Sequestration Impact on the Navy

[helolumpy]

Sat through a brief from my ISIC and our Region Commander said that we need to start "doing less with less". When we get cuts in manning or funding, we are to report what the loss in functionality is and we are to actually lose some functions (and kerp them lost).

I think he's reached the point where he sees Big Navy cut $$$ or personnel but everyone still reports FMC and is looking to do something about it (my supposition, he was not at this brief). Degradations show up in DRRS then cuts have zero impact, although that is only from the perspective of the bean-counters.

 

[bert]

The acquisition process is indeed a mess that causes a lot of wasted money. However, that's not something that sequestration will fix. More likely, it will cut funding to a lot of high-visibility programs, and cost a lot of contractors their jobs. It's hard to say where that will leave us in the test community, since we rely so heavily on contractors for day-to-day work.

But if we were forced to have less maybe we could get over some of the institutional hurdles (lobbyists and congress, for instance) that keep reform from being attractive or even possible.

 

[707guy]

But if we were forced to have less maybe we could get over some of the institutional hurdles (lobbyists and congress, for instance) that keep reform from being attractive or even possible.

Possible but I see Congress holding on even tighter to pet projects given the way the entire economy is right now. No congressman wants to go home and tell the folks they couldn't save their job.

 

[bert]

Possible but I see Congress holding on even tighter to pet projects given the way the entire economy is right now. No congressman wants to go home and tell the folks they couldn't save their job.

It isn't about cutting particular projects, it's about systemic reform to the process. But we need a severe enough impetus to force a change because too many people benefit from the current system. Abject failure in multiple projects might cause enough pain to enough important entities to give that impetus.

 

[707guy]

Agreed - but will those in Congress? I'm thinking there will be more of a "cut his/her pet project but not mine" mentality that will impede the failure of multiple projects.

 

[Brett327]

It isn't about cutting particular projects, it's about systemic reform to the process. But we need a severe enough impetus to force a change because too many people benefit from the current system. Abject failure in multiple projects might cause enough pain to enough important entities to give that impetus.

This is a pretty optimistic outlook. I'm curious as to the other instances of "systemic reform" which may have occurred in history. That's an awful lot of institutional inertia to overcome.

 

[helolumpy]

That's an awful lot of institutional inertia to overcome.

The US Navy invented institution inertia almost 238 years ago...

 

[phrogpilot73]

The waste in acquisition programs dwarfs any and all end of FY spendex. It's not even close.

I disagree. Is there waste in aquisitions? Yes. Is it as bad as in the fleet? No.

We just spend $250,000 on fucking nothing. And we're one command. Mulitply that across the Navy/Marine Corps.

 

[bert]

This is a pretty optimistic outlook. I'm curious as to the other instances of "systemic reform" which may have occurred in history. That's an awful lot of institutional inertia to overcome.

It is way past optimistic. But sequestration will at least put an end to the business as usual of doing more with less. Is it enough to inspire constructive change? Probably not, but nothing else seems likely to do it.

 

[Gatordev]

I disagree. Is there waste in aquisitions? Yes. Is it as bad as in the fleet? No.

We just spend $250,000 on fucking nothing. And we're one command. Mulitply that across the Navy/Marine Corps.

You're thinking micro, though. Yes, there's waste when you add it up, but does that compare to the even more waste in acquisitions? Does a few 10's of millions compare to multiple systems that end up going at least a decade (or more) past its scheduled in-service date and untold amounts of over-budget? I'm guessing the numbers aren't anywhere near equal.

BTW, $250K isn't normal EOY spending for a Navy REGNAV squadron. Reserve side, possibly.

 

[scoober78]

This is a pretty optimistic outlook. I'm curious as to the other instances of "systemic reform" which may have occurred in history. That's an awful lot of institutional inertia to overcome.

Military change is a really interesting topic, both in terms of the "tactical" level...that is tactics and battlefield technologies, but in the sociological/customs/traditions sense. I took a class on the former...here's the abstract:

GOVT 483(4837) The Military and New Technology (also S&TS 483[4831]) (III)
Military organizations are seen paradoxically as both inflexible, hide-bound institutions and avid proponents of new technology. This seminar examines changes over time in the attitude of the military toward new technology and analyze competing explanations, including concepts from science studies, for these changes. Concludes with an analysis of the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs. Readings include John Ellis, The Social History of the Machine Gun, and Steven Rosen, Winning the Next War. (IR)

Winning the Next War is a fantastic book if you're interested. The upshot though, was that while militaries are extremely willing to adopt what I described above as "tactical" change, they are unbelievably resistant to structural change and innovation. There are exceptions of course, but I don't see acquisitions being one of them. As was mentioned above, there are simply too many paychecks at stake.

