Revelations From The Pentagon’s 2027 Fiscal Year Budget Request Briefings

 

"NATIONAL DEFENSE MAGAZINE" By Stew Magnuson, Editor In Chief

"Where officials from the Air Force, Navy and Army intend to spend what they called a “historic and once in a generation” $1.5 trillion budget so they will not have to make compromises between modernization and readiness. They can have it all."

________________________________________________________________________________ 

"The Defense Department in 2025 did not hold a big rollout for the fiscal year 2026 budget request.

This year marked a return to normalcy as the Pentagon’s acting comptroller and officials from the Air Force, Navy and Army all sat down with reporters in four separate briefings to explain where they intend to spend what they called a “historic and once in a generation” $1.5 trillion budget.

The headline: the unprecedented funding boost will allow the services to not have to make compromises between modernization and readiness. They can have it all.

The officials also noted that the budget was in the works long before the outset of Operation Epic Fury, and the war did not have any impact on the budget request. Any additional expenses would be included in a reconciliation bill. How much would be in that pot is still unknown, they said, but its passing would push the $1.5 trillion mark even higher.

Here are 10 other interesting tidbits from a day of press briefings.

• Boosting the defense industrial base was a reoccurring theme throughout the briefings. Part of that is delivering on the promise of multi-year orders. “We're going to give them a massive order, we're going to sustain it over time, and then we're going to have industry put forward the money to actually invest in their facilities,” said Jules Hurst III, performing the duties of the undersecretary of war-comptroller. The caveat is if industry fails to deliver on increased production, “there will be penalties for them,” he warned.

• Since prime contractor Lockheed Martin only has so much capacity to deliver F-35 jet fighters, the budget prioritizes purchases for U.S. forces. The number slated for foreign customers will be reduced. Those numbers are to be determined.

• The budget funds a study to look at the possibility of building a fifth public shipyard and to identify possible locations.

• The Marine Corps remains committed to buying the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle while the Army’s decision in 2025 to end its procurement stands, although it might procure a few for specialized missions such as counter-drone operations, service officials said. Ironic, since it was one of the few Army-led acquisition programs that pretty much came in on time and on budget.

• The Navy is already spending $837 million in the current budget cycle on research and development for the so-called Trump-class battleship, with a goal of beginning construction in 2028. The service is seeking an additional $3.9 billion in R&D and $43.5 billion over the next five years to build the first three ships. A Navy official pushed back on the narrative of it being a “Trump vanity project” and reiterated the talking point that the service had already identified the need for a ship larger than guided-missile destroyers.

• Two recent announcements came too late for the Department of the Air Force to factor them into budget documents. The first was the un-cancellation — again — of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, better known as the Warthog, which has seen action in Operation Epic Fury. Its success there bought the venerated airframe a reprieve until at least 2030. The Space Force also finally pulled the plug on the OCX program, the ground segment for the new generation of GPS satellites. After more than 15 years of development, it came to an ignoble end. What comes next for these two programs is to be determined, an official said.

• The Air Force's Next-Generation Aerial Refueling System is not a thing anymore. There is $13 million in the request for a new initiative called “Advanced Tanker Systems,” which will look at alternatives “to offer more options … and to make sure that our future advanced tanker systems are more resilient and can operate in contested environments,” a service official said.

• At long last, the Army’s two-decade quest to field a Bradley Fighting Vehicle replacement seems to be coming to an end, as the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle moves out of the research-and-development account and into procurement. The budget request has $547 million for the first 19 vehicles, along with the goal of procuring a total of 326 by 2031.

• Similar to the long journey to replace the Bradley, the end is in sight for the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter replacement — formerly known as the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft. Now known as MV-75 Cheyenne II, the Army budget request of $2.1 billion for the program calls for accelerated delivery of the aircraft with a goal of equipping the first unit by 2030.

• The overall Defense Department briefing touted big investments in the Golden Dome missile defense shield. But details on how much was being spent by the individual services — particularly the Space Force and Air Force contributions — were not forthcoming, with all budget questions being referred to Golden Dome Director Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein. Missile Defense Agency budget briefings have been held in years’ past, but not this one."

