Posted on 04/07/2009 4:09:40 AM PDT by Scanian
“I doubt that Gates is “being used.” This guy RAN the CIA.
Actually, he is using the adminstrattion and the congress to get what is necessary and if they don’t support him, watch — he will resign his position.”
This position was temporary from the start. He was kept on as window dressing and to help make changes like this. He serves the President. His recommendations may not be supported by some Republicans, but it will go thru.
However, that will just be the beginning. When he’s gone, they’ll make more cuts and changes.
He is also more moderate than you may like to believe, especially when it comes to Iran. He’s a believer in sanctions being the answer to Iran, and Iran not being very close to having nuclear weapons. He still doesn’t understand that the only solution to all the problems that the Iranian regime causes all over the world, is to get rid of the regime and that the regime isn’t come to come crawling to the negotiating table because of sanctions put on Iran.
Actually, I am a 23 year veteran of the armed forces with extensive personal experience in defense acquisition programs. Are you? I’ve seen it in action. If you believe that at the end of the day what’s best for the company is not the bottom line then you are naive. The flag waiving patriotism of the rank and file individual employee (which I do not dispute) is not what I questioned, my point is that these programs take on a life of their own, sometimes at the expense of what’s best for the armed forces and the nation - That’s not patriotic. The defense industry lobby encourages congress to continue to buy capabilities we don’t need, even after DoD says we don’t. Why? Jobs and profit. How else do you explain that for every major acquisition program the components are made in nearly all 50 states? Thus DoD becomes, in some cases, an unwilling consumer for platforms it doesn’t have a mission for. In some cases DoD is a willing participant in the process. Finally, I haven’t even talked about the incestuous movement of senior personnel between the DoD and industry that, in my opinion, serves to further the problem.
In any event I won’t question your motivation or stoop to calling you names. It is not unpatriotic to to scrutinize and question the way in which we acquire weapons systems. I think it is vital.
“...with drones to fill the role that the F-35 is designed for.”
You want to send democrat voters to fill the role of the F-35?
“Finally, I haven’t even talked about the incestuous movement of senior personnel between the DoD and industry that, in my opinion, serves to further the problem.”
Yep — witnessed that many times. Retire on Friday, then come in Monday as a contractor on a program that they set aside money for. Disgusting.
Doesn’t that mean longer deployments(deployments as they are now are exceedingly long); more wear and tear, therefore, on men and equipment; and fewer carrier groups deployed at any given time?
Bingo. So does cutting the number of F-22s or army force reductions. You have fewer planes, ships, and people doing the same amount of work as the larger force did. People have to serve more and longer tours in combat. They get out after one or two enlistments and you suddenly have a lack of experience at the mid and upper level NCO and officer tiers. It takes more than a decade to fix the damage a Carter or Obama does in one term.
You, sir, are an ignoramus.
Let the internecine turf wars begin. :-)
2. Acquisition and development of new systems is insanely slow and unwieldy, resulting in high rate of COTS (commercial, off the shelf) solutions. COTS vendors often take the government to the cleaners, because the government doesn't know what it needs, but needs it yesterday, so they launch money at the problem.
3. While some COTS platforms are perfect for the job, many are band aids. They're often band-aids that cross into different traditional fiefdoms, which creates turf battles and slows the process even further. On top of that, incompetent, well connected government workers resist change that threatens them. This slows the creation of permanent solutions.
4. By the time the GOTS (government off the shelf) solution rolls around, it's 20 years too late, and vastly over budget. Newer COTS systems are purchased to fulfill the new critical needs, via the 'good old boy' network that is standing by and ready to help (and to provide jobs to the senior leaders that failed on the GOTS side but then went with the COTS solution), and the process drags on.
5. This exact problem also exists in skill training (my current arena). DoD moves at a glacial pace in determining what it needs to know, and to what level of proficiency. In the meantime, contract experts are hired to fill the gap. The government's always a day late and a dollar short on training, whereas agile companies can outmaneuver the bureaucracies every time.
In short, the DoD is it's own worst enemy. It's the perfect marriage of government incompetence and corporate greed. I can't fault anyone in wanting to repair it.
Peters hates aircraft. And like Gates, he is so focused on the war we are in now that he doesn’t give a rat’s rear end about the wars we’ll face in the future.
These cuts ARE what Peters has wanted for a long time. Everything for the guy on the ground NOW, and to hell with any threat in the future.
It also accepts a false premise - that we cannot afford to do BOTH, when, in reality, we MUST do both.
If all you care about is defense of the US thru 2010, Gates is a good man. If you worry about 2020, or 2030, he is a disaster.
You make an outstanding point! Anyone who wants to know how smart this new budget is needs to ask, not about the F-22, but about C-17s and refueling tankers.
I spent my career in fighters, but without airlift and refueling, fighters sit in the USA. We are WAY behind in airlift and refueling, but we cannot afford them - according to Obama. Hell, if we took the money Obama is giving ACORN and spent it on defense...
