Posted on 05/01/2012 11:25:46 AM PDT by Daffynition
Not exactly a grand gesture of confidence: some of the US Air Force's airmen, the world's most elite, want nothing to do with the Air Force's "elite" new fighter. Why? Because the only people it's threatening are its own pilots. ABC News reports, shockingly, that the admission came from within the Air Force itself—the Pentagon isn't usually a font of mea culpas:
Gen. Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Va., told reporters that a "very small" number of pilots have asked not to fly the fifth-generation fighter jets or to be reassigned.
(Excerpt) Read more at gizmodo.com ...
Anything I say would be pure speculation — I have no systems knowledge of the F-22, but the fact that “software” is involved in what used to be a relatively simple O2 system tells me that some smart engineer tried to develop an “improved” O2 system and that it was fielded before being fully tested.
HST, I am back to my original statement — cockpit pressurization/OS systems have been around for a long time, and, most of them work pretty well. The more complex a system is, the more likely that there will be multiple failures, and the more likely it will be very expensive to maintain.
The KISS principle ought to be more widely followed, IMHO.
You hit the nerve: KISS generally works against corporate profits.
it isn’t the corporation that awards the contract
All Defense contractors have “Change Order” groups which work constantly to increase the value to the contractor of a particular contract by suggesting and implementing changes to the contract.
It is a time honored tradition in the defense industry to intentionally underbid a contract and then run the price up through change orders.
The KISS principle is mostly defunct in defense work these days — there is no money in it.
Change orders and mission creep is a two way street.
That is certainly true, but change orders often are targeted to encourage mission creep.
There are other problems with government procurement — it is not only the Military that gets screwed — civilian agencies also suffer FRom the many “loopholes” in the system. And, of course, the ultimate screwee is the US Taxpayer!
HSAT, my experience was that the government contracting officers are generally very junior, and can be “out-ranked” by contractors and their own seniors into approving changes that are not necessary, except in the political sense.
Also, government contractors seem to have a high turnover in management, as do the Program offices. All this turnover inevitably leads to “better ideas” and more cost to the taxpayer and profits for the contractor.
In short, it is an insane system and it doesn’t work to anyone’s advantage, although the players will tell you different. They all are playing a “wink-wink” game, until the corruption and/or program cost really get out of hand.
And then, once the jig is up, it becomes a blame game. But no one really suffers too much, except the poor suffering taxpayer.
As you can tell, I am a disgruntled taxpayer who spent too much time in government contracting trying to weave a fine line between fiscal responsibility and conflicting contractual and performance demands.
I agree with your assessment...obviously you are experienced in this area. I made similar comments on a previous JIEDDO program thread. It is us, the taxpayer who ends up paying the price.
So in your mind is the trend towards fixed price contracts vs cost plus not affecting change orders or mission creep? Wasn’t it designed to help mitigate change orders and mission creep? I am serious can you educate me on this? I’d love to hear your opinion.
I have been out of the business a long time, and the rules probably have changed.
HST, judging FRom the dustups in the most recent large military procurement programs, there is still a lot of wiggle room available for running the cost to the taxpayer and the profits to the contractors up.
Please understand me — men and women of good will work hard to do the right thing for competing interests — unfortunately, the poor suffering taxpayer does not have the best seat at the table.
Yes, fixed price contracts are one effort to gain control of cost runups, but the change order process still works as before.
What has to happen is that the aforementioned competing interests have to work together to ensure they all are treated fairly.
When I was in the business, I tried my best to be an honest broker between my company, the government and the taxpayer. That, my FRiend, is a tightrope walk!
Eventually, I got out because walking that tightrope became too difficult, and was not personally or professionally rewarding enough for me to stay there.
Parenthetically, you will note that the Congress and the public never hear about the contracts that worked as they were supposed to. Many do.
Super explanation Taxman. I really appreciate you laying this out for me. Good stuff. And you are dead on....we never hear about the programs that stay on budget and the people that do good work on both sides of the equation.
You are most welcome. I can’t say I thoroughly enjoyed my experience in the govt contracting business, but it was a growth and learning experience!
I grew strong enough to get out and do something else!
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.