en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/3233134 Comments by Thinking_ExUSAF http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/29/pentagon-awards-9-billion-deal-for-electronic-health-records/#IDComment988731770 If contractors have to be hired to monitor contractors, what is left for the govvies to actually do? Oh well, if you hire people to do the actual work, and you hire people to "monitor" that work, I guess you just dont have any accountability for anything other than being sure to blame one set of contractors or the other when the wheels fall off! :-) Accountability is a horrible thing, you know! Yep, its sarcasm, son! Sarcasm, I say! Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:14:21 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/29/pentagon-awards-9-billion-deal-for-electronic-health-records/#IDComment988731770 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/29/pentagon-awards-9-billion-deal-for-electronic-health-records/#IDComment988730092 Hmmmm..... Gotta wonder if there is a contract clause that makes the vendor responsible for any credit checks/repairs and or identity thefts that might result from a "hack" of the protected information that will be inherently contained in these records? Wonder if there would have been any proposals if such a clause existed? Just a few musings from one who was obviously compromised by the OPM hack! I see an excited news anchor talking about this one in our future! On the program management side, I would be very interested to see a list of IT programs from the last 20 years, executed under the current federal procurement processes and practices, with a dollar value of 4+ billion dollars. The interesting part would be to have those programs annotated with respect to failure or success. I believe that there is a saying that its not a good thing to continue to do the same things when the results are not satisfactory. On one hand, you have people with very little real experience managing large IT development programs (at least successfully managing these). On the other, a typically long drawn out development process, dripping with "management" oversight and reviews by these same inexperienced managers, where technology s continually moving out from under the basic requirements. When a development program is measured in tens of years, while H/W and S/W technology moves from state of the art to obsolescence in three years or less, successful development is not just a challenge, its pretty much an impossibility even with the best people trying to execute the process. Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:57:06 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/29/pentagon-awards-9-billion-deal-for-electronic-health-records/#IDComment988730092 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/27/fast-paced-technologies-passing-by-militarys-acquisition-culture/#IDComment961323811 Sorry to disappoint you, Christopher, but at least in some circles the advantages of the IRST (against stealth and even conventional aircraft) were NOT ignored. In Red Flag (early 80s) we often used F-106s as aggressors just so that our pilots would be able to appreciate (during debrief at least!) the advantages of a passive intercept. After sitting through many debriefs where the first the innocent young F-16 trainees knew of their "deaths", in spite of their very credible RWR, was the gun camera pictures from an F-106, I was very disappointed when the planned IRST was dropped off of the F-22! Seems that our Russian buddies never did figure out that an IRST was too expensive to put on front line fighters! :-( Thu, 2 Apr 2015 01:54:05 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/27/fast-paced-technologies-passing-by-militarys-acquisition-culture/#IDComment961323811 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959768719 Stu, I think that we totally agree. In the F/A-18 WSSA the military/civilian team worked exceptionally well, and in my 35+ years in DoD and DoD contractors, I never saw better. A few years back the organization got one of those big fancy awards for their excellent work. One thing that I did notice was that China Lake had a long standing tradition of putting the end users first. Didn't always work that way, SOMETIMES we had the "social climbers" in positions of authority, but the tradition was undeniable. Maybe its just the airline miles from the Beltway that makes the difference. Or it could be something in the water! LoL! Thu, 26 Mar 2015 01:08:19 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959768719 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959767740 No, my friend, the PROCESS that is documented actually includes a great deal of "good practices", the problem is that there is no enforcement! There is always a "reason" to avoid the process and SOMETIMES that reason is good. More often than not, that "reason" is only that avoiding the "rules" avoids accountability. Thu, 26 Mar 2015 01:01:23 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959767740 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959298432 Garry, my friend, the problem arises when the SSO (or his minions, or his suppliers) put their advancement, or the continued health of the procurement bureaucracy, or simple monetary profit, or even just their own personal egos, above the needs of the end user who will have to live (or die) with the product of their procurement. Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:29:49 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959298432 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959297695 You can almost excuse the congressional excesses, they are politicians doing what politicians do; but. . . . that does not excuse the self inflicted agony DoD inflicts on itself during the procurement processes and people who are allowed to run amok without accountability for their actions or the results. Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:23:57 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959297695 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959297199 And we manufactured F-4s, F-14s, F-15s, A-10s and F-16s at once, all fighters but each with its own missions! What you want to bet that there were a lot of 2nd and 3rd tier divisions being equipped with brand new t-64s while the Guards divisions were getting T-80s! Im thinking that you might be familiar with an M-16 or one of its derivatives? Do you know what the 5.56mm bore wear gauge is? Ever see an equivalent gunner's tool for a 7.62mm AK-47? Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:20:23 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959297199 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959273328 The old Soviet weapons procurement system was a brutally unenlightened system that rewarded successes and as often as not sent failures or even perceived failures to Siberia! They engineered very thoroughly and very rarely "gold plated" (Anyone who has ever shot a Russian-designed and manufactured AK-47 in a swamp while thoroughly coated in mud and green slimy stuff will know exactly what Im talking about!). Interestingly enough the "personality driven" German military procurement agencies of WWII and their pervasive "high tech" infatuation, and bureaucratic processes look all too familiar. In that day and time we (with our Shermans) and the Russians (with their T-34s) smothered the German Tigers 10+ to 1, yet our "modern" procurement agencies seemed to have learned more from the NAZIs than from the victors! Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:41:17 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959273328 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959271212 It doesn't matter what "uniform" the procurement officers wear, unless under that cloth there is the integrity and accountability that "the system" has rather scrupulously distilled out of its culture. The problems we see should be no surprise to anyone when the only acceptable measures of success for a procurement agency is Cost Performance Index (CPI) and Schedule Performance Index (SPI) with no index even formulated for weapon system performance! The money was spent, the scheduled was expended, the procurers get their attaboys and far too often the procured system either fails at OT&E, slithers through OT&E because its too big and important to fail, or far worse, fails on the battlefield where the self-serving pressure from the bureaucrats is not worth diddly! Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:27:09 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/20/odierno-chiefs-not-civilians-should-play-bigger-role-in-weapon-buys/#IDComment959271212 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947810691 I think that you unnecessarily narrowed the spectrum for a ground attack aircraft. Please include a mission similar to a B-52 with JDAMs, an A-10 with its gun, an AH-1Z, or an F-117. All of these aircraft "move mud" in one way or another. To expect a single airframe to perform all of these missions under the guise of being a "ground attack" aircraft means that there will be some compromises, and I would claim, severe compromises in the capabilities. If you want to get in "danger close", shoot up tanks, fire Maverick-type direct attack missiles, and shoot it out with Manpads, frontal SAMs and AAA. . . . . bet it starts looking like an A-10 or an Apache. Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:38:22 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947810691 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947808952 I happen to agree with your assessment that the development cycle is too long. The HUD display technologies, for which I was a tester (actually test subject in the centrifuge) when I was a 2LT (1977) are just now appearing in the F-22, F/A-18E and F-35! The challenge is not often just identifying the problem, its implementing a solution. What, sir, is your solution to avoid the obvious "big, big trouble"? Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:30:52 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947808952 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947807458 Gary, Sorry to say that "stealth" is the politically correct panacea from one iteration ago. Todays end all of everything is to say "unmanned". LOL! Stealth is just one of many characteristics that must be considered in today's fighter aircraft design. Speed and range are important, maneuverability is important, payload is important, sensor and networking technology is important. Blind yourself to all but the stealthiness and you have an invisible but useless platform. Also, consider your own statement that "Low level, precision CAS will be the critical mission. . ." Consider how to apply stealth to this mission and you will quickly see the difficulties. Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:24:12 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947807458 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947805986 So much for the naive concept that the original ORD actually represented the minimum performance required for operational suitability. Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:17:46 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947805986 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947804800 Aircraft navigation is only part of GPS. Think of the time synchronization factor, weapon guidance, etc. Also the existence of GPS (and other high tech toys) creates an attitude. Do we teach celestial nav these days or is working a sextant and celestial nav tables just a quaint anachronism since we have GPS? How much emphasis is given to using maps and compasses for land nav, after all we have GPS, until we don't! If a given military capability is sufficiently important to us, an enemy can justify great expense to deny us this capability. If its cheap and easy to counter, in spite of whatever salesmanship was just to justify its development and deployment, so much the better for our enemy. Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:11:41 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment947804800 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment945997982 The problem is that we have a "system" that is as invested in funding program offices and bureaucracies as it is invested in putting state of the art weapon systems in the hands of our war-fighters. We are also caught on the horns of maintaining technological capability and competency. The challenge is to maintain the capability and technology AND research and development without simply evolving into a white collar welfare acquisition system enamored with "high tech" and disinterested in the actual needs of the fighting forces. The sorriest thing is that all too often the "countermeasures" to our high technologies are technically simple, cheap, quickly fielded and quite effective. Did I say "GPS"? Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:32:46 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/#IDComment945997982 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/23/mccain-wants-investigation-a10-treason-comments/#IDComment945996041 Just a couple of stray thoughts. . . . . First, lets look at "it would probably take about 15-years to develop a new, fully-developmental next-generation aircraft to replace the A-10 Warthog". To actually take on the A-10 mission in total, this would need to be a low flying, slow flying and therefore heavily armored and survivable aircraft with a huge weapons payload and probably a large caliber forward firing cannon. Sounds like it would take another 15 years to develop a 'Hog after retiring the 'Hog. We obviously could apply all of the gained knowledge over the last 50 years of aeronautical development! Or NOT! As for the "treason" comment, one has to ask if that treason is against the pledge to support and defend the Constitution, as all of our oaths obligated us, or just treason against the USAF bureaucracy that has been trying to get rid of the A-10s since the late 1970's (no kidding, they were trying to find a reason not to fly big ugly slow 'hogs since I was an LT!). One form of treason is execrable and, IMHO, punishable by a firing squad, the other, well. . . . perhaps a medal is in order. Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:23:50 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/23/mccain-wants-investigation-a10-treason-comments/#IDComment945996041 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/07/12/air-force-begins-massive-b-52-overhaul/#IDComment681358725 Way back in the 80's when the B-2 was first in the public eye, there were some shoulder patches making the rounds showing a view of a B-52 climbing into the sunset. The caption was "When the last B-2 is parked in the Boneyard, the crew dogs with fly home in a BUFF!". It just might come true! LOL! Wed, 17 Jul 2013 02:13:25 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/07/12/air-force-begins-massive-b-52-overhaul/#IDComment681358725 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/05/21/navy-developing-hybrid-electric-amphibious-assault-ships/#IDComment648145766 The reasons for electric propulsion on the Lex and Sara are a bit different than the reasons today. If you but look at the electrical power demands for a FEL or a railgun you might see a logic. For example, what if the propulsion power source was momentarily / intermittently switched to weapons, or simply if any excess capacity was used to "trickle charge" a big bank of capacitors! It makes perfect sense. Wed, 22 May 2013 21:26:25 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/05/21/navy-developing-hybrid-electric-amphibious-assault-ships/#IDComment648145766 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/05/21/navy-developing-hybrid-electric-amphibious-assault-ships/#IDComment647617544 Talk about "back to the future"! The post WW-I battlecruisers that became the WW-II vintage Lexington-class carriers had steam-electric drives. Saved the weight and complexity of the reduction gears. NOW, we think its all sorts of innovative. . . . . . Read your history, folks! Wed, 22 May 2013 02:34:30 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/05/21/navy-developing-hybrid-electric-amphibious-assault-ships/#IDComment647617544