The GAO agrees with lawmakers who have questioned the Pentagon’s underlying motives in canceling the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter program. In a new analysis, the Congressional watchdog agency states: The decision “was driven by the need to identify sources of funding in order to pay for other priorities. … The department did not conduct a new and comprehensive analysis. … Officials focused only on the potential up-front savings.” In other words, the decision-making smelled. In truth, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne suggested that the decision was budget-driven, telling lawmakers earlier this year, that he worried about the practical side of placing reliance upon a single engine for some 6,000 or so fighters (2,400 for DOD and potentially 3,500 international). DOD calls the GAO analysis “misleading in a number of respects.” Ahem.
A new report from the Government Accountability Office calls for the Pentagon’s Chief Technology Officer to have budget certification authority over the military services’ research and development accounts—a move the services say would add a burdensome and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
