Follow the Money
by Matt Martin
A recent Bloomberg News article revealed that Boeing has been docked 93% of its potential bonus following the latest failed missile defense intercept test (IFT-10) back in December. This penalty flies in the face of the initial praise the Missile Defense Agency gave the test despite its failure to achieve an intercept.
This contradiction is emblematic of the gulf between the positive public face that is put on missile defense development and the troubled, inconsistent history that is the private reality. More than just a setback for Boeing, this discovery speaks volumes about the way the Missile Defense Agency portrays our missile defense efforts and capabilities.
In past weeks the Pentagon has asserted that intercept tests are not that important. Indeed, part of the rationale given for canceling nearly half of the remaining twenty tests has been that other types of tests, such as ground tests and computer simulations, are supposedly just as good.
The contrast between the initial Pentagon press release following the latest failed test and the recent revelation is stark. Immediately following the failure of the intercept test, the Missile Defense Agency released a statement that was so positive it was difficult to interpret the test as a failure. It stated, “Initial post-test analysis indicate that all other GMD [ground-based midcourse] program elements successfully completed their test objectives…In a missile defense research and development program involving a number of different elements such as GMD, the successful integration of system elements is as important as the intercept.”
In the Pentagon’s press release, the failed intercept was buried behind other test objectives. But the simple reality is that the very point of these tests is to determine whether or not a missile defense system can in fact intercept enemy missiles.
Compare this rosy assessment with the fact that Boeing is being docked $45 million of the potential $48.4 million it was entitled to for the test. Missile Defense Agency spokesman Lt. Colonel Rick Lehner has said, “Award fees are contingent upon the contractor delivering a product or service based upon specific contract requirements,” which sounds reasonable enough. But then the revelation that Boeing is not earning the $45M because the intercept failed must mean that “the successful integration of system elements” is in fact not “as important as the intercept.”
If the Pentagon docks Boeing 93% when an intercept fails, then the Pentagon must think that intercepts are important.
This disparity between public statements and private assessments occurs frequently in the missile defense field. President Bush announces a missile defense deployment, citing “progress made to date in missile defense development efforts” while in Congressional hearings Missile Defense Agency officials concede that most components of that deployment do not yet exist.
The Missile Defense Agency continues to stress the importance of frequent, rigorous testing while at the same time canceling a host of scheduled tests. With all the double-talk, it’s hard to tell what’s really going on. “Follow the money” again proves its worth as a revealer of real priorities. With a deployment looming less than a year and a half away, for the American public, there’s a lot more riding on this than just contract bonuses.