panchbarnes Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) I don't think you've got to much to worry about being the only service sitting in front of congress looking foolish when it comes to acquisitions. Everybody has their big pile of fail to fall on. Navy has the LCS debacle. Army has ######ed up Comanche and he future ground combat vehicle not to mention Crusader. Marines have the expeditionary fighting vehicle and it's gonna take 30 years to pay off the Osprey Karma no matter how well the thing performs now. We as a military are ######ed when it comes to getting new stuff, just uniforms are a bridge to ear now days. Billion dollar development programs are just a bigger circus of fail. I may be simplifying things a bit here but GOs and SESs need to: 1. Stop believing everything they see on the PowerPoint slides. (I know the engineers don't) 2. Push back and resist the retired GOs now working for the defense contractor (who's only as good as their Rolodex/Outlook contacts) 3. Pay attention to the revolving door policy 4. Don't trust the bean counters (theirs and ours) 5. Trust the SPOviets and your technical SMEs (usually the retirement eligible GS-14s who don't give a ###### anymore) 6. Understand if it's too good to be true, then it probably is Edited: 7. Resist and deflect the political pressure (this is the hardest one) I know, it's easier said than done. Edited April 7, 2014 by PanchBarnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkPerfMan Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Maybe obscenely expensive systems and decades-long development cycles are part of the grand strategy... https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d88e6b89580f Dan Ward has written some incisive pieces on acquisition and I'm looking forward to his new book. One of my favorites was his treatment on the construction of the Death Star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWSO Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I may be simplifying things a bit here but GOs and SESs need to: 5. Trust the SPOviets and your technical SMEs (usually the GS-14s who don't give a ###### anymore) . You were on a roll until you got to "trust the SPO". Those guys frequently need to be reminded they work for the warfighter, not Boeing or (insert your prime contractor here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panchbarnes Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 (edited) You were on a roll until you got to "trust the SPO". Those guys frequently need to be reminded they work for the warfighter, not Boeing or (insert your prime contractor here). Yeah you are right. I've seen the "cozy with the contractor" SPOs, but I've also worked with the "hold contractors accountable" SPOs. I chose to believe there are more good than bad SPOs. My assumption could be wrong especially with today's AF, hence the reason why I wrote "I may be simplifying things a bit" at the beginning. Edited April 7, 2014 by PanchBarnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I don't think you've got to much to worry about being the only service sitting in front of congress looking foolish when it comes to acquisitions. Everybody has their big pile of fail to fall on. Navy has the LCS debacle. Army has ######ed up Comanche and the future ground combat vehicle not to mention Crusader. Marines have the expeditionary fighting vehicle and it's gonna take 30 years to pay off the Osprey Karma no matter how well the thing performs now. We as a military are ######ed when it comes to getting new stuff, just uniforms are a bridge too far now days. Billion dollar development programs are just a bigger circus of fail. Maybe and good examples of other members of the total team fumbling the ball also. Not sure this would help but a "forest fire" approach to the DoD at high echelons maybe needed, periodically sweeping out 10% of the staff and putting in some new blood to get rid of the deadwood entrenched with power and their own agendas. What seems to me to be the factor that corrupts other wise good officers into corrupt ones is time, time soaking in the atmosphere of deal making, schmoozing and being removed from the line and daily ops. Too much time thinking that the DoD is a jobs & contractor enrichment project and that designing, building and buying good systems that people will actually use is not what they actually do (Pentagon & Acquisition specific rant). The staff & leadership track should be shorter and the leap to multi-star GO shorter to prevent the inevitable corruption, i.e. go from Col to Gen quickly and without the usual telegraphing and be promoted to one-star with an agenda. It's the inevitable erosion of morals and character from too long a road to get to a position where you can actually get something done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 If you have to decide between corrupt/conspiracy and lazy/incompetent, go with the latter. I suspect most of the problem SPOs aren't trying to line contractor pockets, they just press the easy button. It's the acquisition process/system that is fucked up. I have multiple friends that went into the test world only to bitch and moan about how the fucked up rules and laws make it exceedingly hard to inject common sense into the process. One direct quote: "It's all fucked up but I don't think I can legally fail it because it technically meats the requirement." