The Mean & Green Fighting Machine! The U.S. Military Makes Moves to Rid Itself of Oil-Dependency

October 6, 2010 at 6:57 pm

We all know the American military is now engaged in two wars (one in over-drive – Afghanistan; and the other in a subdued mode in Iraq) for nearly a decade. The costs of these wars are taking a toll on the country’s morale and also on the budget.  Did I say it is freaking expensive to fight a war in the punishing terrains of Afghanistan?  If you haven’t already known this by now, here is something to perk you up.   According to an article published in Slate, the Army and Marines pay only $1 a gallon for the fuel itself but up to $400 a gallon for the truck convoys that move it through Pakistan and up the Khyber Pass.  Whoa! That’s some ungodly amount of greens for fueling our fight against the enemy!

Sometimes it is not even the money you pay but it is the amount of pain you have to endure to get this fuel safely across that makes this totally ridiculous!  The insurgent on the border areas often burn the NATO -commissioned tankers to the ground as they travel from Pakistan to Afghanistan.   here are some stunning stats, courtesy of NY Times (via HuffingtonPost)

  • Fossil fuel is the number one thing the military imports into Afghanistan (30 to 80 percent of convoy loads)
  • The military spends $1 per gallon of gas, but can then spend up to $400 more per gallon to get it to forward operating bases
  • For every 24 fuel convoys, one soldier or civilian working on transport was killed

Apparently, there is another dimension to the toll it is taking – this one is on the environment. In light of all these impacts,  the Pentagon is now making a serious push to rid itself of oil, at least in meaningful levels.  If done right, this is could not only result in a significant agency wide monetary saving but also will create an environmentally-friendly fighting force that can reach.

Here is the link to the article on Slate and the one on HuffPost.

Getting paid to watch the Taliban have sex with goats – Esquire goes deep into the world of UAVs!

October 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm

(Source: Esquire)

In a brilliant article, Esquire’s Brian Mockenhaupt goes deep into the world of UAVs (aka Drones) and those who operate them for the US military.   Here are some interesting excerpts from this lengthy, 5-page article, which is a MUST READ material if you are a tech junkie or an aviation nut..

unmanned aircraft

Image Courtesy: Esquire - Dan Winters: The Predator's big brother, the Reaper, is a third bigger, flies three times as fast, and carries a much bigger payload

At this very moment, at any given moment, three dozen armed, unmanned American airplanes are flying lazy loops over Afghanistan and Iraq. They linger there, all day and all night. When one lands to refuel or rearm, another replaces it. They guard soldiers on patrol, spy on Al Qaeda leaders, and send missiles shrieking down on insurgents massing in the night. Add to those the hundreds of smaller, unarmed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles being flown over the two countries by the Army, the Marines, and coalition countries, and a handful of missile-laden planes owned by the Central Intelligence Agency circling above Pakistan. Efficient and effective, the planes have fast become indispensable assets, transforming today’s battlefields just as profoundly as the first airplanes transformed warfare during World War I.

Every so often in history, something profound happens that changes warfare forever. Next year, for the first time ever, the Pentagon will buy more unmanned aircraft than manned, line-item proof that we are in a new age of fighting machines, in which war will be ever more abstract, ever more distant, and ruthlessly efficient.

The Air Force now has 138 Predators and 36 Reapers. The military’s overall UAV inventory has swollen to seven thousand, from hand-launched Ravens to jet-powered Global Hawks, which can fly twelve miles high and monitor a swath the size of Kentucky in a day. And the revolution has just begun. Within the next twenty years, the Air Force envisions unmanned planes launching tiny missiles in hypertargeted strikes, swarms of bug-sized UAVs, and squadrons of networked unmanned fighters, bombers, and tankers, many of which will fly autonomously. And the enemy will have unmanned planes, too. More than forty countries currently fly them. In February, an American F-16 shot down an Iranian drone flying over Iraq. And Hezbollah has used them to spy on Israel and attack a ship during fighting in 2006. They can be built cheaply, with off-the-shelf software and hardware, a natural progression for insurgents who have been building increasingly sophisticated bombs.

