Sequestration Impact on the Navy

[Spekkio]

I don't know if procurement can ever be fixed with the current model. I mean, where else do you get this kind of economic arrangement:

-The entity that controls the funds (Congress) has an infinite supply of mandatory revenue via taxes and an infinite debt ceiling, so they have no real incentive to be cost-effective.
-The funding entity refuses to utilize current, proven businesses to supply COTS products and instead opts to independently reinvent an inferior version of something that already exists (e.g., they could've used Under Armor, Nike, or any number of athletic companies to provide the Navy PT uniform).
-The entity that pitches the design criteria (high-ranking brass) doesn't use the product. So to make up for the ballooning cost of ridiculous design criteria, they penny pinch on habitability and comfort (VA class SSN racks in fwd berthing are less than a body-width apart, compared to two body widths apart on 688s. But sure glad we have those low-def 1990 tech photonics masts and fiber optic buswork that costs millions of dollars to replace if broken!).
-Fancy bells and whistles look better on paper than technology that just works and already exists.
-The entity that builds the product doesn't use the product, and since they are pre-paid to develop it, they have no incentive to make sure it 'works.'
-The people who actually use the final product (Sailors and Officers O-5 and below) have no choice but to use what's put in front of them, and have little say on the aforementioned design criteria.

The only way to really solve any of the above is to privatize the military, but that won't work because what happens when the U.S. is no longer the highest bidder for security?

 

[Aquonox]

Sometimes I think we can learn from Soviet ADM Sergey Gorshkov's alleged quote - "Better is the enemy of good enough."

 

[Spekkio]

Bonus is that as a result of the bloated spending on acquisition, we cut operational spending. Fat lot of good those fancy new jets do when the pilots who fly them are grounded to save on fuel costs.

 

[helolumpy]

Like General Amos said before Congress. He has three dials he can turn to control costs. The first is manpower. If you turn than dial down, it make take a decade to recover. The second is acquisition. If you turn that down it may take years to recover. In both of these cases, you may not feel the pain of those cuts for a few years.
The third is OPTAR. If you turn that down today, then you feel the pain today. If you need to turn it back up tomorrow, then you will see the increase immediately.

So, from a long term health of the service perspective, then cutting OPTAR makes the most sense until Congress gets is act sorted out.

 

[phrogdriver]

I'm blown away with how little we get for our defense dollars. The budget is bigger than it ever has been, yet we supposedly can't afford to cut a dime without massive personnel and OPTAR cuts.

We spend more on defense that the next twenty nations combined. Somehow I don't think we could take on all nineteen.

 

[Spekkio]

Like General Amos said before Congress. He has three dials he can turn to control costs. The first is manpower. If you turn than dial down, it make take a decade to recover. The second is acquisition. If you turn that down it may take years to recover. In both of these cases, you may not feel the pain of those cuts for a few years.
The third is OPTAR. If you turn that down today, then you feel the pain today. If you need to turn it back up tomorrow, then you will see the increase immediately.

So, from a long term health of the service perspective, then cutting OPTAR makes the most sense until Congress gets is act sorted out.

That's a load of bs. You can't instantly "dial up" lost training. The lost experience from a mid grade officer who has 80% of the sea time/flight hours as a guy in a previous generation cannot instantly be undone. That's like saying I can cut 15 minutes from a one hour workout over the course of years and still magically turn the performance back on.

Also it assumes that reforming acquisitions will need recovery, which is false IMO.

 

[BigRed389]

That's a load of bs. You can't instantly "dial up" lost training. The lost experience from a mid grade officer who has 80% of the sea time/flight hours as a guy in a previous generation cannot instantly be undone. That's like saying I can cut 15 minutes from a one hour workout over the course of years and still magically turn the performance back on.

Also it assumes that reforming acquisitions will need recovery, which is false IMO.

So, are you talking about cutting or reforming?

Every acquisition program exists because of a requirement written to address a perceived capability gap. You can't just say "cut it" without throwing the long term plans way the fuck off. OPNAV, HQMC, or whoever said if I don't buy something that does all this, I can't accomplish this or that in the future.
Turning programs on and off are quite literally like passing a law, with all the political bullshit involved as well.

If you're talking about reforming it, streamlining the CYA crap, maybe changing the way we write requirements so that we stop looking at solutions that as R1 put it, take 5-6 sequential miracles to accomplish, that's another story.

 

[bert]

I understand R1's frustration, but...

Industry is every bit as much to blame as govt for the issues. Over-promise/underbid to secure the contract because we can always go back for more? Sign us up!

Pay us to manage ourselves so the govt can reduce headcount? Sign us up for more $ and less effectiveness!

It took 3 to tango on our current mess of an acquisition system (with Congress as the the making-it-even-worse 3rd party).

 

[phrogpilot73]

I understand R1's frustration, but...

I agree with both you and R1 on this one. As a CSS contractor for NAVAIR, I was kinda the outsider looking in and I think that there are definitely some programs where the prime integrator got fucked by the government, and vice-versa.

 

[Spekkio]

So, are you talking about cutting or reforming?

Every acquisition program exists because of a requirement written to address a perceived capability gap. You can't just say "cut it" without throwing the long term plans way the fuck off. OPNAV, HQMC, or whoever said if I don't buy something that does all this, I can't accomplish this or that in the future.
Turning programs on and off are quite literally like passing a law, with all the political bullshit involved as well.

If you're talking about reforming it, streamlining the CYA crap, maybe changing the way we write requirements so that we stop looking at solutions that as R1 put it, take 5-6 sequential miracles to accomplish, that's another story.

Cutting and reforming are one in the same at this point.

The key words in your argument are "perceived" and "future." The reality is that we are not at war with any blue water Navy, and the sheer size of our fleet dwarfs the next 13 nation combined. I don't know what capability gap that flag/general officers think things like vertical takeoff capability from the JSF or low-def TV from hot photonics masts will close, but that is not the reality of our defense situation.

I can't fault the top brass, though. Their job is to get Congress to fund as much as possible. It's just that the guys writing the check aren't paying with their own funds.

My biggest issue with the General's statement, though, was that you can't instantly make up for thousands of hours of lost training.

 

[scoober78]

We spend more on defense that the next twenty nations combined. Somehow I don't think we could take on all nineteen.

Ain't that a no-shitter...well said.

 

[xj220]

Fat lot of good those fancy new jets do when the pilots who fly them are grounded to save on fuel costs.

But the simulators! We can do most of our training in them!

 

[MIDNJAC]

That's a load of bs. You can't instantly "dial up" lost training. The lost experience from a mid grade officer who has 80% of the sea time/flight hours as a guy in a previous generation cannot instantly be undone. That's like saying I can cut 15 minutes from a one hour workout over the course of years and still magically turn the performance back on.

Also it assumes that reforming acquisitions will need recovery, which is false IMO.

FWIW since I hit the fleet 10 months ago, I have flown my face off, every week, and my check-in date was the day folks came back from post-cruise leave (to give you an idea of where we were in the cycle). Multiple non-workup dets, and generally flying 3-4+ times a week, if not 2-a-days to support the schedule when others went on leave. I can't imagine the training being any more robust than it already is. Point being that it isn't so bad right now. My west coast bros have probably flown twice as much considering that they are on deployment more often than I eat dinner.

 

[xj220]

I think our training isn't so bad, but our manning is where we're really feeling the pain.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I think our training isn't so bad, but our manning is where we're really feeling the pain.

I'd agree with that, specifically the guys and gals downstairs making it all happen