To me, it's similar to tax law...we all know and agree that it's absurdly complicated and cumbersome and some would say unfair...but it isn't going to change because there are so many people who earn a living creating complexity (politicians), explaining the complexity (tax lawyers), helping you do your part in obeying the complexity (accountants) etc...

 

[Spekkio]

I disagree. Is there waste in aquisitions? Yes. Is it as bad as in the fleet? No.

We just spend $250,000 on fucking nothing. And we're one command. Mulitply that across the Navy/Marine Corps.

$250k * approx 430 (more ships, but not each command gets equal funding) = $107,000,000.

DON budget: 156,000,000,000
Operations and Maintenance budget: 50,000,000,000, which is where I'm assuming your 250,000 came out of.
Procurement budget: 42,500,000,000
R&D budget: 17,000,000,000

Source

So if you were to cut 100% of the money commands spend just so that their budget doesn't get slashed next year, you would only save 0.1% of the Navy's budget. This is why I get pissed off when the Navy penny-pinches in a way that screws Sailors (no, we can't afford $1,000 to send PO Smith to school for a week; E-7 and above are entitled to bachelor's quarters with a kitchen but that costs too much so we'll put them in junior enlisted barracks and still not allow their wives to sleep over). All those 'savings' are negligible when compared to the mammoth size of the overall budget, and I'm left wondering why people smart enough to get college educations and become an Admirals, Generals, or US Representatives can't do simple arithmetic.

It's not just military, either. Romney's website has a bullet point for cutting $300,000,000 from a $3,600,000,000,000 budget as part of his plan to reign in federal spending and balance the budget. Really? That's 0.01% of the overall federal spending budget. Good job, you really saved us from going broke on that one, Mr. Mitt!

 

[KBayDog]

Instead of using words (i.e., $1.5 billion), can we just start using numerals? It might give the general public an idea of the magnitude of the numbers we're dealing with.

"$16 billion? $16 trillion? That's, you know, like pretty much the same, right? LOL!!11!!AmericanIdolOMG!!!"

$16 trillion? That's a term that rolls off the tongue pretty easily.
$16,000,000,000,000?. Holy crap, that's a big number!

 

[Spekkio]

Done

 

[Renegade One]

The waste in acquisition programs dwarfs any and all end of FY spendex. It's not even close.

You're probably right, but just from an "industry perspective":

Increasingly, industry seems to have been asked to "build us something that includes 5 or 6 sequential miracles"...at an affordable, well-defined and predictable cost. YOU assume all the risk when the miracles don't shake out as expected. We'll hammer you if there's any cost growth, and blame it on industry.

Examples:
LCS: Hey, Mr. Industry, Please sign a contract to build low-cost "sea frames" designed to "commercial standards", and then "BOHICA" when we tell you, after the fact, that commercial standards won't meet service/congressional scrutiny, so then go and do it all over to make sure your sea frames meet "Naval Shipbuilding Standards". On YOUR dime. You should have known better, after all...and, while you're at it, design these ships to be fully capable of operating/integrating three as-yet undesigned and undefined "mission modules", each of which will come with its own assembly of as yet undesigned/undefined UAVs, interface challenges, manning issues, etc.).

JSF: Hey, Mr. Industry, we want an airplane that includes, and relies upon, dozens of technologies (stealth, supersonic, STOVL capability (in addition to conventional and CTOL variants, of course...each with their own objective/threshold requirements, like range, payload, landing weight and speed, etc.), composites and other materials fabrication, sensors, integration, HMI, helmet-cuing systems, shipboard interface, maintenance, security concerns, life-cycle costs, etc.) that don't yet exist and we want it "on time and on budget". You figure it out. When "concurrent development" costs go crazy...well, what do you have to say for yourself?

Presidential Helo: Hey, Mr. Industry, please propose a cost-effective "replacement" for the current fleet of HMX-1 "legacy" airframes. After we get your signature on the dotted line, please include almost every single capability that currently resides on Air Force ONE, to include nuclear weapons-secure comms, worldwide comms, full VTC and MILSPEC SIPR capability, full galley, POTUS-appropriate "suite" and other creature comfort features...well, you get the idea. What? You didn't read between the lines in the procurement offering? What are you...a child?

I'm sure there are more.