I personally think we need to see a lot more career consequences for screwing up an acquisition program. Next officer managing a Nunn-McCurdy program gets run out of the service pour encourager les autres.
Great read as always. There was just something about the language in the beginning that me think this was some kind of a "Hail Mary" attempt to deal with a realization within the DOD of the consequence of what they neglected to do years ago. "Big bets..." is not exactly confidence-inspiring, explicit wording that I think belongs to an acquition program that requires explicit answer... just saying.
(Regarding the Kfir link) By now, Israel could have had a 5th-generation Kfir, with plans for a 6th generation well underway. Has Israel been better off with F-15s, 16s and 35s? I don't know. Any thoughts, out there?
What frustrates me the most is the horde of people blathering on about unmanned systems who have NO real expertise. Hands-on experience is scarce, but there IS some...mostly going to waste. Stuck in operational units, doing T&E, or retired. It's the glib talkers who get promoted, not the scarred veterans who know what's needed, and where the pitfalls lie.
And there are a LOT of pitfalls. Cheap FPV one-way systems are getting the headlines today, but they are short-legged and easily defeated. Hell, a good old-fashioned smoke screen would put many of them out of the fight. And a Second World War vintage quad Bofors would scythe them out of the sky. There's a reason why the serious anti-ship missiles are either very-low-flying high subsonic, or VERY fast.
(Pro tip: Take an LCS, put another 3-5 57mm mounts on the helo deck. Might be useful.)
What the hell is the DepSecDef doing on Twitter anyway? She doesn't have to lobby for a top govt. post, she already has it. Her next move into the contractor world will be a lateral move, less power and prestige but with the trade-off of a lot more money (a move I'll make any day of the week). These people make no sense to me.
1. Go deep into the Federal Workforce. Look for GS-14s, especially the technical specialists in the field activities. Promote them.
2. Push decision-making down to the working-level people. Having senior FOGOs rubber-stamp decisions (think JROC) is a recipe for a very slow process.
3. Fund REAL competition. The instant you down-select to one vendor, you are stuck with whatever he delivers, get it when that vendor delivers it, and pay whatever price is set. Competition lets you reduce the Government management footprint considerably.
4. Specification compliance does NOT define satisfactory performance. Implication - spending a lot of effort on specification decomposition and tracking is time and resources wasted.
5. Fund the ground/shore test rigs. That goes TRIPLE for software...and software has been the driver in every major aviation program. When the software developers are demanding that flight test assets be used for troubleshooting software, you have a Very Big Problem.
6. Don't assume the big Aerospace & Defense contractors are any better than the Government. They are often just as top-heavy and ossified.
“Build a little, test a little, learn a lot.” It’s no surprise that we continue to build AEGIS DDGs, because they all contain the DNA of Wayne E. Meyer. Unfortunately, fundamental concepts like Cornerstones of AEGIS, Aegis Shipbuilding Milestones of Eight, CSEDS, PTC, Norton Sound seem to be considered obsolete or outdated.
Another great read. I think we should approach this like the sports world approaches building a new stadium, often in the shadow of the old one. The idea is to keep the elements that are essential to the game, but change all the other stuff that impedes the total experience. The newer stadiums find ways to get the fans to their seats faster, let them see more of the action and speed the flow of the game (except for the @#$&! Commercial timeouts and instant replay calls). But the point is to build the new structure, test it and then switch over completely once it is ready for use - and then destroy the old structure completely- not patch the old one over and over again. I’ve been reading about acquisition reform since high school with the Packard Commission and success has been fleeting and rare.
I suspect that "Replicator" will whither like a big ball of cotton candy in the rain when Dep Sec Hicks revolves the door back to one of the Primes....
Its a concept, not a money making program making over priced widgets.
BTW...
I also suspect that this TQM-esque new fangled management 'way' that is making the rounds in the corporate world may gain recognition...
From Harvard...Of course... It has an appealing (to the Progressives, Elites, and Oligarchs anyway) Orwellian vibe to it....
by Gabrielle Adams, Benjamin A. Converse, Andrew Hales, and Leidy Klotz
"Imagining ways to introduce change is an essential skill no matter one’s occupation, role, or rank. To distinguish an app, a designer envisions a unique new feature. To enhance workplace culture, a manager considers new training modules or incentives. To increase corporate social responsibility, an advisory board identifies green-energy investment opportunities.
Notice that each of these changes would add something to what already exists."
This 'Less Is More' idea sure sounds a whole lot like "Work Will Set You Free"...
"...if [addition] becomes a business’s default path to improvement, that business may be failing to consider a whole class of other opportunities. In one study of organizational change, for example, we found that when stakeholders suggested hundreds of ways to improve an organization, fewer than 10% of those improvements involved taking something away. Across a series of follow-up experiments, we demonstrated that people systematically overlook subtractive changes."
What is Replicator? I still don't know
I agree. No more future wonder weapons' still on the fantasy stage, real workable platforms for the near future.
Meanwhile at the Naval academy;
https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/25/navy-gender-sexuality-class/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defensereport&pnespid=qOB3VyAWbfkYyuafqTGwDIKSuBXxTcVuMeymwOFovx1mngHS_APl.IcTqusWS4ZZar9uilvvoA
Is Congress willing to change the procurement process though?
I personally think we need to see a lot more career consequences for screwing up an acquisition program. Next officer managing a Nunn-McCurdy program gets run out of the service pour encourager les autres.
