Applications Open for the CNO's Rapid Innovation Cell

[LET73]

I hope my previous comments didn't come across as opposition to any and all innovation. There's often a better way of doing things, and the argument that the way we've always done it works well enough doesn't mean no one should look for a better way. At the same time, I will say it's supremely frustrating when the entire command gets to be the beta testers for a system that looked good on paper but wasn't ever tested by the people who would eventually use it--but by the time anyone realizes that, it's too late; there's no more funding to maintain the old system, and everyone is worse off. Small-scale tests where no one has a financial stake in the success/failure of the solution would be great.

 

[Renegade One]

Acquisiton is so broken that there is no way of fixing it outside of scuttling the whole damn thing and starting fresh. It is the perfect example of what happens when the military becomes a bloated beaurocracy mired in political shit.

Can I assume that you've always put down "anywhere in the acquisition process" as number 1 on your dream sheets? You would seem to be a natural…and we need those.

It is a dirty, f'ed up process that has royally shown its ass in the past decade, but yet we march on with no end in sight. We need more projects like the super hornet and P-8 and less like the new tanker, JSF, and the like.

Yes…much of it is like making sausage. What, precisely, did/do you love about the P-8 acquisition process? No IOC yet…so do we really know? Are the votes already in because it gives the MPA pilot community "graduate quals" to join "the show"? Or are there any "factoids" available other than "higher, faster and farther" (which may all be good, you understand), in an environment and warfare area that I have always been told to believe is more about "low, slow and deliberate"?

Unfortunately for us, we are hamstrung by our retarded political leadership that holds the purse strings.

At least you seem to understand the parts about "political [e.g., civilian…] leadership" and "purse strings". That might be good enough for now. They will ever remain LIMFACS under which we you will need to operate and serve.

 

[CommodoreMid]

Can I assume that you've always put down "anywhere in the acquisition process" as number 1 on your dream sheets? You would seem to be a natural…and we need those.


Yes…much of it is like making sausage. What, precisely, did/do you love about the P-8 acquisition process? No IOC yet…so do we really know? Are the votes already in because it gives the MPA pilot community "graduate quals" to join "the show"? Or are there any "factoids" available other than "higher, faster and farther" (which may all be good, you understand), in an environment and warfare area that I have always been told to believe is more about "low, slow and deliberate"?


At least you seem to understand the parts about "political [e.g., civilian…] leadership" and "purse strings". That might be good enough for now. They will ever remain LIMFACS under which we you will need to operate and serve.

I wouldn't say because we're still doing the LRIP thing in P-8 that the acquisition process is screwed, though I won't say it was amazing. We're dealing with a ton of issues that are quite frankly a pain in the ass as the first operational squadron, but overall I love this plane. I enjoyed my P-3 time, but for all the things that are different (and not necessarily for the better in some cases) our increased capabilities in other areas make this plane a such more valuable asset in a lot of warfare areas. Already we're seeing ways to employ this plane that I don't think I would have dreamed about a year ago before I started transition. I'm very interested and excited to see this community 10 years down the road and how they've figured out solutions and uses to issues we're discovering now. It's definitely painful at times, but overall totally worth it.

 

[Spekkio]

This doesn't answer the P8 question, but it's a specific example of how our process is broken:

VA class was contracted with a specific version of a CCS, then is upgraded in overhaul immediately after sea trials. In one boat, the fiber optics system had to be replaced for a cool $500k (it was 'failproof' so not designed for ease of replacement). None of this is tacked onto the launch cost or quoted in any official cost figures, which btw, was still over the initial budget. Oh, and those fancy new photonics masts? They have a heat signature of an underwater volcano erupting. Ooops. To put the icing on the cake, they also managed to make berthing smaller. This is a 'successful' acquisition. There are many good things about the class of ship, but why are the taxpayers paying Lockheed Martin to install outdated equipment, and then paying them again to upgrade it? Why did the photonics mast make it past testing with such an obvious counter-detection weakness? It makes no sense.

For a civilian analog, consider that you were expanding your business to 3 new cities over the course of 15 years and had hired a company to build office buildings in each city. Then you decided to pay Dell for a contract to purchase 100 PCs with Pentium 4 1.5 Ghz single-core processors and 17" LCD displays in every building. By the time the 2nd building is built, those PCs are antiques, but you already paid for them. So you spend money AGAIN to upgrade your PCs so you can compete in the modern business world. Through some magic hocus-pocus, none of these costs are transparent to your share holders; you tell them how great it is that you expanded with record-low cost and efficiency!

