op-ed. op-eds. commentary
Posted by David Deptula on
If an aircraft like the B-1 was taxed so hard due to high demand, the appropriate lesson is that the nation needs more bombers, not less.
Posted by Chris Miller on
The absence of competition would remove cost pressure for both major contractors, which may be attractive for them but is unlikely to bode well for taxpayers.
Posted by Troy Thomas on
When new entities fail, it’s most often due to the fact they don’t do what they do better than their competition (differentiated value proposition is the business term) and they lack investment in talent and technology. But there are other challenges.
Posted by Colin Clark on
To protect the content of 5G transmissions, the Pentagon should accelerate development of mobile applications using end-to-end encryption. Today’s military radios or encrypted email only encrypt a message in transit. The message exists in an unencrypted form in the receiving server.
Posted by Peter Garretson on
If the new Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Matt Donovan, is looking for someone who can “unleash the power of space’ he should look to the bold leadership of Steve Kwast and recommend his nomination to be the first Space Force Commander.
Posted by Peter Huessy on
If the current GBSD requirements can be met through amending the RFP without delaying the program, then we can go in that direction. Otherwise, Northrop Grumman should proceed with the GBSD research and development contract.
Posted by Sen. John Hoeven on
You don’t see lots of op-eds from members of the House or Senate appropriations committees. Why? The so-called cardinals — whose influence has slipped with the demise of regular budget order in the two chambers — remain among the most powerful figures on Capitol Hill because they have a greater say than most of their… Keep reading →
Posted by Mark Cancian on
The clock is ticking, and the Senate, where floor time is always at a premium, has only 35 days in session after July 4th before fiscal 2020 begins (August is mostly recess, unless the Senate decides to enjoy the swelter of a Washington summer).
Posted by Shelby Oakley on
Peter Levine, former top staffer at the Senate Armed Services Committee and now with the Institute for Defense Analyses, penned a piece for us critiquing the GAO’s annual report on major weapons systems. The GAO begs to differ with Levine’s conclusions and assertions. Below is their reply, penned by Shelby Oakley, director at GAO. Read… Keep reading →
Posted by Peter Levine on
GAO’s own data show that the supposed cost growth at the heart of the analysis does not exist at all. The patient reader will find that the real reason for this “cost growth” is increased purchase quantities. In plain terms, the Pentagon bought more weapons.