Top 10 Interesting Revelations from the Pentagon’s 2027 Fiscal Year Budget Request Briefings

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Stew Magnuson is the Editor in Chief of National Defense Magazine

Could The U.S. Have Won The Vietnam Conflict And What Does This Tell Us About Current And Future Wars?

View And Search The Wall of Faces

By Ken Larson

Vietnam was not a declared war. It was a setup by the Military Industrial Complex - an incursion developed by the “Best and the Brightest” in the Pentagon. It cost money, treasure and lives while making billions for corporations.

Like Vietnam, recent events involving war “Interventions” in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine demonstrate the incredibly out of  control nature of the Military Industrial Complex, the underlying profit motive, folly and contribution to the largest national debt ever to grace the face of the earth.

"WIKIPEDIA"

"David Halberstam's book offers a great deal of detail on how the decisions were made in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that led to the war, focusing on a period from 1960 to   1965 but also covering earlier and later years up to the publication year of the book.

Many influential factors are examined in the book:

•   " The Democratic party was still haunted by claims that it had 'lost   China' to Communists, and it did not want to be said to have lost Vietnam also
•    The McCarthy era had rid the government of experts in Vietnam and surrounding Far-East countries
•    Early studies called for close to a million U.S. troops to   completely defeat the Viet Cong, but it would be impossible to convince   Congress or the U.S. public to deploy that many soldiers
•    Declarations of war and excessive shows of force, including bombing   too close to China or too many U.S. troops, might have triggered the   entry of Chinese ground forces into the war, as well as greater Soviet   involvement, which might repair the growing Sino-Soviet rift.
•    The American military and generals were not prepared for protracted guerilla warfare.
•    Some war games showed that a gradual escalation by the United States   could be evenly matched by North Vietnam: Every year, 200,000 North   Vietnamese came of draft age and potentially could be sent down the Ho Chi Minh Trail to replace any losses against the U.S.: the U.S. would be 'fighting the birthrate'
•    Any show of force by the U.S. in the form of bombing or ground   forces would signal the U.S. interest in defending South Vietnam and   therefore cause the U.S. greater shame if they were to withdraw
•    President Johnson's belief that too much attention given to the war effort would jeopardize his Great Society domestic programs
•    The effects of strategic bombing:   Most people wrongly believed that North Vietnam prized its industrial   base so much it would not risk its destruction by U.S. air power and   would negotiate peace after experiencing some limited bombing. Others   saw that, even in World War II, strategic bombing united the victim population against the aggressor and did little to hinder industrial output.
•    The Domino Theory rationales are mentioned as simplistic.
•    After placing a few thousand Americans in harm's way, it became   politically easier to send hundreds of thousands over with the promise   that, with enough numbers, they could protect themselves and that to   abandon Vietnam now would mean the earlier investment in money and blood   would be thrown away.
The book shows that the gradual escalation initially allowed the Johnson Administration to avoid negative publicity and criticism from   Congress and avoid a direct war against the Chinese, but it also lessened the likelihood of either victory or withdrawal"

The Best And The Brightest

THE PAST

A quote many years ago from Major-General Smedley D. Butler: Common Sense (November 1935)

" I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service as a member of our country's most agile military force---the Marine Corps. I have served in all commissioned ranks from a second lieutenant to major-general. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers, In short I was a racketeer for capitalism

Thus, I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place to live for the National City Bank boys to collect   revenues in…. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking   house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican   Republic for American Sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras   "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in1927 I helped   see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years  I  had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded honors, medals, promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents. War Is A Racket"

VIETNAM WAR - THE COSTLIEST TO DATE

It's been 5 decades since the U.S. ended its involvement in the Vietnam War, and yet payments for the conflict are still rising.

Now above $22 billion annually, Vietnam compensation costs are roughly twice the size of the FBI's annual budget. And while many disabled  vets have been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder, hearing loss or general wounds, other ailments are positioning the war to have large costs even after veterans die.

