What Are You Listening To?

[Brett327]

If there is a problem now, and it’s going to take at least a decade to see results (not even have the problem completely fixed)...doesn’t that speak volumes about how broken the process is?

Give me a specific example and I’ll try to address it. One that comes to mind is deferred maintenance for our ships. That’s going to take time and investment in shipyard capacity. Not a process problem, per se, but a result of the demands of 19 years of wartime operational tempo. As a nation, we’ve underinvested in the things that keep our fleet healthy. Unfortunately, the people kicking the can down the road are usually gone by the time the shit hits the fan.

 

[Pags]

If there is a problem now, and it’s going to take at least a decade to see results (not even have the problem completely fixed)...doesn’t that speak volumes about how broken the process is?

It probably speaks more to how large and complicated the problem is.

A simple example would be that the current manufacturer of tires decides they're no longer going to make tires for your airplane. Now you have to find someone new to make your tires. If it's a unique design, does anyone even want to take that work on? Is there even anyone else qualified to make aircraft tires? If there is someone interested and qualified do they have capacity to make your tires? If they have to start new processes, etc that are unique to your tire you're going to pay for it. Now your tires are more expensive. Do you have the money to buy all the tires you need or do you need to POM for the higher cost? Getting the work on contract will take time. Then getting production started and your new tires qualified. Better hope there are no issues with the manufacturing process that could delay qualification.

and this is a simple example for tires. Now image that multiplied by thousands of parts/pieces.

 

[Jim123]

Is one of the companies tendering a bid to make you new tires

• a special interest company that gets bonus points when applying for federal contracts but not necessarily providing the best value
• politically connected
• actually competent to make tires

 

[SlickAg]

It probably speaks more to how large and complicated the problem is.

A simple example would be that the current manufacturer of tires decides they're no longer going to make tires for your airplane. Now you have to find someone new to make your tires. If it's a unique design, does anyone even want to take that work on? Is there even anyone else qualified to make aircraft tires? If there is someone interested and qualified do they have capacity to make your tires? If they have to start new processes, etc that are unique to your tire you're going to pay for it. Now your tires are more expensive. Do you have the money to buy all the tires you need or do you need to POM for the higher cost? Getting the work on contract will take time. Then getting production started and your new tires qualified. Better hope there are no issues with the manufacturing process that could delay qualification.

and this is a simple example for tires. Now image that multiplied by thousands of parts/pieces.

I understand what you're saying, but that example is just sort of proving my point. The defense acquisition process is a huge offender. There isn't a ten year fix unless you completely revamp this process; this is one of the big albatrosses around our neck.

 

[SlickAg]

Give me a specific example and I’ll try to address it. One that comes to mind is deferred maintenance for our ships. That’s going to take time and investment in shipyard capacity. Not a process problem, per se, but a result of the demands of 19 years of wartime operational tempo. As a nation, we’ve underinvested in the things that keep our fleet healthy. Unfortunately, the people kicking the can down the road are usually gone by the time the shit hits the fan.

LCS.

But no one will be held accountable because all the stakeholders are gone (into their cushy defense contractor gigs) and/or promoted into positions of higher power.

 

[Pags]

LCS.

But no one will be held accountable because all the stakeholders are gone (into their cushy defense contractor gigs) and/or promoted into positions of higher power.

How would you see someone being held accountable for doing their job?

 

[SlickAg]

How would you see someone being held accountable for doing their job?

The Navy has been busy publicly prosecuting E-7s, pressing charges against O-5s in command (Fitzgerald and McCain), and firing various COs for a myriad of reasons.

I know this because I’ve read a lot about all of the above topics.

Let’s clean some of that dead (rotten?) wood in the FOGO ranks. People don’t rock the boat bc their high six-figure golden parachutes get put at risk. I’d love to hear how people that fielded that monstrosity are being demoted, retired, etc.

 

[Pags]

I understand what you're saying, but that example is just sort of proving my point. The defense acquisition process is a huge offender. There isn't a ten year fix unless you completely revamp this process; this is one of the big albatrosses around our neck.

But this isn't just a defense acquisition process. The same thing happens to other companies and they have to make the same kind of decisions.

The Navy has been busy publicly prosecuting E-7s, pressing charges against O-5s in command (Fitzgerald and McCain), and firing various COs for a myriad of reasons.

I know this because I’ve read a lot about all of the above topics.

Let’s clean some of that dead (rotten?) wood in the FOGO ranks. People don’t rock the boat bc their high six-figure golden parachutes get put at risk. I’d love to hear how people that fielded that monstrosity are being demoted, retired, etc.