Much of the U.S. Air Force Predator and Reaper fleet for Afghanistan is maintained out of a small cluster of buildings and tents next to the runway at Kandahar Airfield. It is here that I saw the planes up close for the first time. Where fighter jets are at once sleek and muscled, these planes look emaciated. Rap a knuckle on a rib cage and hear the hollow reply. It’s hard to see how this is the plane that’s revolutionizing warfare. Perched on twiggy landing gear, it looks less like a piece of deadly, cutting-edge military hardware than an oversized version of the windup balsa-wood planes boys build from kits. Twenty-seven feet long, with a forty-nine-foot wingspan, the Predator weighs just twelve hundred pounds without fuel or missiles. A four-cycle snowmobile engine mounted in the rear propels it with a high-pitched whine. The Reaper, a third bigger than the Predator, seems far sturdier, and with a larger engine it flies at three hundred miles per hour, three times faster. The next generation will be jet-powered with a three-thousand-pound payload. Yet even the wispy Predator has a menacing quality. Glass-bubbled cockpits remind us that man controls the killing machine.

The planes are also much cheaper to buy and fly. A Predator costs about $4 million and a Reaper $11 million, half as much as an F-16, one of the Air Force’s workhorses. In Iraq and Afghanistan, jets and UAVs are often called on for similar missions that support ground troops. The drones can’t do strafing runs or intimidate with a low, fast, ear-splitting flyover, but they use a fraction of the resources, a moped instead of a monster truck. F-16’s, which fly in pairs for safety, burn about a thousand gallons of fuel an hour. At that rate, they can stay over a target for about an hour before they must swap out with other planes or fill up at an aerial tanker. A Predator carries a hundred gallons of fuel with which it can stay aloft for twenty-four hours. As the Air Force likes to point out, a bomb from an F-16 killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but the final strike against the Iraqi insurgent leader came after Predators had gathered six hundred hours of surveillance footage in the hunt for him and his associates. Keeping two F-16’s in the air that long would require about 120 tanker trucks’ worth of fuel.

Although they have never set foot in Afghanistan, Nelson and Anderson make effective counterinsurgents. They have spent hours watching the same roads, the same villages, the same people. “You gradually gain a better understanding of who they are and how they live,” Nelson says. He felt the same during his Mormon mission to the Dominican Republic, after his sophomore year at the Air Force Academy. For two years he walked or rode his bike on unpaved roads through villages and talked to people twelve hours a day. There he saw homes made of coffee cans and palm fronds. Now he gazes at houses made of mud bricks. To balance out the lack of human interaction, he has taken Afghanistan-familiarization courses offered by the Air Force. “You can picture them more as a people and a civilization,” he says.

Indeed, they see many things meant to be secret, like men having sex with sheep and goats in the deep of night. I first heard this from infantry soldiers and took it as rumor, but at Bagram I met a civilian contractor who works in UAV operations. “All the time,” he said. “They just don’t think we can see them.” Which sums up a major allure of UAVs: Though they should know better by now, many insurgents still feel safe working in darkness or in the shelter of distant mountains and valleys, so they are exposed again and again. The unmanned planes have eroded their freedom of movement and simple early-warning systems, two of their few assets when outmatched in weapons, technology, and resources. Helicopters can be heard a mile or more away. Spotters watch vehicles leave bases and follow the slow advance of dismounted patrols. Surprise is a rarity for U. S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The insurgents almost always know they’re coming, with at least several minutes’ notice. So they toss weapons behind a rock and become, in an instant, civilians. But with a camera parked three miles overhead, last-minute subterfuge doesn’t work.

Enter the Betas, the future armchair fighter jocks. The Air Force is now training a first-ever test group brought straight into the Predator program. After six months of screening and basic flight instruction, the Betas started a nine-week initial qualification course at Creech, the same taken by pilots, which includes forty hours in a simulator and nine or more actual flights. The eight Beta students were still in the academics phase when I visited Creech, but the nonpilots, who came from jobs like military police, civil engineering, and acquisitions, had so far performed as well as trained pilots, Gersten says. For this type of work, how they grew up might be more important than whether they’ve logged a thousand hours flying supersonic. “This generation, where were they when 9/11 started? They were in junior high and high school,” Gersten says. “And they grew up with the very technology that we fly with here.” Those who dreamed of being fighter pilots might never get the chance as the skies unman, but America’s pool of gamers, texters, and TV watchers is certainly vast and deep. The Betas’ progress is being closely tracked by the Pentagon, which can build plenty of planes if it has the people to fly them.