Based on an  uncertain  link to the defoliant Agent Orange that was used in Vietnam,  federal  officials approved diabetes a decade ago as an ailment that  qualifies  for cash compensation — and it is now the most compensated  ailment for  Vietnam vets.

The VA also recently included heart disease among  the Vietnam medical problems that qualify, and the agency  is seeing  thousands of new claims for that condition.

THE PRESENT

If  history is any judge, the U.S. government will be paying for the  Iraq  and Afghanistan wars for the next century as service members and  their families grapple with the sacrifices of combat.

An Associated  Press analysis of federal payment records found that the  government is  still making monthly payments to relatives of Civil War veterans — 148  years after the conflict ended.

At the anniversary of  the start of the Iraq War, more than $40 billion a  year is going to  compensate veterans and survivors from the  Spanish-American War from 1898, World War I and II, the Korean War, the  Vietnam War, the two Iraq  campaigns and the Afghanistan conflict. And  those costs are rising  rapidly.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray said such expenses should remind the nation about war's long-lasting financial toll.

"When we decide to go to war, we have to consciously be also thinking about   the cost," said Murray, D-Wash., adding that her WWII veteran father's disability benefits helped feed their family.

With greater numbers of troops surviving combat injuries because of   improvements in battlefield medicine and technology, the costs of disability payments are set to rise much higher.

THE IRAQ WARS AND AFGHANISTAN

So  far, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the first Persian Gulf conflict in the early 1990s are costing about $12 billion a year to compensate those who have left military service or family members of those who have  died.

Those post-service compensation costs have totaled  more than $50 billion since 2003, not including expenses of medical  care and  other benefits provided to veterans, and are poised to grow  for many  years to come.

The new veterans are filing for disabilities at  historic rates, with about 45 percent of those from  Iraq and Afghanistan seeking compensation for injuries. Many are  seeking compensation for a  variety of ailments at once.

Experts see a variety of factors  driving that surge, including a bad economy that's led more jobless  veterans to seek the financial benefits they've  earned, troops who  survive wounds of war, and more awareness about  head trauma and mental  health.

THE FUTURE

Like Vietnam, recent events involving war “Interventions” in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine demonstrate the incredibly out of  control nature of the Military Industrial Complex, the underlying profit motive, folly and contribution to the largest national debt ever to grace the face of the earth.

Alternatives to war in terms of scientific advancement not only are required, but are in progress. The war makers are broke and operating on world credit subject to world approval.

The Real Solution

41 US Arms Companies In Top 100 Revenue Worldwide On The Back Of Wars And Regional Tensions

 

PLEASE CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

"Stockholm Internatinal Peace Research Institute "

"United States companies recorded arms revenues of $317 billion, half the total arms revenues of the Top 100 "

_________________________________________________________________

"(Stockholm, 2 December 2024) Revenues from sales of arms and military services by the 100 largest companies in the industry reached $632 billion in 2023, a real-terms increase of 4.2 per cent compared with 2022, according to new data released today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), available at www.sipri.org.

Read this press release in Catalan (PDF), French (PDF), Spanish (PDF) or Swedish (PDF).

Click here to explore the interactive table of the SIPRI Top 100 arms-producing and military services companies in the world, 2023.

Download the SIPRI Fact Sheet here.

Accurate, dependable information is more important than ever. Invest in the facts. Support SIPRI.

Arms revenue increases were seen in all regions, with particularly sharp rises among companies based in Russia and the Middle East. Overall, smaller producers were more efficient at responding to new demand linked to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, growing tensions in East Asia and rearmament programmes elsewhere.

SIPRI Top 100 companies ramp up production and build workforces

In 2023 many arms producers ramped up their production in response to surging demand. The total arms revenues of the Top 100 bounced back after a dip in 2022. Almost three quarters of companies increased their arms revenues year-on-year. Notably, most of the companies that increased their revenues were in the lower half of the Top 100.

‘There was a marked rise in arms revenues in 2023, and this is likely to continue in 2024,’ said Lorenzo Scarazzato, a Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘The arms revenues of the Top 100 arms producers still did not fully reflect the scale of demand, and many companies have launched recruitment drives, suggesting they are optimistic about future sales.’

