Keeping track of inventory can be a challenging task for any large organization. Workers misplace items, administrators make errors on paperwork, and things tend to go missing. However, losing $85 million worth of inventory is a problem of a different scale, one that the U.S. military encountered. In 2023, the Government Accountability Office disclosed that a government contractor had misplaced 2 million spare parts for the F-35 fighter jet, totaling millions of dollars, dating back to 2018. Shockingly, the Department of Defense only investigated 20,000 of those missing parts. Military officials are uncertain about the total number of F-35 spare parts purchased with taxpayers’ money, scattered across contractor warehouses worldwide.
The F-35 spare parts incident is just a glimpse of a broader trend of inventory mismanagement resulting in budget overruns. In 2018, the U.S. Navy discovered a warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida, stocked with parts for the F-14 Tomcat, P-8 Poseidon, and P-3 Orion aircraft, amounting to $126 million. Had it not been for Navy auditors uncovering these parts, taxpayers might have paid twice for the same items.
Secretary of the Navy at the time, Thomas Modly, expressed astonishment, stating, “Not only were we unaware of the parts’ existence, but we didn’t even know about the warehouse itself.” The sudden inclusion of these parts into the inventory system caused a rush of $20 million in requisitions for grounded aircraft due to the lack of awareness regarding available inventory.
The recurring failure to track valuable assets is evident in historical incidents like the 1985 aircraft carrier scandal, where auditors discovered a loss of $394 million in parts between 1984 and 1985. Notably, only $7 million worth of parts were confirmed stolen, while the majority were misidentified or misplaced. These lapses range from bureaucratic inefficiencies to intentional negligence by both government agencies and contractors.
Additionally, a 2024 report by the Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General highlighted that the Army allowed $1.31 billion worth of equipment to deteriorate in “critical” condition in warehouses. Tank treads, transmissions, and engines were found in poor states, raising concerns about inefficient resource management.
In the words of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “This world in arms is not spending money alone.” The mismanagement of resources not only wastes financial resources but also undermines the efforts of laborers, scientists, and future generations. It is imperative for organizations to improve their inventory control practices to prevent further losses and inefficiencies.
Military spending often ends up lining the pockets of contractors who overcharge and underdeliver, or it simply vanishes into thin air, left to decay in warehouses until it is disposed of unceremoniously. Sometimes, Congress mandates that the armed services maintain equipment they no longer want. Due to dysfunctional bureaucracy and misguided incentives, a significant amount of military expenditure is squandered.
Dan Caldwell, a public policy adviser at Defense Priorities, a nonprofit advocating for a more restrained military policy, highlights the disconnect between the defense budget and a coherent grand strategy. Merely increasing the Pentagon’s budget does not necessarily translate to enhanced military power. Production bottlenecks for crucial munitions are being exacerbated by conflicts in regions such as Ukraine and the Middle East, outpacing replacements due to labor and resource shortages that money alone cannot resolve.
Pouring additional funds into military budgets may be akin to trying to force water through a clogged pipe, where the fluid ends up leaking in unintended directions. Consequently, the U.S. military faces shortages of essential weaponry, even as the Pentagon procures unnecessary items. The Defense Department has notoriously failed every audit mandated by Congress, with the whereabouts of a substantial amount of funding remaining unknown, despite claims of progress by officials.
The mishandling of funds was glaringly evident in Afghanistan, where the U.S. struggled for two decades to support the Afghan government, only to witness the rapid takeover of Kabul by Taliban forces in August 2021. Billions of dollars in American-provided equipment were left behind, falling into the hands of the Taliban. Even before this event, the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction had documented years of incompetence and disorganization in the war effort. For instance, out of the $7.8 billion in U.S.-funded capital assets reviewed, $2.4 billion were abandoned, misused, or in disrepair, with the Defense Department primarily responsible for these projects.
In essence, a significant portion of the funds allocated to the Afghanistan war would not have contributed to victory, even if the U.S. had emerged triumphant. This includes instances such as spending $25 million on a new headquarters in Helmand, Afghanistan, only to leave the construction unfinished.
