Regards, Ivan
Posted on 07/24/2004 3:49:55 AM PDT by MadIvan
WASHINGTON - The Air Force continues to order a new type of cargo plane despite spending $2.6 billion to buy 50 planes that do not meet the military's requirements and cannot be flown in combat zones, Pentagon investigators said.
Contractor Lockheed Martin hasn't delivered any C-130J planes that met requirements in the eight years since the program began, the report said. The Air Force and Lockheed Martin disagree.
Problems with the propeller-driven cargo planes include faulty computer and diagnostic systems and inadequate defense measures, the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General concluded.
So far, none of the planes has been cleared for some of their primary missions: Dropping troops and cargo into war zones and flying in conditions requiring the crew to wear night-vision goggles.
The inspector general's report concluded that Air Force and Defense Department officials mismanaged the program, requiring millions of dollars in upgrades and thousands of hours of work to make the planes capable of performing as well as the aging models they're supposed to replace.
The Air Force strongly denied the report's conclusions.
Marvin Sambur, the Air Force's top acquisition official, wrote to the investigators that the program is within its cost, schedule and contract guidelines. Lockheed Martin has started delivering planes which meet Air Force specifications and the necessary upgrades have either been completed or scheduled, Sambur wrote.
"While some of the facts presented in the DOD/IG report are accurate, the findings and conclusions ascribed to these facts cannot be supported," Sambur wrote in response to the inspector general's office. "The Air Force fully endorses the C-130J program."
Lockheed Martin spokesman Jeff Rhodes said Friday the company agrees with the Air Force.
"The Air Force, ultimately the end user who is flying the aircraft, also says that the C-130J program is meeting cost, schedule, contract and regulatory commitments," Rhodes said in an e-mail statement.
Two Air Force squadrons haven't been able to perform their missions for more than four years because they only have C-130Js, the report said. The 815th Air Squadron at Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi and the 135th Airlift Squadron of the Maryland Air National Guard are supposed to drop troops and supplies into hostile areas.
Five other Air Force and Marine units have the C-130J planes but use older C-130s to perform their missions, the report said.
Air Force testers found so many problems with the planes they stopped evaluations in 2000 so the problems they already found could be fixed, the report said.
The report cites problems with the planes including:
The Air Force continues to order more C-130Js despite those problems. The military is buying the planes as a commercial item - a process designed to allow the military to purchase goods on the open market that need few modifications for military use.
That process gives the Air Force less oversight and fewer cost controls, the inspector general's report says. For example, the commercial contract means Lockheed Martin doesn't have to give the Air Force data on how much the planes actually cost, so the Air Force has no way to check the company's profit margins.
Sambur suggested the inspector general's office was biased against such commercial contracts, an accusation the office denied. The inspector general's office has been among critics of another Air Force plan to retrofit Boeing 767 jets for use as midair refueling planes.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
AF ping
To summarize: The Air Force says the planes are fine, Lockheed says the planes are fine, the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General says the planes bite. This has the smell of either A) An interservice p*ssing contest that someone decided to fight in the media, B) Corruption within the Air Force and Lockheed, or C) Both. My money's on A.
Not the Air Force's fault. THe C-130J purchase was ordered by Congress (Trent Lott, C-130J/Lockheed proponent) over the USAF's objections.
Three years ago, I attended a meeting with Lockheed discussing some features. I pointed out some program features that seemed insane from the government's viewpoint...asked some of the more experienced guys why it was structured that way.
They all agreed - it was done so Lockheed could soak the government. They also pointed out that Congress had structured the payments such that Lockheed had already received the bulk of the money - before delivering anything that came close to spec.
The USAF has done some stupid buying - but this debacle rests completely on COngress!
The USAF does NOT say the planes are fine. "Marvin Sambur, the Air Force's top acquisition official" says they are fine. From personal experience I can tell you Marvin Sambur doesn't know the square root of squat all about the quality of an acquired product. The man is a fool.
The USAF's Operational Test and Evaluation Center has not finished the operational test of the C-130J. It was so bad when they tried that they decided to pass it in a few areas (it is safe to fly in clear weather...maybe in IFR by now...) while requiring it to continue test to 'release capability'.
Whenever you see that, it means the plane sucked big time, but there is too much political pressure to allow AFOTEC to say, "Not effective/Not suitable". The C-130J is a prime example of how NOT to do acquisition - but the program was always driven by Congress & Trent Lott, not the USAF.
Not to put to fine of a point on this, but a false positive, is a broken component that isn't registering as bad. A false negative, is an indicator of a failure that isn't there.
"The military is buying the planes as a commercial item - a process designed to allow the military to purchase goods on the open market that need few modifications for military use.
That process gives the Air Force less oversight and fewer cost controls, the inspector general's report says. For example, the commercial contract means Lockheed Martin doesn't have to give the Air Force data on how much the planes actually cost, so the Air Force has no way to check the company's profit margins.
Sambur suggested the inspector general's office was biased against such commercial contracts, an accusation the office denied. The inspector general's office has been among critics of another Air Force plan to retrofit Boeing 767 jets for use as midair refueling planes."
This refers to COTS/NDI - Commercial Off The Shelf/Non-Developmental Items. In theory, it was supposed to be a way to save money by buying something that meets the USAF needs without our spending taxpayer money to develop it.