So many folks get wrapped around the F-22. I support it, but with some ambivalence. But the unsexy C-17 & tankers are more critical to the fight than more F-22s...and Gates/Obama just cannot find the money. Damn! We’re going 2,000 Billion into debt this year on ‘stimulous’, and printing another 1,000 Billion on buying bad mortgages from bankers, but cannot afford to buy what we need for defense?!
Guess that is what happens when your President bows to the King of Saudi Arabia! No doubt about where HIS loyalty lies...
I’ve worked on upgrades to current fighters. Lockheed workers are extremely patriotic. Lockheed management would screw the USA in a heartbeat for 25 cents.
However, there are a lot of very patriotic former and current military working daily to PREVENT LM from doing so. I’ve sat in meetings where USAF Captains looked LM in the eye and said, “If you go down that road, we won’t buy.” And since they would write the reports used for an acquisition decision, LM backed down.
The acquisition system works remarkably well, in spite of politicians. And where there is corruption, it is almost ALWAYS at the political level.
The acquisition system is slow because it doesn’t have enough money. The design is meant to prevent the taxpayer from paying for stuff that isn’t needed.
Not long before I retired, I found out what happens if you DON’T go by those rules. I found myself involved in an acquisition program which was very good at getting earmarks - indeed, it completely lived on them. I was told, in essence, play along and you might have a job waiting for you.
However, while they had worked on many nice sounding projects, they hadn’t FIELDED anything. They spent millions on projects for 10 years, but half didn’t work and those that worked weren’t wanted by the warfighters. NONE of it ever went into service.
I made a stink. In the end, I was fired...but the section had its budget taken away. Last I heard, most of the people working in that section lost their jobs or quit.
The acquisition system is supposed to prevent that sort of fraud from occurring. If we had WW2 budgets, we could try 100 things and field 1 great one, and call it even. But budgets are too tight for that, so we have a lot of checks and balances in the system.
And since CONGRESS is corrupt, even an honest person has to play the politics.
I appreciate your comments and insight. It is an incredibly complex issue and I certainly do not mean to infer that all the problems lay with industry (For the all the reasons you so clearly state). It is a multidimensional problem.
“Actually, I am a 23 year veteran of the armed forces with extensive personal experience in defense acquisition programs. Are you? I’ve seen it in action. If you believe that at the end of the day what’s best for the company is not the bottom line then you are naive. The flag waiving patriotism of the rank and file individual employee (which I do not dispute) is not what I questioned, my point is that these programs take on a life of their own, sometimes at the expense of what’s best for the armed forces and the nation - That’s not patriotic. The defense industry lobby encourages congress to continue to buy capabilities we don’t need, even after DoD says we don’t. Why? Jobs and profit. How else do you explain that for every major acquisition program the components are made in nearly all 50 states? Thus DoD becomes, in some cases, an unwilling consumer for platforms it doesn’t have a mission for. In some cases DoD is a willing participant in the process. Finally, I haven’t even talked about the incestuous movement of senior personnel between the DoD and industry that, in my opinion, serves to further the problem.
In any event I won’t question your motivation or stoop to calling you names. It is not unpatriotic to to scrutinize and question the way in which we acquire weapons systems. I think it is vital.”
Actually, I have myself have been in the Defense Acquistion Industry for 16 years and I agree that there are problems. However, your overall generalizations criticizing the industry are over the top. Sure there is waste, but there is also more scutiny here than in other Government-related industries. Hell, we have two Government Auditors that sit just down the hall from me, which is a common practice. If you are so against industry of Defense Contractors then why do you stay in the field? If I worked in a field I hated, i sure as hell would get out.
“You, sir, are an ignoramus.”
Have any examples?
“I’ve worked on upgrades to current fighters. Lockheed workers are extremely patriotic. Lockheed management would screw the USA in a heartbeat for 25 cents.
However, there are a lot of very patriotic former and current military working daily to PREVENT LM from doing so. I’ve sat in meetings where USAF Captains looked LM in the eye and said, “If you go down that road, we won’t buy.” And since they would write the reports used for an acquisition decision, LM backed down.
The acquisition system works remarkably well, in spite of politicians. And where there is corruption, it is almost ALWAYS at the political level.”
Good comments. In fact, I have never been a great fan of Lockheed (mainly jealousy). But you are right, the system does work remarkably well (even with it faults) and is certainly the best in the world. Some folks are just naturally negative I guess.
Fortunately I’m not. It’s not that I am against industry. If I offended it wasn’t my intention. I just happpen to think the whole process is out of control, insanely inefficient, prone to abuse, and in some ways a self-licking ice cream cone. DoD, Congress, Services, and industry all share a part in the problem. That’s why I called it the military-industrial complex. There is plenty of blame to go around. I am concerned that in some cases, not all, but certainly some, the needs of the warfighter are lost to the special interests. It seems to me that in some cases the platform drives the strategy vice the strategy driving the platform. Sometimes that even includes within the services. Personally, I think everything from the National Security Strategy, Service strategies, the QDR, etc needs a face lift from a more holistic, unbiased, and rational perspective. A pipe dream? Probably.
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.