Pentagon spending too much on spare parts?

How much insurance is enough? How many canned goods should we keep stocked on our pantry shelves in the kitchen?

The majority of Americans pay for medical insurance, car insurance, house insurance, and life insurance, hoping they will never need to file a claim. But, in the event that something happens, we take comfort in the fact that we are protected.

Also, if we are fortunate enough, we keep our pantries well stocked with canned goods and dry foods to get us through times where we may be short on fresh food, or if bad weather keeps us stuck at home unable to go out to the local grocery store.

Similarly, the military must maintain an inventory of parts to support equipment throughout the world, in all climates and in all operating conditions. So, when I read the headlines from Reuters that say that the billions of dollars spent by the Pentagon each year is a waste of taxpayer’s money, I get angry that unsuspecting readers will be so easily mislead by reporting that does not offer the complete story.

While there are many methods and formulas for forecasting spare parts requirements for military equipment, “provisioning,” as it’s called, is not an exact science. For example, a particular formula for supporting 100 tanks may call for 20 engines to be kept in the inventory to support repairs that are projected based on the engine’s predicted reliability, the length of time it would take to restock the item, and also what is commonly referred to as “the fudge factor.”

It would be fairly easy to stock parts that would definitely be consumed in a short amount of time, and this would be relatively inexpensive to the “taxpayers.” But when those parts are consumed, we will have equipment that is not operational. That means we have an even more expensive piece of gear that is useless because we didn’t want to spend our precious dollars on “unnecessary” parts. Equipment that sits on the tarmac, the runway, or at the dock, means that we paid for equipment that is no longer protecting our troops or defending our country.

I read that the proposed defense budget for 2010 is about $664 billion. If the spares portion of that is $7 billion, as reported by Reuters, then that means the Pentagon is spending about 1% of its budget on spare parts. To me, that is a pretty low percentage. That would equate to an expense of $300 to repair a $30,000 automobile if a part needed to be replaced. Need I say more?

This is by no means a perfect system, and I believe that the Government personnel reviewing the supply lists that are submitted by equipment manufacturers should do a better job of analyzing what the parts are for, and why they are being recommended as spares. Both the defense contractors and the Government need to be a little more thorough in spare parts recommendations, and offer legitimate justification for each line item on the list proposed for purchase.

It must also be understood, that there are certain parts and quantities that should be kept on hand as insurance items. We don’t want “deadlined” equipment just because we didn’t have a 50-cent bolt on hand that will take a month to order and ship to some remote war zone.

We may not always like it, but it is better for us all to have a little insurance if the time comes when we really need it.