Click here to read more.

GAO Report on Pentagon’s Defense Travel System Says Implementation Challenges Still Remain

June 30, 2009 at 1:52 pm

(Source: U.S. Government Acocuntability Office)

Why GAO Did this Study

In 1995, the Department of Defense (DOD) began an effort to implement a standard departmentwide travel system—the Defense Travel System (DTS). GAO has made numerous recommendations aimed at improving DOD management, oversight, and implementation of DTS.

Image Courtesy: Apture

GAO was asked to:

  • Assess the actions DOD has taken to implement GAO’s prior recommendations;
  • Determine the actions DOD has taken to standardize and streamline its travel rules and processes;
  • Determine if DOD has identified its legacy travel systems, their operating costs, and which of these systems will be eliminated; and
  • Report on DOD’s costs to process travel vouchers manually and electronically.

To address these objectives, GAO (1) obtained and analyzed relevant travel policies and procedures, and documents related to the operation of DTS and (2) interviewed appropriate DOD and contractor personnel.

What GAO Found

While the department has made progress in improving the efficiency of its travel operations by implementing DTS and revising its processes and policies, unresolved operational issues continue to exist. DOD has taken sufficient action to satisfactorily address 6 of the 14 recommendations GAO made in 2006 pertaining to unused airline tickets, restricted airfares, testing of system interfaces, and streamlining of certain travel processes. More effort is needed to address the remaining 8 related to requirements management and system testing, utilization, premium-class travel, and developing an automated approach to reduce the need for hard-copy receipts to substantiate travel expenses. For example, in the area of requirements management and testing, GAO’s analysis found that the display of flight information by DTS is complicated and confusing. This problem continues because DOD has yet to establish DTS flight display requirements that minimize the number of screens DOD travelers must view in selecting a flight.

The 1995 DOD Travel Reengineering Report made 22 recommendations to streamline DOD’s travel rules and processes. GAO found that DOD had satisfactorily addressed all 22 recommendations. For example, DOD has mandated the use of commercial travel offices (CTO), established a single entity within DOD—the Defense Travel Management Office—to contract with CTOs for travel services, and has begun modifying CTO contracts as they become subject to renewal to standardize the level of services provided.

According to DOD officials, except for locations where DTS has not yet been deployed, DTS is used by the military services and all 44 defense agencies and joint commands to process temporary duty (TDY) travel vouchers. The department uses two legacy systems to process:

  • TDY travel vouchers at locations where DTS is not yet deployed and
  • Civilian and military permanent duty travel vouchers since DTS currently lacks the functionality to process these vouchers.

DOD provided us with fiscal year 2008 expenditure data for one system and budget data for the other system. The expenditure/budget data provided by DOD were comparable to the amounts budgeted for these systems for fiscal year 2008. According to DOD officials, these legacy systems will not be eliminated because they provide the capability to process military and civilian permanent duty travel vouchers. Although DTS is expected to provide the capability to process military permanent duty travel vouchers in fiscal year 2010, DOD has not yet decided if civilian permanent duty travel voucher processing will be added to DTS.

DOD cost data indicate that it is about 15 times more expensive to process a travel voucher manually—$36.52 manually versus $2.47 electronically. DOD officials acknowledged that the department continues to lack the data needed to ascertain the complete universe of travel vouchers that should be processed through DTS.

What GAO Recommends

Because GAO has existing recommendations regarding the actions needed to address the weaknesses discussed in this report, GAO reiterates 8 of its 14 prior recommendations. DOD commented that it has taken sufficient action to address 12 of the 14 recommendations, including 6 of the 8 GAO is reiterating, and described actions under way or planned to address the other 2. GAO disagrees. GAO received technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

Click here to read/download the entire report.

U.S Department of Defense experiments with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for maritime counter-drug operations

June 8, 2009 at 10:02 am

(Source: Time)

Image Courtesy: USDoD SouthCom - Heron UAV takes off @ Compala Airbase

For weeks, U.S. and Salvadoran counter-narcotics officials had been watching a boat which they suspected was ferrying drugs to and from El Salvador’s Pacific coast. But to be sure, they needed a plane that could stay aloft over the ocean, undetected, long enough to get detailed surveillance imaging. So last month the Defense Department’s Southern Command (Southcom) suggested this would be a good opportunity to help determine whether an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) being tested at El Salvador’s Comalapa Air Base might be the future of drug interdiction.