The triumph of the FPV drone is that it marries the cheapest available guidance system - a human - to a cheap, low-observable missile.
The triumph of Replicator is that it marries the most expensive possible acquisition system - ours - to a nebulous, never-achieved objective.
It appears that white hat deckplate gallows humor is becoming an essential coping tool while awaiting the CDR's promise of a "return to clarity."
Soon we will be as powerful as today's Royal Navy.
Great read as always. There was just something about the language in the beginning that me think this was some kind of a "Hail Mary" attempt to deal with a realization within the DOD of the consequence of what they neglected to do years ago. "Big bets..." is not exactly confidence-inspiring, explicit wording that I think belongs to an acquition program that requires explicit answer... just saying.
(Regarding the Kfir link) By now, Israel could have had a 5th-generation Kfir, with plans for a 6th generation well underway. Has Israel been better off with F-15s, 16s and 35s? I don't know. Any thoughts, out there?
What frustrates me the most is the horde of people blathering on about unmanned systems who have NO real expertise. Hands-on experience is scarce, but there IS some...mostly going to waste. Stuck in operational units, doing T&E, or retired. It's the glib talkers who get promoted, not the scarred veterans who know what's needed, and where the pitfalls lie.
And there are a LOT of pitfalls. Cheap FPV one-way systems are getting the headlines today, but they are short-legged and easily defeated. Hell, a good old-fashioned smoke screen would put many of them out of the fight. And a Second World War vintage quad Bofors would scythe them out of the sky. There's a reason why the serious anti-ship missiles are either very-low-flying high subsonic, or VERY fast.
(Pro tip: Take an LCS, put another 3-5 57mm mounts on the helo deck. Might be useful.)
What the hell is the DepSecDef doing on Twitter anyway? She doesn't have to lobby for a top govt. post, she already has it. Her next move into the contractor world will be a lateral move, less power and prestige but with the trade-off of a lot more money (a move I'll make any day of the week). These people make no sense to me.
Now, if you are serious about acquisition reform:
1. Go deep into the Federal Workforce. Look for GS-14s, especially the technical specialists in the field activities. Promote them.
2. Push decision-making down to the working-level people. Having senior FOGOs rubber-stamp decisions (think JROC) is a recipe for a very slow process.
3. Fund REAL competition. The instant you down-select to one vendor, you are stuck with whatever he delivers, get it when that vendor delivers it, and pay whatever price is set. Competition lets you reduce the Government management footprint considerably.
4. Specification compliance does NOT define satisfactory performance. Implication - spending a lot of effort on specification decomposition and tracking is time and resources wasted.
5. Fund the ground/shore test rigs. That goes TRIPLE for software...and software has been the driver in every major aviation program. When the software developers are demanding that flight test assets be used for troubleshooting software, you have a Very Big Problem.
6. Don't assume the big Aerospace & Defense contractors are any better than the Government. They are often just as top-heavy and ossified.
“Build a little, test a little, learn a lot.” It’s no surprise that we continue to build AEGIS DDGs, because they all contain the DNA of Wayne E. Meyer. Unfortunately, fundamental concepts like Cornerstones of AEGIS, Aegis Shipbuilding Milestones of Eight, CSEDS, PTC, Norton Sound seem to be considered obsolete or outdated.
Another great read. I think we should approach this like the sports world approaches building a new stadium, often in the shadow of the old one. The idea is to keep the elements that are essential to the game, but change all the other stuff that impedes the total experience. The newer stadiums find ways to get the fans to their seats faster, let them see more of the action and speed the flow of the game (except for the @#$&! Commercial timeouts and instant replay calls). But the point is to build the new structure, test it and then switch over completely once it is ready for use - and then destroy the old structure completely- not patch the old one over and over again. I’ve been reading about acquisition reform since high school with the Packard Commission and success has been fleeting and rare.
A bit like BBBW3? Just announcements that turn out to be nothing.
Unlike the PLA which says less but actually churns out ships etc.
I imagine the US is the modern day USSR.
I suspect that "Replicator" will whither like a big ball of cotton candy in the rain when Dep Sec Hicks revolves the door back to one of the Primes....
Its a concept, not a money making program making over priced widgets.
BTW...
I also suspect that this TQM-esque new fangled management 'way' that is making the rounds in the corporate world may gain recognition...
From Harvard...Of course... It has an appealing (to the Progressives, Elites, and Oligarchs anyway) Orwellian vibe to it....
https://hbr.org/2022/02/when-subtraction-adds-value
(the book)
https://www.amazon.com/Subtract-Untapped-Science-Leidy-Klotz/dp/1250249864
"When Subtraction Adds Value"
by Gabrielle Adams, Benjamin A. Converse, Andrew Hales, and Leidy Klotz
"Imagining ways to introduce change is an essential skill no matter one’s occupation, role, or rank. To distinguish an app, a designer envisions a unique new feature. To enhance workplace culture, a manager considers new training modules or incentives. To increase corporate social responsibility, an advisory board identifies green-energy investment opportunities.
Notice that each of these changes would add something to what already exists."
This 'Less Is More' idea sure sounds a whole lot like "Work Will Set You Free"...
"...if [addition] becomes a business’s default path to improvement, that business may be failing to consider a whole class of other opportunities. In one study of organizational change, for example, we found that when stakeholders suggested hundreds of ways to improve an organization, fewer than 10% of those improvements involved taking something away. Across a series of follow-up experiments, we demonstrated that people systematically overlook subtractive changes."