Severe issues in the US procurement process cause procurement of non-combat worthy jets

[Adar]

Full report which also contain a lot of other interesting information and current Pentagon projects.

Our Airmen, Sailors, Marines, and Soldiers rely on these systems to be effective, suitable, survivable, and lethal. Because in many respects their lives depend on weapons systems that work, it is essential that adequate testing is done to fully characterize those systems’ capabilities and shortcomings across all of the relevant operational conditions in which the system is nticipated to be employed. Such characterization is needed in part so that well-informed acquisition and development decisions can be made, but also so the men and women in combat understand what these systems can and cannot do. As a nation, we cannot afford to field weapons systems that do not work, do not provide a clear improvement over existing systems, or are not militarily useful; nor can we afford to make these important fielding decisions without knowledge of the systems’ operational effectiveness.

....
This year, I have found several cases where the testing I determined to be adequate was beyond the narrow definitions in the requirements document(s) established by the Services and Joint Staff. I have observed two distinct limitations in requirements definitions:
•Requirements stated in terms of technical parameters that are not mission-oriented
•Requirements that are narrowly defined to specific conditions, when the Services will certainly employ the system in other conditions.

An example of failure in this respect is also given by Director Michael J Gilmore in the form of the P8-A Poseidon which was approved for deployment in November and a contract for procurement was signed roughly two weeks before the report I linked above was published.

The $35 billion program is intended to provide the US navy with a replacement to the P-3C Orion that provide increased range, payload, and speed as well as increased survivability and improved wide area search capabilities compared to the P-3C.

As a straight replacement for the Orion the aircraft is an improvement according to both the Navy spokeswoman and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. But compared to the project plan the Poseidon still exhibit significant deficiencies in it's wide area search capability, electronic support measures and maintainability.

Solving these issues are an unknown cost and solving them is essentially impossible unless the Navy top brass enforce the guidelines outline by the Director of Operation Test and Evaluation. But so far it looks unlikely that the Pentagon generals will admit any issues as any (admitted) failure in the procurement process is likely to meet with backlash from the politicians as the American military-industrial complex is under heavy criticism for caring more about profit than capability (link).

As I see it positions such as "Director of Operation Test and Evaluation" are among the toughest positions in any organization. Because for any major project the top leaders are likely to be judged based on the performance of projects they approve. So being the guy who have to say "This is good, but not as good as what we paid for" is always going to struggle in a highly precarious position.

[Condottiere 40K]

Pork politics; problem, trough shrank and no one wants to give up their rightful allocation.

[conon394]

As I see it positions such as "Director of Operation Test and Evaluation" are among the toughest positions in any organization. Because for any major project the top leaders are likely to be judged based on the performance of projects they approve. So being the guy who have to say "This is good, but not as good as what we paid for" is always going to struggle in a highly precarious position.

Indeed, but the pentagon has bigger issues really. Its the day to day management of its contracts and contractors and the fact heads rarely ever roll. I used to have a paper that compared the way Toyota and Ford oversaw subcontracts for parts vs the Pentagon and the rate of audits and tests and oversight (and also monetary penalties in the contract for poor performance) in every case is far beyond what the Pentagon does. I would say that is party because no mater where a part comes from its the automaker that take the PR hit for a recall. The Pentagon (or it officers) never seems suffer for a badly managed product. I a few more brass got canned or demoted maybe thay be a little more suspect of whatever line the guy from Lockheed was selling, or a little more willing to buy of the rack stuff that works (say Trophy when it was needed vs Vapor products that a 5+ years late). For now obviously Congress in never going to allow the Pentagon to really go with other peoples stuff for major contracts, but at least for smaller ones the Pentagon could smack some knuckles occasionally.

[Town Watch]

Indeed, but the pentagon has bigger issues really. Its the day to day management of its contracts and contractors and the fact heads rarely ever roll. I used to have a paper that compared the way Toyota and Ford oversaw subcontracts for parts vs the Pentagon and the rate of audits and tests and oversight (and also monetary penalties in the contract for poor performance) in every case is far beyond what the Pentagon does. I would say that is party because no mater where a part comes from its the automaker that take the PR hit for a recall. The Pentagon (or it officers) never seems suffer for a badly managed product. I a few more brass got canned or demoted maybe thay be a little more suspect of whatever line the guy from Lockheed was selling, or a little more willing to buy of the rack stuff that works (say Trophy when it was needed vs Vapor products that a 5+ years late). For now obviously Congress in never going to allow the Pentagon to really go with other peoples stuff for major contracts, but at least for smaller ones the Pentagon could smack some knuckles occasionally.

I was reading about a Finnish newspaper and it seems one finnish defense manufacturer seems to try to break into the British and American market. The product in question is basically future replacement for claymore mine. The new landmine has surpassed claymore and other competitor's effectiveness and already won a British evaluation competition. The British have already placed orders on it, and it seems that Americans are still evaluating the product.