The results were encouraging. The UAV, or drone — a wide-winged, blue-gray plane aptly called the Heron, which can stay quietly airborne for more than 20 hours and stream high-fidelity, real-time video from as high as 15,000 feet — provided officials back at Comalapa with enough to confirm that it was indeed a narco-ship (which will probably be busted soon). “This was a historic first,” says Navy Commander Kevin Quarderer of Southcom’s Innovation Program, “using a UAV for maritime counter-drug operations in a real-world setting, with actual targets.” (Read about how drones are used in Pakistan.)

Indeed, with drones playing an increasing role in U.S. military operations — some 7,000 are in use today, up from just around 100 in the year 2000 — it only stands to reason that drug drones would soon join America’s growing stealth arsenal. That’s especially true at a time when many in Congress are questioning the cost-effectiveness of a drug war (which has poured more than $5 billion in U.S. aid to Colombia alone this decade) that intercepts tons of narcotics each year but rarely seems to put appreciable dents in eradicating crops like coca, the raw material of cocaine, or reducing the flow of marijuana, coke, heroin and methamphetamines into the U.S. If battlefield drones like the Predator can scan and bomb Taliban targets in the mountains of Afghanistan, the logic goes, a similar drone like the Heron should be able to find the “go fast” boats and submarines used by drug cartels in the waters of this hemisphere.

Or, for that matter, clandestine drug-processing labs on land. Drug drones have recently become a more popular idea thanks in part to the five-year-long drama of three U.S. military contractors who were taken hostage by Marxist guerrillas when their drug surveillance Cessna crashed over the Colombian jungle in 2003. (The three were rescued along with 12 other hostages in a Colombian operation last year). Using drones could put far fewer agents in that kind of danger.

But for now, the military is focusing on maritime drug drones. A preliminary Southcom report to U.S. legislators like Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, who led a push to get $3 million for Heron testing this year, suggests the drone is ready to take on actual interdiction work, which could result in major savings in drug-surveillance outlays for the federal government (though Southcom says it hasn’t calculated them yet). Cochran, the ranking Republican member on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee, is convinced the Heron has “operational readiness and potential to provide more persistent and cost-effective intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance,” says the Senator’s spokesperson, Margaret McPhillips. (See pictures from the frontlines of Mexico’s drug war.)

A key reason is endurance. Manned counter-drug aircraft like the E-2 Hawkeye can only stay up about one- third of the time a drone can. And with drug cartels using harder-to-detect shipment methods like semisubmersibles (jerry-rigged submarines), it’s critical to have surveillance craft that can “perch and stare” for longer periods, says P.W. Singer, author of Wired For War and director of the 21st-Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. “Drones are best for the dull, dirty and dangerous jobs, so this is a smart move,” says Singer. “We can’t ask counter-drug crews to keep their eyes open for 20 hours over oceans and mangroves.”

The Heron isn’t without problems.  The Turkish military complained last month about mishaps with the drones it had bought from IAI for counterterrorism surveillance, such as too often not responding to commands from their human operators on the ground.  Quarderer insists the Heron used in the recent testing project — dubbed Monitoreo, Spanish for “monitoring” — was virtually problem-free and sported the kind of GPS and automatic takeoff and landing technology that enhances safety by minimizing the potential for human error. The only question now seems to be whether Congress will authorize a larger drug-drone fleet, either purchased and operated by the military or leased and contracted out to the aircraft’s makers. (Boeing’s A160 Hummingbird, a helicopter-like drone, is also being considered for overland counter-drug ops.) In the end, the cost savings Washington has found with drones in real war will be hard to resist in the drug war.

Click here to read the entire article.

Check-mate in the high seas! Chinese and American ships clash again in Yellow Sea

May 6, 2009 at 12:44 pm

(Source: Times Online, UK)

China demonstrated its growing naval confidence again in the latest standoff between American and Chinese ships.

