Follow us on social

POGO

For the DoD, really bad news comes in threes

This week in The Bunker: The Army abandons its newest tank; ICBM troubles for the Air Force, & the Navy adds to its F-18 submarine fleet

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

A triple-bank shot of trouble

The Pentagon loves the number three: think of the nation’s nuclear triad (bombers, subs, and missiles) or the three major military services (Army, Navy, and Air Force). In recent days, each of those services has experienced troubles that shouldn’t have happened. While the specifics vary, the problems are all rooted in the perpetual bane of the Defense Department’s existence: poorly planned programs; too-rosy glasses; poor training and execution. Accountability will largely be MIA when it comes to assessing responsibility. Bureaucracies are far better at removing fingerprints from snafus than dusting for them.

The M10 tank goes belly up

Too bad there’s no Ozempic for U.S. Army tanks. The service blew up its M10 Booker “light” tank program May 1 after it discovered that the nearly 40-ton (!) beast would crack eight of the 11 bridges at Fort Campbell, Ky. Sure, such armor may not sound light, but it is — when compared to its bulked-up M-1 tank cousin, which tips the scales at 73 tons. The Army has long had difficulty developing Goldilocks armored vehicles — light enough to fly to the front, but beefy enough to protect the troops inside once they get there.

The Army awarded a $1.14 billion contract to General Dynamics in 2022 to build the first 96 M10s. It wanted to buy 504 (the service prefers to call such multi-ton tracked machines outfitted with 105 mm guns “armored infantry support vehicles,” but we taxpayers aren’t bound by such Pentagon nomenclatural niceties).

The M10 is “one of the Army’s top modernization priorities,” the service declared in February. Three months later, not so much. “This is not a story of acquisition gone awry,” Alex Miller, the service’s top technology officer, told Defense One. “This is a story of the requirements process creating so much inertia that the Army couldn't get out of its own way, and it just kept rolling and rolling and rolling.”

Refreshingly, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll put the M10 out of its misery after GD had delivered 80 of them. “We got a heavy tank,” Driscoll conceded. “We went to the Pentagon leadership and we said, ‘we made a mistake, this didn’t turn out right. We’re going to stop.’”

It's a good start.

One reason why the new ICBM is so costly

The Pentagon has a nearly Pavlovian predilection to assume the best and buy the worst. It’s like that old adage: It’s easier to ask for forgiveness (after the screwup) than ask for permission (when the mission is Permission: Impossible). Take the Air Force effort to replace the aging nuclear-tipped Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles with new Sentinel ICBMs. The Sentinel program’s current price tag of $141 billion — an incredible 81% hike since 2020 — is so high the Pentagon said last year that it is now planning to come up with a “simpler” and “more affordable” plan sometime “around 2026.”

One way the Air Force wanted to save money was to put Sentinel missiles polka-dotted across five states into the existing 400 underground silos now housing the Minuteman IIIs. “Part of the requirements, initially — 10 years ago when this program was started — was to reuse the holes, the missile holes at the launch facilities,” Air Force General Thomas A. Bussiere said April 30. “That was believed to be more efficient, more cost effective, and quicker.” Despite decades of use, and well aware that the Air Force wanted to re-use its ICBM silos, the service recently clutched its warheads and was stunned (wink-wink) to discover they’re too decrepit for the new ICBMs. As Air Force Missileer Emily Litella might have said: “Never mind.”

“As the program continues to undergo restructuring activities, the Air Force analysis continues to confirm unacceptable risks to cost, schedule, and weapon system performance stemming from the original baseline strategy of converting Minuteman III silos,” the service said May 6. “To mitigate this and other risks, the Air Force plans to build new missile silos on predominantly Air Force-owned real estate, which means reusing the existing missile sites but not the 55-year-old silos.”

The Sentinel’s continuing problems have the Air Force considering upgrades so the Minuteman fleet can remain on duty until 2050, 11 years longer than currently planned. Other experts maintain the Pentagon’s nuclear triad can safely be turned into an atomic dyad by amputating its ICBM leg.

It turns out the Sentinel’s problems aren’t so much with the missile itself, but the rotting silos and other ground-based elements of the system, that are driving costs sky high.

Apparently, Air Force dirt ain’t dirt cheap.