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWSO Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 If you have to decide between corrupt/conspiracy and lazy/incompetent, go with the latter. I suspect most of the problem SPOs aren't trying to line contractor pockets, they just press the easy button. It's the acquisition process/system that is fucked up. I have multiple friends that went into the test world only to bitch and moan about how the fucked up rules and laws make it exceedingly hard to inject common sense into the process. One direct quote: "It's all fucked up but I don't think I can legally fail it because it technically meats the requirement." Yes. The form/fit/function replacement frequently made me want to scream. "Yes we are replacing your 1970s TI calculator display capable of 3 lines of monochrome text with a giant fucking flatscreen. The flatscreen can only show 3 lines of orange text." Working acquisitions and test will expose you to the reasons why we are going broke and don't have more capability to show for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cell Dweller Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Don't worry y'all, we have SMC to make the rest of USAF acquisitions look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WABoom Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) Edited April 8, 2014 by WABoom 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 The form/fit/function replacement frequently made me want to scream. "Yes we are replacing your 1970s TI calculator display capable of 3 lines of monochrome text with a giant fucking flatscreen. The flatscreen can only show 3 lines of orange text." Ha, is this an actual example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWSO Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 The system is called CITS (Central Integrated Test System). The original replacement proposal was form fit function. I believe the contractor was shamed into providing a capability that was closer to what one would expect. I've been out of the cockpit for years and the new system is coming online now, so I'll defer to someone current. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 We have a form fit function replacement for our FLIR. The new one has three fields of view, the integrated software only lets you use the same two fields of view as the old FLIR. The new FLIR has a space built into the turret to house a laser of whatever type, we didn't even buy an IR pointer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drachen Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Dan Ward has written some incisive pieces on acquisition and I'm looking forward to his new book. One of my favorites was his treatment on the construction of the Death Star. You sir made my afternoon.. I never thought in a million years I'd read anything from a DAU publication but Ward's commentary was spot on and entertaining to boot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 The system is called CITS (Central Integrated Test System). The original replacement proposal was form fit function. I believe the contractor was shamed into providing a capability that was closer to what one would expect. I've been out of the cockpit for years and the new system is coming online now, so I'll defer to someone current. They told us how Gucci the new CITS would be (that, for example, it would have common codes pre-programmed so you wouldn't have to type in a 20 digit alpha-numeric, that it would display 8 lines of data, etc). I'm not in the test squadron, so I haven't seen the new one yet, but I'll be a little disappointed if it really is just the same three lines we currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWSO Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 We had also asked for it to do the conversion from voltages to actual units that would be useful - basically remove all the charts in the cits manual. That was initially too hard, but I think they were working towards incorporating that. If its like a lot of the other upgrades, the initial funding gets the hardware (however limited) on the jet. Subsequent block upgrades incorporate the actual capabilities - provide no additional hardware is required. Just had an Ellsworth jet do 3 low approaches here. I had to go out and watch, along with about 10 other people. Its been since 2002, but the ANG still misses the B-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 For once I agree with Farley The Israeli B-52 Is a Terrible Idea Now giving them F-117s might actually work but put that in the never gonna happen column too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Clark, I have to ask...Mr. Farley whom you constantly link to obviously has an axe to grind. I can't say I've seen a drumbeat to 'abolish the air force' from a lot of serious sources. Honestly this thread and the War is Boring blog posts by Farley are about it. You say yourself that most of the time you disagree with him, and even in Farley's latest article on the B-52s or Iran, he acknowledges several times that the suggestion by Deptula et al is likely just that, a strategic suggestion rather than an actual plan that will ever happen. Farley's main critique of doing that is that (sic) "retired officers shouldn't spout nonsense about airpower." Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle. So finally to my question...why do you care so much to link to Farley's stories so often? While I enjoy reading a variety of news sources online, I'd file him and his blog posts under "some idiot on the internet" and call it a day. Edited April 12, 2014 by nsplayr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Clark, I have to ask...Mr. Farley whom you constantly link to obviously has an axe to grind. I can't say I've seen a drumbeat to 'abolish the air force' from a lot of serious sources. Honestly this thread and the War is Boring blog posts by Farley are about it. You say yourself that most of the time you disagree with him, and even in Farley's latest article on the B-52s or Iran, he acknowledges several times that the suggestion by Deptula et al is likely just that, a strategic suggestion rather than an actual plan that will ever happen. Farley's main critique of doing that is that (sic) "retired officers shouldn't spout nonsense about airpower." Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle. So finally to my question...why do you care so much to link to Farley's stories so often? While I enjoy reading a variety of news sources online, I'd file him and his blog posts under "some idiot on the internet" and call it a day. Legitimate point but what bothers me is that he has some academic and professional credentials that give him access to decision makers, policy shapers, respected publications, etc... granted the probability of his ideas coming to full bore are not likely, the chance of some part of it taking root is real. I could easily see the AF strategic nuclear mission being truncated or lost to the Navy, at least the bombers and/or the ICBMs; while on the outside part of left field, CAS could be lost also. The Key West Agreement is not written in stone and while it would be a big change, sometimes earthquakes happen and the whole landscape changes. If the AF doesn't jealously defend its right to exist, the branches will constantly nip at it leaving little mission then little reason for being. Even though he may seem like just a crank with a PhD, you have to pay attention. Now that being said, as an AF guy I think actually we should listen to him not to take his ideas literally and abolish our own service but look at not the details of his argument but the greater why of his argument. That is the AF exists partially and in some cases wholly to support the other branches. There are missions that exist that are not just support to the others (the nuclear enterprise, strategic warning & ISR, air / space soverignty & access, etc..) but a large portion is to support, we probably should embrace that more and diffuse our critics. A legitimate argument could be made that we are doing that right now but just as strong an argument could be made that we only did that after being dragged to that decision eventually. Recent examples of the MC-12 and LAAR are ones where the AF only reluctantly responded and in the case of LAAR didn't happen even though a need existed. Both of those would have diffused the idea that the AF is principally interested in operating on its own. That being said, I don't believe that and I know a lot of people here don't believe that but a large portion of the other branches believe that. Perception is reality and unfortunately we seem a bit aloof. Edited April 12, 2014 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExBoneOSO Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 They told us how Gucci the new CITS would be (that, for example, it would have common codes pre-programmed so you wouldn't have to type in a 20 digit alpha-numeric, that it would display 8 lines of data, etc). I'm not in the test squadron, so I haven't seen the new one yet, but I'll be a little disappointed if it really is just the same three lines we currently have. Stumbled onto these pics online..I guess replacing the Radar Display didn't make the cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Weird throttle placement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExBoneOSO Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Weird throttle placement. Those are the co-pilot's throttles..the pilot's are on the left hand console. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skitzo Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Fcgms/fuel panel still looks painful. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbar Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Stumbled onto these pics online..I guess replacing the Radar Display didn't make the cut? I remember some Boeing engineer telling us the Radar Display was over capability to begin with. It can display far more resolution than the radar was capable of since it was built to be a display for a FLIR as well(which was never bought). Apparently SAC did pour a lot of money into the radar display. I would assume because of this, it wasn't a high priority for replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I remember some Boeing engineer telling us the Radar Display was over capability to begin with. It can display far more resolution than the radar was capable of since it was built to be a display for a FLIR as well(which was never bought). Apparently SAC did pour a lot of money into the radar display. I would assume because of this, it wasn't a high priority for replacement. Interesting...I remember being told the opposite (that the radar was capable of much higher resolution than our monochrome 80s display could show us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExBoneOSO Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Another pic - at least it looks like you can have more than 3 CITS codes on the screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now