Photo Courtesy: Frederic J Browne/EPA

The fifth such incident in two months occurred on Friday in the Yellow Sea when a US Navy surveillance ship turned its fire hoses on two Chinese fishing vessels.

A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the American ship was operating in China’s exclusive economic zone without permission and had violated Chinese and international laws. “We express our concern about this and demand the US side take effective measures to ensure a similar incident does not happen again,” he said.

The USNS Victorious, an ocean surveillance ship designed for anti-submarine warfare and underwater mapping, was conducting what the Pentagon called routine operations in the waters between China and the Korean peninsula. The Chinese vessels came within 100ft (30 metres) of the vessel.

The Pentagon, which accused five Chinese fishing vessels of harassing another US surveillance ship in the South China Sea near Hainan island in March, cited the incident as an example of unsafe Chinese seamanship.

The Chinese vessels did not withdraw until after the Victorious had sounded an alarm and a Chinese military ship, identified by the Pentagon as WAGOR 17, arrived in response to the call for assistance. It shone a light on the fishing vessels until they left.

The Pentagon earlier played down the confrontation, striking a more low-key tone than during the incident two months ago.

A spokesman for the US Defence Department suggested that the United States was looking to avoid the kind of angry exchanges that followed the March incident. He said: “We will be developing a way forward to deal with this diplomatically.”

It was not the first time the Victorious had encountered Chinese boats. On April 7 and April 8, Chinese-flagged fishing vessels approached the ship and the USNS Loyal as they operated within China’s 200-mile economic zone.

Charge on Run! General Dynamics RST-V Series-Hybrid With Cool In-Wheel Motors

April 20, 2009 at 4:53 pm

(Source: Jalopnik)

The General Dynamics Reconnaissance Surveillance and Targeting Vehicle is one cool piece of kit. It’s powered by four electric in-wheel motors and can export thirty kilowatts directly to the grid. It’s also got neat-o gauges.

This piece of military could-be is part of a larger push from the US Army to reduce their fuel consumption and use smarter technologies to make future land vehicles better in the field and more useful tools for soldiers. The RST-V is a technology demonstrator built entirely by General Dynamics to show what’s possible on a smaller-sized vehicle built around a series hybrid drive system.  (For those interested in reading about the Pentagon’s forays into alternative fuels take a look at this article : Pentagon Prioritizes Pursuit Of Alternative Fuel Sources).

It uses a small diesel-engine powering a generator to charge on-board batteries or power the in-wheel electric motors. Instead of mounting the wheels to studs on the motor as is normally done on hub-motor concepts, this concept works a bit differently. First the wheel is assembled on a bearing riding on an stub axle, then on goes the 90 kW peak, 50 kW continuous pancake motor mount installed on the splined hub shaft, then on top of that a pancake gear reduction unit which interfaces with an eccentrically mounted geared track one the rim of the wheel. Very, very clever. Each wheel gets an independent motor controller so even if three motors get shot out, forward motion is still possible.  Aside from being able to operate in all-silent mode, it can also export over 20 kW of power to the grid.

Click here to read the entire article.

Pentagon Prioritizes Pursuit Of Alternative Fuel Sources

April 15, 2009 at 12:25 am

(Source: Washington Post)

For the Defense Department, the largest consumer of energy in the United States, addiction to fuel has greater costs than the roughly $18 billion the agency spent on it last year.

By some estimates, about half of the U.S. military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to attacks with improvised explosive devices on convoys, many of which are carrying fuel. As of March 20, 3,426 service members had been killed by hostile fire in Iraq, 1,823 of them victims of IEDs.

“Every time you bring a gallon of fuel forward, you have to send a convoy,” said Alan R. Shaffer, director of defense research and engineering at the Pentagon. “That puts people’s lives at risk.”

Spurred by this grim reality, the Pentagon, which traditionally has not made saving energy much of a priority, has launched initiatives to find alternative fuel sources. The goals include saving money, preserving dwindling natural resources and lessening U.S. dependence on foreign sources.

“The honest-to-God truth, the most compelling reason to do it is it saves lives,” said Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson, director of operations and logistics for the Army. “It takes drivers off the road.”

