The WaPo weighed in on Pentagon pork in an editorial yesterday. Unfortunately, many weapons systems are supported more by the lobbying ability of their developers than by actual military need. You can be sure that the Crusader has subcontractors, and sub-subcontractors scattered all over the fifty states.

This makes for good politics, but expensive hardware, even when it's a justifiable weapons purchase (I have no firm opinion on whether or not this one is). Spreading the wealth in this manner increases management and transportation costs considerably, compared to consolidating the effort in a single colocated area, but it makes it a lot easier sell to the Congress. (And boy, isn't "Crusader" a peach of a politically incorrect name for the current war?)

The editorial also points out the tension between the Pentagon and the services, and the back stabbing and duplicity with which Mr. Rumsfeld has to deal, in attempting to get the most defense for the dollar.

NASA and its contractors, unfortunately, do the same thing (yet another reason that government space hardware is so expensive). Every contractor's lobbyist and marketing rep worth his salt always has at least one briefing chart in his briefcase that shows all of the locations of the tiers of manufacturers that build his company's product. Of course, to someone like me, who is more interested in creating wealth than jobs, and who wants to make space travel affordable, this is not a program feature, but a bug.

And like the Pentagon with its unruly services, NASA headquarters, in the District of Columbia, traditionally has little control over the centers in Houston, Huntsville and the Cape, with their own defenders on the Hill. Stalin once famously asked, "How many armies does the Pope have?" A similar question could be asked of NASA HQ: How many congressmen and Senators does NASA headquarters have?

This is one of the reasons that it's so difficult to fill the office of NASA Administrator. It's a job with a lot of responsibility, but an utterly inadequate amount of power or authority. Decisions are made not on the basis of how to most effectively achieve the national goal, whether it be military effectiveness, or providing research capability on orbit. They're made, instead, on how many jobs will be created in how many congressional districts. Those who continue to think that the government should fund their space dreams should ponder the implications...

Actually given that the Crusades were a response to islamic conquest I think that the name is an interesting feat of coincidental prognostication ;)

A big problem for the Crusader is weight. It started at 55-tons and is still somewhere in the high 40s. Not the kind of system you want to buy if you're a 'light, lethal, expeditionary force for the 21st Century', to paraphrase the U.S. Army's Vision Statement. The Army needs an artillery system that is easily deployed, easily maintained and simple to operate in austere conditions. The Crusader is none of these. Plus, the Army is not having an easy time explaining why they need brand-new heavy artillery if the Air Force and Navy is bombing the hell out of anything that even looks remotely hostile. From what I've heard, the Marines left all their artillery on the ship when they deployed to Camp Rhino. Don't need it if you have air superiority. As for the pork spending (ie Congress), Foxnews.com had a pretty good article on the Crusader with some damning quotes from Congressmen showing that 1) yes, it is being built in all 50 states and 2) as long as they can brag to the folks back home about all the new jobs, they could care less how effective the Crusader actually is. It could be the worst program since the Sgt. York Air Defense system and they wouldn't bat an eye. Who gives a shit about casulties in a future conflict when there's an election around the corner? Well, I guess the Pentagon should, but they don't control the purse-strings, Congress does. If Congress takes the Crusader, puts a little mustard on it and crams the whole thing down the Pentagon's throat, that's that. Who says defense aquisitions isn't a fun topic?