while your in the issuing line the only thing they care about is that they gave you the right size and that you keep on moving.

Since I brought up Boots, they make for a good analogy.  Human beings are all different, we come in different sizes, shapes.  We have different likes and dislikes.  A shirt on one person might feel too tight while on another it’s too loose.  Human beings are different, so if were so different why doesn’t the military allot soldiers the respect to give them the personal preference of a basic thing like clothing?

If you think that maybe this is an issue of a stagnant market, then you haven’t been to Ranger Joes, US Cavalry, Special Forces, Brigade Quartermaster.  The standard issue stuff is so bad that many times Soldiers will go out and purchase their own equipment which is of a higher standard and/or more comfortable than what they were given.  This market is on such a rise that I’m seeing a Brigade Quartermaster store popping up on almost every base.

So what’s my point?  What’s a solution?

Here are the problems with military procurement, it usually takes forever to replace something that has become standard issue (as an example the M2 50 cal has been in Army Service for over 90 years, the M16A2 for 30 years, the equipment I used in basic training was made during the Vietnam War).  Standard issue doesn’t take into account personal preference, or wear/handling issues.  Also, military procurement is always notoriously over deadline and over budget (The M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (over 20 years of R&D), ARH-70 (so over budget and deadline it got canceled).

Here is a 2 tiered solution.

Clothing and Tactical Gear:

Stop issuing equipment!  When a Soldier joins the military, they should receive an allotment of money to purchase their own equipment.  Every couple of years the Soldier should receive additional money to replace existing equipment.  If equipment is broken while in combat, the government will give Soldier money to cover the cost to replace equipment.

1. Ensures Soldier has the newest technology the free market can provide.

2. Saves the government from paying for R&D.

3. Saves the government from having to pay government prices which are usually 2 times the commercial value.  If you didn’t know, for example a computer that costs you and me about 500 dollars would cost the government, say, 1,200 dollars.  Having Soldiers pay commercial prices keeps costs low.

4. Since the equipment is personally owned, it keeps future soldiers from having to deal with hand-me-downs that are broken or defective from the previous owner.

5. Stimulates competition in the market, thus, creating better equipment.

6. Saves the government from having to deal with surplus and also having to store large amounts of equipment.

7. Allows Soldier to do some research and find the best equipment.

8. What other things can you think of, leave me comments?

Weapon Systems:

The current procurement of weapon systems is a joke.  Right now if the military wanted a new rifle it would set a standard and put out a contract for bids.  Once the deadline has been met then a group of officers make a decision on who wins the contract.  In theory, the different companies are competing for the best product, but in reality as long as they meet the standard it really doesn’t matter, as long as the price is good and the officers like your company.  The Army decided they wanted to replace the M16 with the XM8, however, politics happened.  They decided to buy more M4s.  Look at these statistics from Army Times and tell me if you can still say the US Military uses the best equipment on the Earth.

I’m not saying the M4 is a bad weapon, but, compared to newer weapons that use a piston system instead of an open gas system, rifles like the XM8 the HK 416 are far superior.  In the military, far superior saves lives.

How it should run is like DARPA (check out some of the amazing things DARPA has done for the military, Unmanned Race, Winner of Urban Challenge, Urban Challenge Footage, BIGDOG the Robot.

How future contracts should work is by a competition.  The Military should set a minimum standard of what they want in a weapon or device and come up with a way to have it compete.  The specifics on what is being graded should be made available to the manufacturers.   For example, if the Army wants a new rifle they ask for a rifle that has a rail for accessories, it must not malfunction more than 100 times with 6,000 rounds and must be accurate up to 300 meters.  Then, any company that wants to compete has to endure it’s own R&D costs.   When it comes to the competition the rifles are graded based on accuracy, efficiency (how many times it malfunctions),  weight, ergonomics, ease of use, ect.  Who ever has the most points wins.  It’s simple, fair, and saves the government money.  It also stops corruption.  No longer will one company be picked over another because a congressman needs more business for his district.