USN is prosecuting people because they see a need to determine (rightly or wrongly) if a crime has been committed. Doing the best you can with an acquisition program within the constraints given by resources and requirements isn't a crime. If you ask someone to build you an ugly house and they do it that's not a legal crime. That's your fault for asking them to build an ugly house.

 

[SlickAg]

But this isn't just a defense acquisition process. The same thing happens to other companies and they have to make the same kind of decisions.

USN is prosecuting people because they see a need to determine (rightly or wrongly) if a crime has been committed. Doing the best you can with an acquisition program within the constraints given by resources and requirements isn't a crime. If you ask someone to build you an ugly house and they do it that's not a legal crime. That's your fault for asking them to build an ugly house.

Who asked them to build the ugly house (LCS)? John Q. Public? Anyway, I'm not saying that they need to be criminally prosecuted; my point was that the Navy has zero issue airing its dirty laundry in certain instances. This certainly needs to be one of them. Publicly call out those responsible and let there be some accountability to ensure that that sort of monstrosity will never happen again.

Your comparison to private industry doesn’t hold much water. Company’s executives are accountable to both the BoD and the stockholders. There’s a reason turnover in some non-government companies is so high. People get shitcanned if need be. And then they get to explain that to their potential new employer.

Example: the MAX took a giant dump. Boeing's CEO is out, albeit with a fortune. There's a reason the Ford Edsel didn't happen again. Their senior execs learned their lesson the hard way. Maybe if DoD senior uniformed leadership were held accountable they wouldn’t spend the taxpayers’ dollars so freely.

 

[Pags]

Who asked them to build the ugly house (LCS)? John Q. Public?

Publicly call them out and let there be some accountability to ensure that that sort of monstrosity will never happen again.

Your comparison to private industry doesn’t hold much water. Company’s executives are accountable to both the BoD and the stockholders. There’s a reason turnover in non-government entities is so high. People get shitcanned if need be. And then they get to explain that to their potential new employer.

The MAX took a giant dump. Their CEO is out, albeit with a fortune. Maybe if senior leadership were held accountable they wouldn’t spend the taxpayers’ dollars so freely.

USN asked them to build the LCS via JROC process. John Q Public doesn't get a direct say in what programs the military decides it needs to accomplish it's mission. Love it or hate it, the requirements for what became LCS were approved by JROC and then the two versions were acquired to meet those requirements. LCS tried to do what so many people have asked for: it was disruptive and tried to do new things. That's how it was designed and we got what we paid for. Did USN overreach in trying to combine too many developmental programs at once? Arguably yes. But they to be aggressive to get new capabilities to the fleet.

To compare an Acquisition PM to a public company CEO is disingenuous. There's no profit expectation out of a PM. The PM just needs to do oversee the development of a program that meets the requirements. If you're looking for a CEO type equivalent it's CNO or SECNAV. But again, there's no profit there. And LCS us just one of MANY programs they're working. So to your Boeing analogy the LCS PM (or PEO as it is) is more akin to the PM for a large Boeing product such as the Max or KC-46. And let's be frank, in a few years we'll all be flying the Max. Boeing will get out of this and those jets will eventually fly. The solution isn't impossible, it's just bad for Boeings bottom line.

Plus, while the Boeing CEO took the fall, the board was most certainly involved in the decisions that led to the Max. Will those guys lose their jobs? Nope. Of course the CEO will, he's the organizational fall guy and CEOs know it. That's why they get paid so we'll because it's their head on the chopping block. And while the former Boeing CEO was fired, it's not like he'll never work again. He'll get a new job.

I'm sorry but this mystical pursuit of "accountability" for things that didn't go as planned has me confused. Everyone wants "accountability" but no one can say what that means. Should we get all the former CNOs up in public and throw tomatoes at them? Should they be drawn and quartered? Should they be blacklisted from all the cool clubs?

 

[Pags]

Is one of the companies tendering a bid to make you new tires

• a special interest company that gets bonus points when applying for federal contracts but not necessarily providing the best value
• politically connected
• actually competent to make tires

Those are factors that will go in to it. And will certainly go into a private companies decision to subcontract with a new supplier. And sometimes we make decisions on what to buy based on things like "maintaining an industrial base." There are lots of factors, some good, some bad, that go in to selecting a source. But again, this is also done in the private world. Why do you think so much of our personal stuff is made in China?

 

[Pags]

A thought on govt acquisition accountability:
It comes from Congress when they don't give your service, program, etc any more money or cancel your program.

