Pouring Funds Into Untested Weapons Is A Recipe For Failure

Forbes

a day ago

Administration officials and leaders of the emerging military tech sector are determined to get rid of excess regulations that slow the development and production of new weapons systems.
It is a reasoTrump administration nable goal, as long as the drive to deregulate doesn't eliminate rules and personnel that serve essential functions like preventing flawed weapons programs from going into full production before they have been adequately tested. Spending more won't make us safer if a significant part of the new funding goes to systems that don't perform as advertised, are difficult to maintain, or are not useful for the kinds of conflicts the U.S. military is likely to face in the coming period. Unfortunately, the administration seems to be doing just that, announcing that it will cut staffing at the Pentagon's Independent Office of Testing and Evaluation (IOT&E) in half.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has spoken out against the move: 'How is it 'efficient' to gut the office responsible for testing our equipment and making sure it's safe for servicemembers to use?' Warren said. 'This dangerous decision should be immediately reversed.'
An analysis by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense concurred with Sen. Warren's assessment:
'If the end result of this directive is to speed major weapons programs into the field before they're adequately tested, then the $300 million in savings identified by the [adminstration's executive]
The independent testing office was created by Congress in 1983 The basis of its independence was the fact that it did not report to any of the military services, which are often too invested in new systems to assess them objectively. The office has earned its keep over the years by producing detailed, unbiased analyses of the cost and performance of major weapons systems like the F-35 combat aircraft.
The testing unit's assessments have been invaluable to members of Congress and the media in identifying problems with weapons in the development phase, thereby providing a chance to fix problems early in the process, before they get out of control.
At a time when the Pentagon budget is on the verge of hitting $1 trillion per year, and ambitious new initiatives like Golden Dome and the F-47 combat aircraft are scheduled to get huge infusions of cash, independent testing is more important than ever. Not all regulations represent unnecessary bureaucratic interference, as some in the Pentagon and industry seem to believe. The independent testing office is an example of an regulatory unit that can save taxpayers money and put more reliable weapons systems in the hands of the troops.
This is not to say that there should be no effort to streamline the Pentagon's weapons buying process. There are no doubt a significant number of regulations that require useless paper work that slows down the development process. But distinguishing unnecessary regulations from essential ones would involve a level of patience and careful analysis that has yet to be exhibited by the administration or its Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Most Americans have never heard of the Pentagon's testing office, but if it is weakened they could pay a high price in wasted tax dollars and dysfunctional weapons systems. Not only should the office be scaled back, it should be strengthened to monitor the flood of new weapons programs in the pipeline, especially complex systems driven by artificial intelligence, which could cause serious damage if they are not developed with adequate scrutiny.