US companies’ arms revenues rise, but production challenges remain

The 41 companies in the Top 100 based in the United States recorded arms revenues of $317 billion, half the total arms revenues of the Top 100 and 2.5 per cent more than in 2022. Since 2018, the top five companies in the Top 100 have all been based in the USA.

Of the 41 US companies, 30 increased their arms revenues in 2023. However, Lockheed Martin and RTX, the world’s two largest arms producers, were among those registering a drop.

‘Larger companies like Lockheed Martin and RTX manufacturing a wide range of arms products often depend on complex, multi-tiered supply chains, which made them vulnerable to lingering supply chain challenges in 2023,’ said Dr Nan Tian, Director of SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘This was particularly the case in the aeronautics and missile sectors.’

European arms industry trails rest of world in revenue growth

The combined arms revenues of the 27 Top 100 companies based in Europe (excluding Russia) totalled $133 billion in 2023. This was only 0.2 per cent more than in 2022, the smallest increase in any world region.

However, behind the low growth figure the picture is more nuanced. European arms companies producing complex weapon systems were mostly working on older contracts during 2023 and their revenues for the year consequently do not reflect the influx of orders.

‘Complex weapon systems have longer lead times,’ said Lorenzo Scarazzato. ‘Companies that produce them are thus inherently slower in reacting to changes in demand. That explains why their arms revenues were relatively low in 2023, despite a surge in new orders.’

At the same time, a number of other European producers saw their arms revenues grow substantially, driven by demand linked to the war in Ukraine, particularly for ammunition, artillery and air defence and land systems. Notably, companies in Germany, Sweden, Ukraine, Poland, Norway and Czechia were able to tap into this demand. For instance, Germany’s Rheinmetall increased production capacity of 155-mm ammunition and its revenues were boosted by deliveries of its Leopard tanks and new orders, including through war-related ‘ring-exchange’ programmes (under which countries supply military goods to Ukraine and receive replacements from allies).

Wartime production leads to sharp rise in Russian firms’ arms revenues

The two Russian companies listed in the Top 100 saw their combined revenues increase by 40 per cent to reach an estimated $25.5 billion. This was almost entirely due to the 49 per cent increase in arms revenues recorded by Rostec, a state-owned holding company controlling many arms producers, including seven previously listed in the Top 100 for which individual revenue data could not be obtained.

‘Official data on Russian arms production is scarce and questionable but most analysts believe that the production of new military equipment increased substantially in 2023, while Russia’s existing arsenal underwent extensive refurbishment and modernization,’ said Dr Nan Tian. ‘In particular, combat aircraft, helicopters, UAVs, tanks, munitions and missiles are all thought to have been produced in greater numbers as Russia continued its offensive in Ukraine.’

South Korean and Japanese companies lead revenue growth in Asia and Oceania

The 23 companies in the Top 100 based in Asia and Oceania recorded 5.7 per cent arms revenue growth year-on-year, to reach $136 billion. The four South Korea-based companies recorded a combined 39 per cent increase in arms revenues to reach $11.0 billion. The five companies based in Japan saw their combined arms revenues rise by 35 per cent to $10.0 billion. A policy of military build-up in Japan since 2022 drove a flurry of domestic orders, with some companies seeing the value of new orders increase more than 300 per cent.

‘The sharp growth in arms revenues among South Korean and Japanese companies reflects the bigger picture of military build-ups taking place in the region in response to heightened threat perceptions,’ said Xiao Liang, a Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘South Korean firms are also trying to expand their share of the global arms market, including demand in Europe related to the war in Ukraine.’

Middle East arms producers see revenue growth linked to Gaza, Ukraine conflicts

Six of the Top 100 arms companies were based in the Middle East. Their combined arms revenues grew by 18 per cent to $19.6 billion. With the outbreak of war in Gaza, the arms revenues of the three companies based in Israel in the Top 100 reached $13.6 billion. This was the highest figure ever recorded by Israeli companies in the SIPRI Top 100. The three companies based in Türkiye saw their arms revenues grow by 24 per cent to $6.0 billion, benefiting from exports prompted by the war in Ukraine and from the Turkish government’s continued push towards self-reliance in arms production.