 

[SlickAg]

USN asked them to build the LCS via JROC process. John Q Public doesn't get a direct say in what programs the military decides it needs to accomplish it's mission. Love it or hate it, the requirements for what became LCS were approved by JROC and then the two versions were acquired to meet those requirements. LCS tried to do what so many people have asked for: it was disruptive and tried to do new things. That's how it was designed and we got what we paid for. Did USN overreach in trying to combine too many developmental programs at once? Arguably yes. But they to be aggressive to get new capabilities to the fleet.

To compare an Acquisition PM to a public company CEO is disingenuous. There's no profit expectation out of a PM. The PM just needs to do oversee the development of a program that meets the requirements. If you're looking for a CEO type equivalent it's CNO or SECNAV. But again, there's no profit there. And LCS us just one of MANY programs they're working. So to your Boeing analogy the LCS PM (or PEO as it is) is more akin to the PM for a large Boeing product such as the Max or KC-46. And let's be frank, in a few years we'll all be flying the Max. Boeing will get out of this and those jets will eventually fly. The solution isn't impossible, it's just bad for Boeings bottom line.

Plus, while the Boeing CEO took the fall, the board was most certainly involved in the decisions that led to the Max. Will those guys lose their jobs? Nope. Of course the CEO will, he's the organizational fall guy and CEOs know it. That's why they get paid so we'll because it's their head on the chopping block. And while the former Boeing CEO was fired, it's not like he'll never work again. He'll get a new job.

I'm sorry but this mystical pursuit of "accountability" for things that didn't go as planned has me confused. Everyone wants "accountability" but no one can say what that means. Should we get all the former CNOs up in public and throw tomatoes at them? Should they be drawn and quartered? Should they be blacklisted from all the cool clubs?

Bro, you're talking about the current process. I'm saying "CHANGE THE PROCESS". It sucks. We need to be disruptive with our bloated acquisition process.

The 767 is a fantastic airplane. Most airlines wish they'd bought more and I'm sure Boeing deeply regrets shutting down the line. The KC-46 is a nightmare because the government tends to **** up everything it touches at a macro level.

We all know Muhlenberg is going to work again. Part of my point is that they're held accountable, and need to go learn from their lesson and at least be a little humble in order to get hired again. People in the Navy actually believe their own fitreps. Every transitioning naval officer on LinkedIn is the #1, best ever, etc etc.

I'm easy. If the Navy were more open about admitting failure and letting its leaders fail without losing their WHOLE professional career...maybe we'd create an environment that wasn't full of risk adverse sycophants suffering from paralysis by analysis.

Is it going to happen? No. But a girl can dream, right?

 

[Pags]

Bro, you're talking about the current process. I'm saying "CHANGE THE PROCESS". It sucks. We need to be disruptive with our bloated acquisition process.

The 767 is a fantastic airplane. Most airlines wish they'd bought more and I'm sure Boeing deeply regrets shutting down the line. The KC-46 is a nightmare because the government tends to **** up everything it touches at a macro level.

We all know Muhlenberg is going to work again. Part of my point is that they're held accountable, and need to go learn from their lesson and at least be a little humble in order to get hired again. People in the Navy actually believe their own fitreps. Every transitioning naval officer on LinkedIn is the #1, best ever, etc etc.

I'm easy. If the Navy were more open about admitting failure and letting its leaders fail without losing their WHOLE professional career...maybe we'd create an environment that wasn't full of risk adverse sycophants suffering from paralysis by analysis.

Is it going to happen? No. But a girl can dream, right?

Yeah but saying "MOAR DISRUPT" isn't actionable. What part needs to change? Have you been a part of the acquisition system to understand how it's supposed to work and what parts arent delivering?

Do you know what's wrong on KC-46 and how we got there? Would you have made different decisions?

I can tell you that despite the external appearance of a struggling acquisition system that it's manned by good people who are trying their best to get stuff to the fleet faster. Even when people slow something down it's usually because they're trying to do something good in the long run.

I'd be curious if Muhlenberg will need to be humble. If he wants to he'll get another job no problem. Whether his severance will require him to need another job is up for discussion. I'm sure part of his severance package size is to keep him out of the industry for awhile. For instance, my wife's grandfather was a CEO. When he sold the company he ran the new owners gave him a severance package that made sure he'd never have to work again and that they'd never have to compete with him again.

People who are looking for work are all perfect. Such is life in looking for a job. No need to hate those folks for trying to pay a mortgage.

 

[Brett327]

The defense acquisition process is a huge offender. There isn't a ten year fix unless you completely revamp this process; this is one of the big albatrosses around our neck.

Navy doesn't own the acquisitions process, nor is it of the DoD's making. It's also not likely to change, so there's not much sense in wringing our hands about it. Call your Congressman if you have ideas on changes to applicable law.