In reality, with the approval of Sambur, it means we commit to buying something the company promises will meet military needs. When test proves it does not, the military spends a ton of money and years of development trying to fix the shortfalls. Recent analysis indicates COTS items end up costing as much or more than developmental items - and that is because the acquisition weenies agree to accept something that is woefully inadequate at a "COTS" item.
On one program I worked - with Sambur's signature approving it as a Non-developmental Item - the USAF stopped counting how many sorties of development took place after the number passed the 200 mark. The item still hasn't been approved to start operational test.
When Sambur wants to know if something is working, he goes straight to the horse's mouth - he goes to the contractor and takes their word verbatim over the word of USAF test pilots and maintainers.
That, in my book, means he is either incredibly stupid or very corrupt.
You are Right. The responsibility rests with the congress. I'm always amazed at our fellow Americans as they are always blaming the President. I don't understand why they don't see that 530+ people in the house and the senate can be more dangerous than the president that is just a single individual. I don't care who the President might be over history, the congress is the real enemy and the people keep blaming the President. I have feelings about all Presidents and as my tagline says I am voting for President Bush because he is a great leader. The congress is the real enemy and the people need to wake up. Our people in uniform need good equipment and we as a group need to realize that the congress is supposed to listen to us not the other way with us listening to them. God Bless America and all the wonderful people in uniform past, present, and future who defend her.
Smells like pork-barrel to me.
Congressmen sometimes force buys on DOD so that industries in their home state will benefit. This is called "Bringing home the bacon."
FReegards, Ivan. We all missed you and are glad you are back home.
I thought that sounded backwards as well.
I was thinking about it after I posted, and if you think of your systems in term of the indicator lights (i.e. a positive/on light indicating a bad component) a false positive would be an indicator light for a bad component that isn't bad. However, since I wasn't trained by the Air Force, I don't tend to think of systems in terms of the little lights that blink on and off.
Congressmen sometimes force buys on DOD so that industries in their home state will benefit. This is called "Bringing home the bacon."
More likely is that the Air Force contract is poorly written. Lockheed is meeting the detailed requirements as written, but Air Force oversite is looking at the broader preliminary requirements for the aircraft and determining that it doesn't meet the demands set out before bidding took place. The Air Force's contracting officer probably sat down with Lockheed and worked out a deal to bring the aircraft up to broader operational requirements outside of the aircraft delivery contract.
Is there a good reason why the average C130J should be equipped to fly into a hurricane?
Are there good reasons why pliots cannot plan missions without automated systems?
Are there good reasons for believing that pilots should not be re-trained to use new equipment?
Did the C130's of the Vietnam War have defensive equipment?
If they did not, and since the aircraft performed reasonably well during that conflict, is there a compelling reason to install expensive defensive equipment now?
Rummy needs to can more of these clowns like Sambur and cancel these screwed-up, pork barrel programs to send a message to congress. This program just shows that Trent Lott has done other stupid things besides that dumb speech that got him demoted from Majority leader.
Not all C-130Js are equpped to fly into hurricanes. Those that are need to work.
Pilots can plan missions without software - all they need is a shelf full of books and time to reference them. Or the required planning software can work, using a CD and a laptop in minutes. We paid for the latter
There are far more type and numbers of small SAMs now than there were in Vietnam. Also - we've paid for defensive systems, so it is not unreasonable for us to expect them to work.
Since the USAF didn't want the 130J to begin with, I'm sure the contract was written totally in Lockheed's favor. And Congress required the USAF to accept it.
Note - Sen Boxer, the anti-military CA senator (well, one of them), wrote into law requiring 2 C-130Js go to the Guard in CA. There they will sit without MX support or parts for 15 years, until the rest of the Js go to the CA Guard.
Actually, this is the sort of activity Rumsfeld is encouraging. In the past, the user would write an ORD - Operational Requirements Document - that defined what the new widget needed to do in order to achieve the mission. The widget would then test against this standard. If it failed significantly in multiple areas, it failed the test.
Rumsfeld is replacing the ORD with a 'capabilities description', with no hard parameters the contractor can be held to. It will make it impossible to fail a system for non-performance. Rumsfeld wants us to trust the contractor to do the best job possible.
But Lockheed doesn't give a damn about doing the job. They only care about collecting the money. Rumsfeld has done some excellent things, but he's part of the problem in acquisition.
The contracting officer probably sat down and worked out an agreement to pay Lockheed even more to do what they were supposed to have done in the first place. At least, that is what I've seen contracting officers do in the past.
I'm sure there is a lot of administrative overhead cost and schedule time involved in testing against the ORD. Rumsfeld is trying to reduce these costs and bring new technology to the battlefiled faster. It takes much too long for new weapons systems to move from R&D into the soldiers' hands. I think his approach will work IF congress keeps their greedy paws out of the system and lets the Pentagon discipline the contractors for delivery of sub-par products. Rummy's trying to move to more of a commerical free-market approach to cut costs and speed up production. IF congress stays out of the process and doesn't order the Pentagon to buy bad products, then companies like Lockheed will be brought back into line through competition. The Pentagon can punish them for poor performance by buying planes from Boeing instead. But I agree with you that Rummy's "capabilities description" will have to contain some hard parameters and I would bet that ultimately it will have some hard parameters for testing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.