‘The biggest Middle Eastern arms producers in the Top 100 saw their arms revenues reach unprecedented heights in 2023 and the growth looks set to continue,’ said Dr Diego Lopes da Silva, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘In particular, as well as taking in record arms revenues in 2023, Israeli arms producers are booking many more orders as the war in Gaza rages on and spreads.’

Other notable developments

• The nine companies in the Top 100 based in China saw their smallest year-on-year percentage increase in arms revenues (+0.7 per cent) since 2019 amid a slowing economy. Their total arms revenues in 2023 reached $103 billion.
• The combined arms revenues of the three Indian companies in the Top 100 increased to $6.7 billion (+5.8 per cent).
• NCSIST, the only Taiwan-based company in the Top 100, recorded a 27 per cent increase in its arms revenues to $3.2 billion.
• Türkiye’s Baykar produces armed uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) that have been widely used in the war in Ukraine. Exports accounted for around 90 per cent of its arms revenues in 2023, which increased by 25 per cent over the year to $1.9 billion.
• The United Kingdom’s Atomic Weapons Establishment, which designs, manufactures and maintains nuclear warheads, recorded the largest year-on-year percentage increase in arms revenues (+16 per cent) among UK companies in the Top 100, to reach $2.2 billion.

About the SIPRI Arms Industry Database

The SIPRI Arms Industry Database was created in 1989. At that time, it excluded data for companies in China, the Soviet Union and countries in Eastern Europe. The current version contains data for 2002–23, including data for companies in Russia. Chinese companies are included from 2015 onwards.

‘Arms revenues’ refer to revenues generated from the sales of military goods and services to military customers domestically and abroad. Unless otherwise specified, all changes are expressed in real terms and all figures are given in constant 2023 US dollars. Comparisons between 2022 and 2023 are based on the list of companies in the ranking for 2023 (i.e. the annual comparison is between the same set of companies). Longer-term comparisons are based on the sets of companies listed in the respective year (i.e. the comparison is between a different set of companies).

The SIPRI Arms Industry Database, which presents a more detailed data set for the years 2002–23, is available on SIPRI’s website at <https://www.sipri.org/databases/armsindustry>.

This is the first of three major data launches in the lead-up to the release of SIPRI’s flagship publication in mid 2025, the annual SIPRI Yearbook. Ahead of this, SIPRI will release its international arms transfers data (details of all international transfers of major arms in 2024) as well as its world military expenditure data (comprehensive information on global, regional and national trends in military spending in 2024).

Media contacts

For information or interview requests contact Mimmi Sh

$62,000,000,000 USAF FMS Contract For Lockheed Martin F-16’S

Lockheed Martin/USAF Tee-shirt $19.59 – $40.59:

"THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT"

“The Air Force awarded an eye-watering $62 billion contract for overseas F-16 customers August 14. In a world amid a pandemic, you’d think there’d be smarter things to spend $62 billion on."

"POGO - Supply Chain of Fools"

Department of Defense Contract Award Announcement

Who’s Really Accountable For Interoperability Between DOD And The VA On E-health Records System?

“FEDSCOOP”

“The departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs both have billion-dollar modernizations in progress for their electronic health record systems. And they’ve each identified who is accountable for the success of those programs.

But the more important question might be: Who is ultimately accountable for seeing that the EHR systems, when fully developed, work together seamlessly as members of the military retire and becomes veterans?”

________________________________________________________________________

“House lawmakers pressed this point this week during the first hearing held by the Veterans Affairs’ Subcommittee on Technology Modernization. They examined the role of the DOD/VA Interagency Program Office (IPO), stood up in 2008 for the exact purpose of ensuring seamless transfer of records. So far, though, that office has no real authority over the interoperability of the two programs —VA’s EHR Modernization and DOD’s MHS GENESIS, both of which are based on Cerner’s commercial EHR platform.