Other than fueling jet engines, the largest drain on U.S. military fuel supplies comes from running generators at forward operating bases. The Pentagon says that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have required more fuel on a daily basis than any other war in history. Since the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq began in 2001 and 2003, respectively, the amount of oil consumption at forward bases has increased from 50 million gallons to 500 million gallons a year.

To help reduce consumption, the Pentagon is using $300 million of the $7.4 billion it received from the economic stimulus package to accelerate existing programs for developing alternative fuels and saving energy.
The Pentagon is also investing $15 million of the stimulus money into developing lightweight, flexible photovoltaic mats that could be rolled up like a rug and used at forward bases to draw solar power for operating equipment. “We think $15 million will let us build, develop and test one of these roll-out mats,” Shaffer said.

The Pentagon is also testing the use of solar and geothermal energy to provide power at installations. The Army, for example, is partnering with a private firm to build an enormous, 500-megawatt solar farm at Fort Irwin, Calif. The farm would supply the 30 to 35 megawatts needed to operate the installation, with the remaining available for sale to the California electrical grid.

About $6 million is aimed at improving a program run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to convert algae into jet propulsion fuel 8, or JP-8, that could power Navy and Air Force aircraft.

Other initiatives include $27 million to develop a hybrid engine the Army could use in tactical vehicles and $2 million to develop highly efficient portable fuel cells that could reduce the battery load carried by infantry soldiers.

Click here to read the entire article (Free Registration required).

Gas stations in the sky continue service for US Air Force amidst replacement fight

April 9, 2009 at 12:10 pm


Photo: VirtualSugar@ flickr

(Source: Washington Post)

 WASHINGTON — Lying on her chest in a small crawl space, Staff Sgt. Dana Fernkas watches the gray Air Force jet emerge from the clouds and ease up just behind the rear window in the belly of her plane.

While most cargo and passenger planes stay thousands of feet apart in the air, the big KC-10 roared up just below where Fernkas lay, close enough that the wings patch on the other pilot’s jumpsuit was clearly visible. All this while both aircraft raced 300 miles per hour over the Atlantic Ocean.

For gas stations in the sky, this is full-service.

Known as a boom operator, Fernkas controls a long pipe that extends off the back of the plane like a tail. Her aircraft, the size of medium passenger jet, is an aerial refueling tanker known as the KC-135, one of about 450 the Air Force operates. Fuel is stored in the plane’s wings and below the cabin floor. Gassing up a fighter could take just a few minutes. Bigger planes may take up to a half hour.

With a joy stick in one hand and a lever in the other, she “flies” the boom, guiding the tip slowly into a gas nozzle on top of the other plane, a KC-10 that also serves as a tanker, although bigger. Once it slides into place, the boom can deliver a portion of the 200,000 pounds of jet fuel the KC-135 can carry.

“The tanker is key to our entire mission,” said Gen. Arthur Lichte, head of the Air Force command that oversees the KC-135. It gasses up other aircraft in flight, allowing everything from fighter jets to lumbering cargo planes to fly farther than they could on one tank of gas.

The Pentagon has been trying for a decade to build new refueling planes to replace the KC-135, some of which date from mid-1950s, like the one Fernkas flew in. But the effort has been stymied by bitter competition among contractors, heavy pressure from Congress and missteps by the Air Force.

Click here to read the entire article (Free Reg. required). 

Prospects Dim for Marine One Upgrade

February 23, 2009 at 11:55 pm

(Source: WashingtonPost.com)

The prospects for building a new fleet of high-tech presidential helicopters darkened yesterday, after the new commander in chief called the costly Bush administration effort an example of military procurement “gone amok” and said he thinks the existing White House helicopter fleet “seems perfectly adequate.”Marine One in Chicago.jpg

President Obama’s remarks at the opening of a meeting with lawmakers on fiscal responsibility did not rule out finishing the program, now expected to cost more than $11.2 billion, or nearly twice the original estimate. He joked that he has not had a helicopter before, so perhaps “I’ve been deprived and I — I didn’t know it.”

But Obama’s disclosure that he had asked Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to conduct a “thorough review of the helicopter situation” amounted to a shot across the bow of large defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, the helicopter’s manufacturer. In recent years, contractors have experienced multiple cost overruns — totaling $300 billion on the 95 largest military programs, according to the Government Accountability Office — without incurring substantial penalty.

Click here to read the full article.