en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/10049250 Comments by tmarks11 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/11/17/35038/#IDComment1002407698 > Bottom line, 220 rounds of ammo is a ruse no it isn't. WYSIWYG, unfortunately. Oh, and Skynet? Talk to anyone working AI. We are not 15 years away from having AI smart enough to fly drones. We are not even 30 years away. We are "scientific breakthroughs" away from that sort of thing. Wed, 4 Nov 2015 01:11:23 +0000 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/11/17/35038/#IDComment1002407698 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/10/21/gates-tells-pentagon-to-take-budget-deal-despite-gimmicks/#IDComment1000713633 Why 150 page RFP? Because if EVERY single item is not covered, the losing bid will contest and they will start all over again. We are forced to this extreme due to the lawyers participation. Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:07:19 +0000 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/10/21/gates-tells-pentagon-to-take-budget-deal-despite-gimmicks/#IDComment1000713633 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/27/air-force-blames-mistaken-bomber-costs-on-human-error/#IDComment992450736 It is off by $10B now... while it is just a powerpoint slide. Give it some time. It too can be off by $180B when it is actually in production. Fri, 28 Aug 2015 03:49:26 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/27/air-force-blames-mistaken-bomber-costs-on-human-error/#IDComment992450736 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/21/lcs-to-boost-u-s-presence-in-disputed-south-china-sea/#IDComment991544699 >“The LCS is ideally suited for a role in the South China Sea....it has a fifteen foot draft so it can go places other vessels cannot go" Taken a look at a chart of the South China Sea recently? Places that a boat with 15' draft can go where a boat with 34' draft can't go is all within a few miles of the coast... all places you are NOT going to want to take a warship. Well within internationally recognized territorial waters. Think China would object if we drove a LCS up to with 100 yards of the beach? Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:49:26 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/21/lcs-to-boost-u-s-presence-in-disputed-south-china-sea/#IDComment991544699 http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2015/08/commissary-reformers-eye-repeal-of-cost-plus-5-pricing/#IDComment989655424 nonsense. Soon commissaries will be for no one. Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:08:21 +0000 http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2015/08/commissary-reformers-eye-repeal-of-cost-plus-5-pricing/#IDComment989655424 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/20/lockheed-acquires-sikorsky-in-major-defense-deal/#IDComment986163301 Well I guess this means we know how expensive our next big helicopter acquisition will be. Tue, 21 Jul 2015 00:55:11 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/20/lockheed-acquires-sikorsky-in-major-defense-deal/#IDComment986163301 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/14/navy-defends-middle-east-carrier-gap-concern/#IDComment984888978 Iran will claim credit for "scaring us out of the Gulf". Tue, 14 Jul 2015 22:50:17 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/14/navy-defends-middle-east-carrier-gap-concern/#IDComment984888978 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/10/dunford-pentagon-reconsidering-planned-size-of-f-35-fighter-jet-fleet/#IDComment984052138 "Requirements come from Combatant Commanders" True. But those requirements do not directly require 2437 F35's. They are not written like that. They are much more generic, and are only the entry into the acquisition process. I am betting that the "requirements" as provided could easily be met with F-18 with updated avionics packages, as long as the number on hand meet the conflict requirements defined by the QDR. Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:13:28 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/07/10/dunford-pentagon-reconsidering-planned-size-of-f-35-fighter-jet-fleet/#IDComment984052138 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/24/us-navys-first-littoral-combat-ship-enters-dry-dock-for-repairs/#IDComment980559645 You forgot the sarcasm tag /s Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:26:49 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/24/us-navys-first-littoral-combat-ship-enters-dry-dock-for-repairs/#IDComment980559645 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/17/flournoy-no-quick-fix-likely-to-pentagon-budget-woes/#IDComment978974520 To quote CBO "Curiously enough, the study showed there was no correlation between implementation of acquisition reform and the probability of major acquisitions exceeding budget authority". Better Buying Power 3.0 just rolled out. We will see what happens. I predict: more of the same. And "cost plus award fee" hardly ever happens today. The problem is that the defense contractor has a team of 30 high priced lawyers on the negotiating team, facing down low paid GS employees in the contract negotiations. Guess who wins? Firm Fixed Price just doesn't seem to work out that way. Always some conditional clause in there to get more profit. Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:46:28 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/17/flournoy-no-quick-fix-likely-to-pentagon-budget-woes/#IDComment978974520 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/09/hasc-chair-ohio-sub-replacement-costs-crowding-out-navy-programs/#IDComment977100405 >...by Adm. John Nicholson, the Navy’s main Ohio replacement advocate and President Obama’s nominee to succeed Adm. Jonathan Greenert as the next Chief of Naval Operations. That would be Admiral John Richardson (you got the name right later in the article)... Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:50:42 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/09/hasc-chair-ohio-sub-replacement-costs-crowding-out-navy-programs/#IDComment977100405 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/05/07/mccain-hits-bomb-sniffing-elephants-nascar-ads-as-wasteful-spending/#IDComment969877219 In 2010, the country banded together to "vote those bums out". Ever heard of the "Lucky 13"? That would be the 13 lucky freshman representatives that became members of the House Armed Services Committee... a powerful role that usual only goes to senior members of the House. And how did they celebrate? With a fund raising dinner after only 6 weeks in office... attended by lobbyists for all the big defense contractors. These guys got big $$$ in a short time period. And so the cycle repeated. The new guys quickly became just like the group just voted out of office. Here is a headline for you "13 House Republican Freshmen Soliciting Defense Contractor Money". Sat, 9 May 2015 03:26:19 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/05/07/mccain-hits-bomb-sniffing-elephants-nascar-ads-as-wasteful-spending/#IDComment969877219 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/05/07/mccain-hits-bomb-sniffing-elephants-nascar-ads-as-wasteful-spending/#IDComment969876072 Well Arizona is the #3 state in the US in per-capita DOD defense spending, and the #8 state in the ratio of defense spending to state GDP. John McCain has been a key member of the House Armed Service Committee for years. Maybe he doesn't need to vote for pork for his state. Sat, 9 May 2015 03:18:01 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/05/07/mccain-hits-bomb-sniffing-elephants-nascar-ads-as-wasteful-spending/#IDComment969876072 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/05/07/mccain-hits-bomb-sniffing-elephants-nascar-ads-as-wasteful-spending/#IDComment969749786 And what was John McCain's vote on this budget stuffed full of Pork? John McCain is well known for his advocacy against earmarks to give money freely to the home state, and Arizona doesn't partake in the time-honored [disgusting] activity. But as a powerful Senator, how has he changed this process in his years of railing against it? How many Senators has he managed to lineup behind him in supporting his advocacy against wasteful government spending. Unfortunately, the rest all know that their re-election is dependent upon their ability to tell their constituents how much free money they have lavished upon their home states. One of the many things wrong with politics today. Fri, 8 May 2015 14:00:59 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/05/07/mccain-hits-bomb-sniffing-elephants-nascar-ads-as-wasteful-spending/#IDComment969749786 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/28/air-force-mulls-mothballing-f-16s-if-congress-blocks-a-10-retirement/#IDComment968606051 While I dislike the F35 program, and dislike the USAF willingness to sacrifice every other active weapon system at the alter of this travesty, I disagree with your statement. EVERY service "Tells congee and the POTUS what to do" (in the way the USAF did here). They submit the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to the Executive Branch and then to Congress. This informs them what the service will fund, defund, and retire, and what it will cost, for the next 6 years. 10 U.S. Code 221. It is the Law! This FYDP is in support of the annual Presidential Budget, which is "submitted by the first Monday in Feb", as required by 31 USC 1105 (snicker!). Sun, 3 May 2015 21:00:43 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/28/air-force-mulls-mothballing-f-16s-if-congress-blocks-a-10-retirement/#IDComment968606051 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/28/air-force-mulls-mothballing-f-16s-if-congress-blocks-a-10-retirement/#IDComment968003950 btdt as well. Holding hostage existing weapons systems still in service to try to prop up a failing acquisition is bad business. You must need a refresher. ACQ101: your program fails to meet threshold requirements and is over budget. Your choices: 1. Rescope 2. Increase the budget 3. Cancel the acquisition #3 is often the right decision, as painful as it is. As my last active duty boss was very fond of saying, "Sunk cost is just that: sunk cost." In layman terms: don't throw good money after bad. Fri, 1 May 2015 03:27:13 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/28/air-force-mulls-mothballing-f-16s-if-congress-blocks-a-10-retirement/#IDComment968003950 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/28/air-force-mulls-mothballing-f-16s-if-congress-blocks-a-10-retirement/#IDComment967478769 Apparently the USAF thinks the bird in the bush (F-35) is more important than the birds in the hand (F-16 and A-10). Apparently they miss the part of basic acquisition training where they taught you not to decommission your old weapons systems before IOC/Full Rate Production is well under way for your new ones. Doing so creates some embarrassing gaps in your capabilities... Wed, 29 Apr 2015 02:49:21 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/28/air-force-mulls-mothballing-f-16s-if-congress-blocks-a-10-retirement/#IDComment967478769 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/17/navy-studies-building-3-virginia-class-attack-submarines-per-year/#IDComment965837116 That is why you make it like the Delta IV SSBN. Missile sticks 10' out the top of the hull, and a superstructure (almost level with the top of the sail) fairs over the top. Not as pretty, but way less expensive. The Delta IV has been the backbone of the Soviet SSBN fleet, why can't we do the same thing. Huge cost savings. I spent 20 years in the USN submarine force, and I think this solution has many advantages. Wed, 22 Apr 2015 01:37:37 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/17/navy-studies-building-3-virginia-class-attack-submarines-per-year/#IDComment965837116 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/14/coast-guard-commandant-says-u-s-falling-far-behind-russia-in-arctic/#IDComment964182678 Not only does Russia have 27 ice breakers, but 4 of them are nuclear powered. And they are building more. How many nuclear powered ice breakers do we have? yep, none. How many ice breakers do we have that have made it to the North Pole? Yep, none. The Russians offer cruises to the North Pole on their nuclear powered ice breakers. Sort of like space. The Russians have manned rockets. We don't. The Russians sell tourist trips into space. We don't (yet). But we have some expensive (non-flying) F-35s.... and some expensive (non-fighting) LCSs. We're Number...err... never mind. Wed, 15 Apr 2015 02:42:59 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/14/coast-guard-commandant-says-u-s-falling-far-behind-russia-in-arctic/#IDComment964182678 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/16/navy-wants-28-more-tomahawks-on-virginia-class-submarines/#IDComment961797931 The Block IV/VPM proposal has absolutely nothing to do with strategic deterrence, and nobody is trying to sell it that way. This is an attempt to maintain the current SSGN capabilities when the converted ohio SSGN start being decommissioned in a few years. SSGN's are all about conducted rapid land attack of discrete targets without the need for the cost and footprint of a battle group. Witness the USS Florida's attack on Libya in 2011 as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn... launched 93 TLAMs in a few salvos... which would require four 688-I SSNs to accomplish, and would have taken more time. And the cost is not an additional $2.5B (added to the $2.6B base price of the submarine). The additional cost is only $500M. Sat, 4 Apr 2015 01:43:08 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/16/navy-wants-28-more-tomahawks-on-virginia-class-submarines/#IDComment961797931