Lauren Thompson, the head of the office, told lawmakers that despite the intention of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act to make the IPO the single point of accountability for the interoperability of the two departments’ EHRs, “at this point in time, we make recommendations. We do not have the decision-making authority.” IPO is based within DOD.
According to the law, said Carol Harris, director of IT management issues for the Government Accountability Office, “the IPO is supposed to be the single point of accountability. So that would include responsibility, authority and decision-making responsibilities. I think that [the office’s current operation, as described by Thompson], is in conflict with the expectation set out by law.”

The departments and the IPO are trying to sort out the interoperability governance now that VA and DOD each has a massive EHR in development. Though they both are developing instances of the same Cerner platform so that interoperability will be easier to achieve, there are still myriad technical and functional decisions that must align so that the data ultimately matches as it flows from one system to the next. VA, DOD and the IPO are in the process of developing new governance bodies and a new structure with the hope that things can be dealt with at the lowest level possible.

“Clinicians talking to clinicians, technicians talking to technicians,” said John Windom, VA’s acting chief health information officer and program executive officer for the new Office of Electronic Health Record Modernization. When disagreements happen, the issues are elevated to new governance boards, but the goal is to avoid that, he said.

Windom explained that the governance process is “evolving,” and it will take time to get there. “The as-is state of the enterprise with the VA is different than the as-is state of the enterprise within DOD. … Now we’re understanding the gaps between how we sought to implement and how DOD is implementing. And so those gaps have to be reconciled, and they have to be reconciled through governance.”

But even with that model, lawmakers were unhappy because there is no single person or organization accountable. “There’s really no one there to break the ties or resolve the differences,” Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., said, pushing for action from the president or Congress to spark the change. “The only person both agencies report to now is the president of the United States.”

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., said perhaps there’s a place for the IPO in the process, but either the DOD or VA should be given the ultimate decision-making authority.

Harris agreed that a “single executive-level entity that is the point of accountability” with decision-making authority and that binds both departments at the deputy secretary level or higher is “essential.”

She doesn’t have much faith in the IPO, though, at least in its current form — and really for no fault of its own.

“They never had to clout to mediate and resolve issues between DOD and VA,” Harris said. “The IPO was never set up to succeed there because neither of the departments were willing to relinquish control.”

Harris called the IPO’s ability to drive the necessary interoperability “lackluster” in the past decade. “In the past situations, what we’ve seen historically is that when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. I think that’s what has led us to where we are today,” she said. “Accountability has been so diffused so that when the wheels fall off the bus, you can’t point to a single entity who’s responsible. And that’s a problem.”

https://www.fedscoop.com/dod-va-ehr-interoperability-hearing/

"WHEN WILL THE CONTRACTORS CONTRACT?

How the Pentagon Floats to the Tax Payer the Massive, Tiered, Overheads of Major Corporations in the Military Industrial Complex

 Chuck Spinney Photo Courtesy of Bill Moyers Interviews at "Now" on PBS http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_spinney.html 

The following article is an outstanding guest blog by Chuck Spinney  on the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) a venerable Washington D.C. Non-Profit that has been around since they first assisted in bringing attention to $640 toilet seats and $436 hammers of the 1980s.

Spinney spent 33 years at the Department of Defense including 26 years as a staff analyst, has testified before congress and won many awards for his straight forward critique of the Pentagon.

Rather than blowing whistles on classified data, Chuck has been respected for years for his straight-forward views and recommendations on how the Pentagon, our biggest government agency, has been managed.   This is a man who has been there.

As Spinney points out the reasons for the astounding costs at the Pentagon are the  same today - "It is all about allocating overhead spending by contractors in an  unaccountable financial system"

Below is an extract from Chuck's article and a link to it at POGO:

POGO

 "The fact that the Pentagon does not have an in-house capability to do  audits is a reflection of its own priorities of delay and obfuscation.  The Pentagon does not have a capability to make sense out of accounting  systems after 20-plus years of failing to meet its legal obligations,  because it has not assigned a high enough priority to the problem. Punt  bluntly, the Pentagon does not want to have that capability.

 The reason the Pentagon does not want auditable books is simple: the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex benefits  from the money flows hidden in the perpetual chaos of the bookkeeping shambles. "

 

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/06/when-will-the-contractors-contract.html