Good heavens Bobert - Were you really a war profiteer!!!

"I disagree with you, Teribus, that Halliburton is the only company that can put out oil fires or fix pipe lines. There are many..."

I agree with you Bobert there are many (but not that many) companies who can put out oil fires or fix pipelines - but how many of those at the time had an existing contract with the US Government?

Don,

Thanks for that post and link very interesting, sort of falls into step perfectly with the second point in my post that you didn't quote - "2. That management, or oversight of contracts by the military is poor."

As to overspending, unaccounted for funding - not in the least bit surprised - and that is not restricted to the US armed forces. We have had some absolute howlers in the UK (RN Diving Ship HMS Challenger and Nimrod AEW aircraft being two of the most entertaining examples) "illegally incomplete, inept, chaotic", the illegally incomplete can fall into the category of someone being pressured by weight of work into signing off a pile of returns attesting to their accuracy without actually checking them. I would doubt it that it is deliberate theft. But what you said, backed up by the article on Spinney is perfectly true. What is equally true is that it is a problem that on the face of it seems very easy to rectify but which in practice is extremely complex.

In procurement for the armed forces of any country there are four distinct groups involved, those who identify the need for whatever is required, those paying for it, those who will use it and those who will maintain it. As I have better acquainted with this from a UK perspective I will try to demonstrate how the wheels tend to come of the cart.

Identifying the Requirement:
Usually done by a Joint Service Committee, the army needs a new tank, Navy a new Aircraft Carrier, RAF a new aircraft. This committee then appoints a group to define what this piece of kit has to do and where, then draw up a specification.

Those Paying:
Take this specification and go out to tender for provision of what ever is needed - they obviously want to pay as little as possible so betwen the committee above and this crowd some cheese-paring. Contract is awarded and prototype is built and trialed (not talking Aircraft Carriers here)

In the meantime the committee is asked if such and such a piece of new kit can do something outwith what was originally expected of it. The request is evaluated and an alteration is made to the specification.

Those who will use it:
Take part in trials, they come up with short-comings, specification gets changed again

Those who maintain it:
What is an essential feature for those using the kit may impose nightmares for those who have to maintain it (English Electric Lightning interceptor was a classic example of this design conflift). As they have to be maintained some form of compromise is reached and the specification is changed again.

All those changes cost an immense amount of money. A topical example in the UK at the moment is the new carrier for the RN originally 66,000 tons, size reduced to 40,000 tons to save money - that change in design cost a fortune and not one plate of steel has been cut yet. They are inherently inefficient because they a responding to a situation that is constantly changing - in other words a contractors dream.