Quite surprising perhaps, but who's to say they won't adopt the product in the future for the Marine Corps/Army? Although the politics and manufacturing side of things would necessarily have to be settled, because Americans are secretive and possessive about these things... I suspect for the Finnish company, it would be best company decision if the company simply relocated into America (This way the Americans cannot renege on agreed upon royalty payments, or simply steal the military tech)

[Adar]

Indeed, but the pentagon has bigger issues really. Its the day to day management of its contracts and contractors and the fact heads rarely ever roll. I used to have a paper that compared the way Toyota and Ford oversaw subcontracts for parts vs the Pentagon and the rate of audits and tests and oversight (and also monetary penalties in the contract for poor performance) in every case is far beyond what the Pentagon does. I would say that is party because no mater where a part comes from its the automaker that take the PR hit for a recall. The Pentagon (or it officers) never seems suffer for a badly managed product. I a few more brass got canned or demoted maybe thay be a little more suspect of whatever line the guy from Lockheed was selling, or a little more willing to buy of the rack stuff that works (say Trophy when it was needed vs Vapor products that a 5+ years late). For now obviously Congress in never going to allow the Pentagon to really go with other peoples stuff for major contracts, but at least for smaller ones the Pentagon could smack some knuckles occasionally.

That would be a very interesting paper to read. I will have to look for it and otherwise I agree with you.

[Phier]

When the people writing the checks are not the ones paying the bills, this is what happens.

[Pielstick]

The Global Hawk story is an interesting one that has been rumbling on for a while now.

The USAF is basically being forced to buy a platform it doesn't want (Global Hawk) and retire a platform it wants to keep (U-2).

On a related note about seven years ago I attended a lecture at HMS Collingwood about how poor the Royal Navy's procurement and support process was. We were shown a number of utterly ridiculous modifications that were made to ships (think 6ft tall machine gun mounts, aerials places in the firing arcs of guns, etc) yet they all met the official spec written by RN or MoD staff. My own experience in the following years bears that out.... lots of money spent on poorly thought out modifications and additions where you want to shoot the guy who wrote the spec. I even got into a very heated argument with a MoD engineer during a refit in 2012 about a new modification. I suggested the proposed location of a control panel for a new piece of equipment was bad and suggested it be located elsewhere. I was basically told to STFU. Didn't seem to matter that I was there as a representative of the ship's staff and would be the one that would actually have to take that sytem to sea and use it. WTF would I know.....?

[Adar]

On a related note about seven years ago I attended a lecture at HMS Collingwood about how poor the Royal Navy's procurement and support process was. We were shown a number of utterly ridiculous modifications that were made to ships (think 6ft tall machine gun mounts, aerials places in the firing arcs of guns, etc) yet they all met the official spec written by RN or MoD staff. My own experience in the following years bears that out.... lots of money spent on poorly thought out modifications and additions where you want to shoot the guy who wrote the spec. I even got into a very heated argument with a MoD engineer during a refit in 2012 about a new modification. I suggested the proposed location of a control panel for a new piece of equipment was bad and suggested it be located elsewhere. I was basically told to STFU. Didn't seem to matter that I was there as a representative of the ship's staff and would be the one that would actually have to take that sytem to sea and use it. WTF would I know.....?

I was at an air force museum in Sweden and reading about the development of Viggen versus older jets was very interesting. It was a ground breaking aircraft in the sense that active pilots and crew were involved in the development process in order to make sure that things were placed in convenient locations based on testing

It is sad to see that things actually seem to go in the reverse in modern day procurement as contracts rules over common sense.

[Pielstick]

It is sad to see that things actually seem to go in the reverse in modern day procurement as contracts rules over common sense.

It's been going on since forever. I read an excellent book a couple of years ago called Empire of the Clouds, about the post WW2 British aviation industry. It focuses a lot on Bill Waterford, who was the chief test pilot at Gloster on both the late Meteors and the Javelin. He believed his job was to ensure the service pilots got the best aircraft possible, but the prevailing attitude in the industry at the time was the test pilot was there simply to rubber stamp everything, not rock the boat, and to be a salesman. Waterford butted heads with Gloster management many times and eventually quit over potentially fatal flaws he saw with the design of the Javelin which were being ignored. His deputy took Waterford's place and a year later was killed in one of the Javelin prototypes as a result of exactly the problem Waterford warned of.

[conon394]

The USAF is basically being forced to buy a platform it doesn't want (Global Hawk) and retire a platform it wants to keep (U-2).

Do you have a link for that - because logistically it looks like its a better option now. I hate to say it but I'm not sure I trust the air force brass arguing against replacing a maned aircraft with a drone. It means they are just step closer to being the US Army Air force.

It can't really keep the U2 some of its airframes are 40+ years old, and so are many of its basic systems like flight control.

[Pielstick]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...r-Force-budget

The pertinent bits:

For several years, the Air Force has tried to divest itself of the Global Hawk, a long-range drone that service officials claim is too expensive, in favor of maintaining U-2 manned spy planes. Those attempts have been blocked by congressional supporters of the Global Hawk, developed by Northrop Grumman.

Hostage was more direct.

“It appears that I will be told I have to continue to purchase Global Hawks, and given the budget picture that we have, I cannot afford both the U-2 and the Global Hawk,” the Air Combat Command leader said. “What that means is that we are going to have to spend buckets of money to get the Global Hawk up to some semblance of capability that the U-2 currently has. It is going to cost a lot of money, and it is going to take time, and as I lose the U-2 fleet, I now have a high-altitude ISR fleet that is not very useful in a contested environment.”

[Condottiere 40K]

The knives are out, not only between Congressmen and the military battling on which programmes to keep on life support (Warthog), but also internecine, between the Guard and the Army.

[DarthShizNit]

If the US really want's to get serious about cutting the military budget, all it needs to do is go after the ing contractors and mishandled contracts.

[Condottiere 40K]

Who'll go screeching to their Congressional Representatives.