In 2009, after US troops began to withdraw from the province, then-President Barack Obama initiated a troop surge in Afghanistan, deploying 11,000 Marines to Helmand. Originally intended as a temporary measure, the surge ended up extending far beyond its initial timeframe. Plans for troop levels in Helmand were initially set for only a few years, but the military had long-term visions for a decade of presence, as revealed by ProPublica. A modern headquarters, known as “64k” due to its size of 64,000 square feet, was envisioned for US forces in Helmand, with completion scheduled for January 2012 post the Marine departure in July 2011. However, field commanders recognized the unnecessary extravagance of the new headquarters, preferring the existing plywood facility. Despite objections from Army and Marine generals, construction continued due to budgetary constraints, culminating in the completion of the lavish yet unused building in April 2013.
The construction of the 64k building epitomized the extravagant spending characteristic of the war effort. The subsequent decision not to utilize the facility reflected the mismanagement prevalent in military construction projects. Moreover, the purchase of 20 Italian transport planes for the Afghan army in 2008 at a cost of $549 million resulted in a meager return on investment. Issues with maintenance and performance led to the scrapping of 16 planes, recouping a fraction of the initial expenditure. Despite warnings about the deal, the military proceeded with the purchase due to expiring budget funds and a rushed contracting process, highlighting systemic flaws in military procurement practices.
An official later informed SIGAR that one of the Air Force officials, who later went on to work for Alenia, was involved in the debacle, which SIGAR identified as a “clear conflict of interest.” The FBI collaborated with SIGAR and other agencies to investigate Alenia and the Air Force official, but the Justice Department chose not to pursue prosecution. The Defense Department refuted SIGAR’s findings, stating that the planes were expedited to fulfill “an urgent operational requirement” for the Afghan army.
Another issue with military spending in Afghanistan was the tendency to disregard local needs. According to a federal oversight official, there was often a failure to consider the local context fully, leading to selective hearing. Foreign military advisers, akin to pushing unnecessary equipment onto Afghan troops, Congress has been pressuring the U.S. military to acquire more equipment than requested. Over the years, the Navy has consistently requested funds for a specific number of ships, while Congress allocated funds for a more substantial quantity. In March 2024, the Senate Appropriations Committee boasted about providing the Navy with $732 million more for shipbuilding than requested.
Notably, littoral combat ships have been a significant disappointment. Initially envisioned as versatile and agile warships, they ended up being referred to as the “Little Crappy Ship.” Originally projected to cost $220 million each, the final cost escalated to half a billion dollars per ship, with operational defects such as flawed engine transmission gears causing stalling issues. Despite being touted as adaptable, the ships were ineffective in combat scenarios.
The Navy invested extensive time and funds, including $700 million, in developing a minisubmarine to detect naval mines to be towed behind the littoral combat ship, only to abandon the project. Additionally, the ship’s intended sonar probe for submarine detection was rendered ineffective due to the ship’s loud engines, resulting in shelving the technology. Ultimately, the littoral combat ship failed to meet expectations, prompting the Navy to cease production, seek funding for one final ship, and transition to developing the Constellation class frigate.
Nevertheless, political and economic considerations complicated the decision-making process, with concerns raised about potential job losses in the shipbuilding industry. Senator Tammy Baldwin expressed apprehension over the impact on 1,850 shipyard workers in Wisconsin, emphasizing the importance of preserving American jobs and manufacturing. These factors influenced the Trump administration’s deliberations on the future of the naval shipbuilding program.
The Pentagon faces criticism for its decision to allocate an additional $500 million for a second ship in the Navy budget, despite concerns about the necessity of the purchase. Sources indicate that the primary motivation behind the move was to sustain the industrial base rather than acquire essential equipment. This has sparked debate, with some likening the reasoning to maintaining a diet of junk food in hopes of one day eating vegetables.
Critics argue that the focus should be on prioritizing a capable and efficient Navy over simply expanding its size. The controversy intensified when plans to retire the littoral combat ship ahead of schedule were met with resistance from lawmakers in shipbuilding states. Despite arguments for reallocating resources towards more efficient frigates, political pressures led to a compromise allowing only a portion of the planned retirements to proceed.
The decommissioning of vessels such as the USS Milwaukee and USS Little Rock further fueled discussions on the efficacy of military spending and strategic decision-making. Analysts point to overarching issues within the defense budget, emphasizing the need to align investments with evolving global challenges rather than catering to political interests.
In light of these debates, questions arise about the long-term implications of prioritizing political expediency over military readiness. The complex interplay between defense contractors, policymakers, and national security imperatives underscores the challenges of navigating defense procurement in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