 

[gotta_fly]

This thread illustrates why we need this think tank. There will always be those who fall over themselves to defend the status quo and party line.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Renegade One]

... I enjoyed my P-3 time, but for all the things that are different (and not necessarily for the better in some cases) our increased capabilities in other areas make this plane a such more valuable asset in a lot of warfare areas. Already we're seeing ways to employ this plane that I don't think I would have dreamed about a year ago before I started transition. I'm very interested and excited to see this community 10 years down the road and how they've figured out solutions and uses to issues we're discovering now. It's definitely painful at times, but overall totally worth it.

I'll tell you plain…some of this worries me. Correct me if I'm totally out to lunch, but isn't your community about the only airborne asset that does the "Awfully Slow Warfare" thing in the open ocean scenario? Every "shiny new object" mission area they throw at you seems to be just one more reason not to do the core mission.

You offer up to any COCOM a shiny new toy and s/he's going to figure out how to co-opt your primary warfare mission space. I didn't just make this up...

Lemme be CLEAR…it's wonderful to bring "swing capabilities" to certain theaters and operations. But when there's something more basic or important to do…if only because no one else is doing it…well, you get the idea.

 

[CommodoreMid]

Thank you for your advice on how to conduct ASW. Trust me, the P-8 is quite capable of kicking ass and taking names at ASW. Without getting into our tactical considerations on an open forum, yes, especially if you came from a P-3 background (it will be interesting to see how our new guys who only know P-8 develop as TACCOs/PPCs) it takes getting used to dealing with going a lot faster, but I will take the P-8 any day.

 

[BusyBee604]

... (it will be interesting to see how our new guys who only know P-8 develop as TACCOs/PPCs) it takes getting used to dealing with going a lot faster

Should be no sweat with proper training (FRS & Squadron leadership). In addition, they won't have the additional burden of 'unlearning' all the Warpig tactical shit & operational procedural/airspeed differences..

...but I will take the P-8 any day.

As it should be. Were it otherwise, the huge investment in the new type aircraft would be questionable, no?
BzB

 

[helolumpy]

This thread illustrates why we need this think tank. There will always be those who fall over themselves to defend the status quo and party line.

Do you really think that 15 LTs, even with the CNO's ear, is going to unfuck the acquisitions process?

 

[gotta_fly]

I'm sure they won't, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to improve whatever they can. For what it's worth, I wasn't referring to you.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[MIDNJAC]

Thank you for your advice on how to conduct ASW. Trust me, the P-8 is quite capable of kicking ass and taking names at ASW. Without getting into our tactical considerations on an open forum, yes, especially if you came from a P-3 background (it will be interesting to see how our new guys who only know P-8 develop as TACCOs/PPCs) it takes getting used to dealing with going a lot faster, but I will take the P-8 any day.

I got to take part in an exercise with one participating recently, and I will say that I was impressed. It's clearly very much still in development, tactically speaking, but the capabilities are impressive.

 

[e6bflyer]

Can I assume that you've always put down "anywhere in the acquisition process" as number 1 on your dream sheets? You would seem to be a natural…and we need those.


Yes…much of it is like making sausage. What, precisely, did/do you love about the P-8 acquisition process? No IOC yet…so do we really know? Are the votes already in because it gives the MPA pilot community "graduate quals" to join "the show"? Or are there any "factoids" available other than "higher, faster and farther" (which may all be good, you understand), in an environment and warfare area that I have always been told to believe is more about "low, slow and deliberate"?


At least you seem to understand the parts about "political [e.g., civilian…] leadership" and "purse strings". That might be good enough for now. They will ever remain LIMFACS under which we you will need to operate and serve.

R1, I think you are way off here.

VP Navy was (is) flying one of the most antiquated weapons systems out there and still provides this country with a core competency that is not only crucial when it comes to a shooting war with the "majors", but isn't done effectively by any other platform. The P-8 has thus far been a perfect example of how to do it right with regard to taking a major weapons system from drawing board to IOC. It has kept all of its promises with regard to schedule and budget and hasn't yet shamed its parent service with disgraceful headlines about how bloated and expensive it is. The VFA community also accomplished the same thing through the Super Hornet. It got a brand new aircraft and sold it as an upgrade. Bravo. In the meantime, the Air Force bought a gold plated nightmare that is still causing problems.