Warplanes are designed to dive … but not like this

It’s been a tough tour for the USS Harry S. Truman, the 100,000-ton aircraft carrier whose F-18s have been bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen from the Red Sea. First, one of its F-18s was shot down by mistake by another U.S. warship in December. On April 28, a second F-18 fell off the flattop while it was being towed, after the carrier swerved, apparently to avoid a Houthi drone. A third F-18 ended up in the drink May 6 following a botched landing. Thankfully, there were no serious injuries, except to Navy pride.

The mishaps “have raised questions about the strain placed on the aircraft carrier’s crew,” the Washington Post’s Dan Lamothe reported. Defense Secretary Hegseth has twice extended the Truman’s stay in the region to ensure there are two U.S. carriers in the ‘hood to deal with the Houthis.

THE BOTTOM LINE

There is plenty of blame to go around for all of these snafus. But don’t go looking for finger-pointing. That tends only to happen when those allegedly culpable are no longer around to defend themselves. On May 7, a fourth military service, the U.S. Marine Corps, blamed a 2024 CH-53 helicopter crash that killed five on “fatal controlled flight into terrain.”

Purported pilot error, in other words.

Here’s what has caught The Bunker’s eye recently

Backbone of steel

The House passed a bill codifying President Trump’s recent decision to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, the Washington Examiner reported May 8.

Leave it to cleaver…

Defense Secretary Hegseth is wielding a scalpel when it comes to his ballyhooed Pentagon spending cuts when he should be brandishing an ax, Greg Williams of the Center for Defense Information, here at the Project On Government Oversight, wrote May 7 for Just Security.

Read no evil (PDF)

The Pentagon ordered its commanders May 9 to purge their libraries of all books promoting racial and gender diversity. Up next: an order barring all books about how the U.S. military lost its 20-year war in Afghanistan?

Thanks for losing yourself in The Bunker this week. Forward this on to colleagues so they can subscribe here.



Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Trump tariffs
Top image credit: Steve Travelguide via shutterstock.com

Linking tariff 'deals' to US security interests is harder than it looks

Global Crises

In its July 31 Executive Order modifying the reciprocal tariffs originally laid out in early April, the White House repeatedly invokes the close linkages between trade and national security.

The tariff treatment of different countries is linked to broader adhesion to U.S. foreign policy priorities. For example, (relatively) favorable treatment is justified for those countries that have “agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States, thus signaling their sincere intentions to permanently remedy … trade barriers ….and to align with the United States on economic and national security matters.”

keep readingShow less
Kurdistan drone attacks
Top photo credit: A security official stands near site of the Sarsang oilfield operated by HKN Energy, after a drone attack, in Duhok province, Iraq, July 17, 2025. REUTERS/Azad Lashkari

Kurdistan oil is the Bermuda Triangle of international politics

Middle East

In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that a strong Kurdistan Region within a federal Iraq is a "fundamental and strategic component" of U.S. policy. Two months later, that policy was set on fire.

A relentless campaign of drone attacks targeting Iraqi Kurdistan’s military, civilian, and energy infrastructure escalated dramatically in July, as a swarm of Iranian-made drones struck oil fields operated by American and Norwegian companies. Previous strikes had focused on targets like Erbil International Airport and the headquarters of the Peshmerga’s 70th Force in Sulaymaniyah.

The attacks slashed regional oil production from a pre-attack level of nearly 280,000 barrels per day to a mere 80,000.

The arrival of Iraqi National Security Advisor Qasim al-Araji in Erbil personified the central paradox of the crisis. His mission was to lead an investigation into an attack that Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials had already publicly blamed on armed groups embedded within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—components of his own government.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Sudanese protester stands in front of a blazing fire during a demonstration against the military coup, on International Women's Day in Khartoum, Sudan March 8, 2022. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Sudan civil war takes dark turn as RSF launches 'parallel government'

Africa

In a dramatic move last week, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced the selection of its own prime minister and presidential council to compete with and directly challenge the legitimacy of the Sudanese government.

News of the new parallel government comes days before a new round of peace talks was expected to begin in Washington last week. Although neither of the two civil war belligerents were going to attend, it was to be the latest effort by the United States to broker an end to the war in Sudan — and the first major effort under Trump’s presidency.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.