My dream sheet doesn't have a fucking thing to do with how jacked up acquisition is. Just because I haven't volunteered to fix it from the inside doesn't mean it isn't completely dysfunctional. I don't volunteer down at the methodone clinic either, but I think heroin addiction is horrible.

Let's just say I have dabbled in acquisition enough to see its ugly side. The public is losing faith in it because we as a country have missed the mark on several huge projects which have then become too big to fail and have cost us a fortune. It is just like social security and Medicare. Everyone knows it is broken, but nobody wants to take the painful steps necessary to fix it.

 

[e6bflyer]

Do you really think that 15 LTs, even with the CNO's ear, is going to unfuck the acquisitions process?

No, but it is a start in the right direction. Nothing short of a financial collapse or a complete change in the way we acquire new platforms is going to change the process. It is too mired in politics.

 

[ProwlerPilot]

Wow. Just reading the discussions here is the exact reason this group is needed. The people railing against the F'd up system and how nothing ever gets done and why things take so long are the same people putting up roadblocks to this initiative (thus re-inforcing nothing ever getting done). No one knew they wanted the iPod, or the iPad until Steve Jobs told them they did. He had a vision of something that had never been done, was told it was "impossible" and couldn't be accomplished, and then released a line of the most revolutionary products to hit this generation. Do I think that the iPod of the Navy is going to come out of this group? I hope so! Disruptive innovation is what changes things. Changes how we work, interact, get things done. These type of groups are what fuel those changes. Having a collection of innovative members that have the backing of some heavies and a checkbook to explore some of the options with what appears to be little pressure for "guaranteed success" sounds like a great way to possible uncover some real new ideas.

I'm sure 100 years ago there were plenty of SWOs and Aviator saying "You want to put a plane on a ship?!?! That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard."

Best of luck to you guys... this sounds awesome. Ideo is a pretty amazing company and if that is the model you all are running, I'm very envious of your position.

 

[e6bflyer]

This doesn't answer the P8 question, but it's a specific example of how our process is broken:

VA class was contracted with a specific version of a CCS, then is upgraded in overhaul immediately after sea trials. In one boat, the fiber optics system had to be replaced for a cool $500k (it was 'failproof' so not designed for ease of replacement). None of this is tacked onto the launch cost or quoted in any official cost figures, which btw, was still over the initial budget. Oh, and those fancy new photonics masts? They have a heat signature of an underwater volcano erupting. Ooops. To put the icing on the cake, they also managed to make berthing smaller. This is a 'successful' acquisition. There are many good things about the class of ship, but why are the taxpayers paying Lockheed Martin to install outdated equipment, and then paying them again to upgrade it? Why did the photonics mast make it past testing with such an obvious counter-detection weakness? It makes no sense.

For a civilian analog, consider that you were expanding your business to 3 new cities over the course of 15 years and had hired a company to build office buildings in each city. Then you decided to pay Dell for a contract to purchase 100 PCs with Pentium 4 1.5 Ghz single-core processors and 17" LCD displays in every building. By the time the 2nd building is built, those PCs are antiques, but you already paid for them. So you spend money AGAIN to upgrade your PCs so you can compete in the modern business world. Through some magic hocus-pocus, none of these costs are transparent to your share holders; you tell them how great it is that you expanded with record-low cost and efficiency!

Perfect examples, thank you. The same thing is done during aircraft carrier procurement, at least when we were building Nimitz boats. It has something to do with the expense being more to change ships drawings and put it all through the T and E phase again. Acquisition is designed to allow for this type of thing (spiral upgrades), but in some cases, I guess it isn't worth doing. As an example, the Bush was still built with pneumatic tubes installed between CVICC and other work centers. I doubt that system was even turned on to test.

The VA class was actually a stroke of genius. All the test and eval was done using Cold War dollars to build three test platforms at incredible cost (Seawolf class) which allowed us to design a "cheaper" project for full rate production later. When Seawolf became politically unsustainable, they scuttled it and "redesigned" the next generation of sub as a leaner version using a lot of the same technology. Sounds kind of familiar, eh DDG folks?