Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	They Were Great
Date:	9/7/2020 9:21:22 PM

Yesterday the military leaders were great...now Trump is throwing them under his bus....

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	They Were Great
Date:	9/8/2020 7:56:46 AM

Do you find untruth in that?  Eisenhower warned of it years ago and it is only more prevalent and sophisticated now

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	They Were Great
Date:	9/8/2020 11:55:26 AM

The "business" of Generals and military people is to fight wars.  They consent to it, they train for it, they do it.  If there are no wars, there really isn't a reason to have advanced military weapons.  And it is a revolving door to some extent - almost all of the industry guys I worked with were all retired miltary or had served.  Why are they hired?  Because they understand the culture, and they understand the needs of the military.  

It is my observation that one of the reasons that costs go up on weapons systems is that the miltary goes into most programs with a vague notion of what they want.  Over the course of time, the military wants to gain additional capabilities, so they change the requirements and they keep on changing the requirements untill the notion of the original capability is lost.  Then there is the funding problem - the budget keeps changing year to year and that leads to stretching out the delivery schedule, which adds costs to the contract, since the companies cannot take advantage of economies of scale when they buy the parts.  Add to that is that weapons systems of today are technology dependent and we all know how fast technology is changing to the point where you start out with one "chip" and before you can settle on that "chip" there is a newer, but more expensive "chip".  You really can't stablize the design anymore.  

Trump seems to like the idea of the military more than he likes the reality.  He really doesn't understand the culture and he doesn't understand the way they think.  The military teaches people to plan and execute, to be logical, and consisent.  To be "apolitical".  Trump doesn't understand it because that is not the way he likes to operate.  Remember how he liked Kelly until Kelly was his Chief of Staff and then turned against him?  That's because Kelly wanted to impose a systematic way of doing things, Trump felt that cramped his style.  He came to dislike Mattis too, for the same reasons.  He's not going to like anyone that sits in the Pentagon, because it is a foreign culture to him, and the way he operates is a far cry from the way the miitary thinks.  

Just my opinion.  

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	They Were Great
Date:	9/8/2020 12:02:15 PM

Thanks Hound for your commentary.  However, isn't that what a SecDef is for?  To bridge that political/military gap/

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Spot-on, Hound
Date:	9/8/2020 1:25:06 PM

Especially your second paragraph.

I have been on both sides of this equation and if Trump truly believes what he says, he doesn't understand his own military.  I spent 22 years in the Air Force, and when I retired was the Program Director for six separate programs with each having its own Program Manager (PM).  One of the biggest problems we have in defense contracting is that the folks responsible for defining the work to be done are not sufficiently schooled in how to write a Statement of Work so that the DoD gets the hardware, software, or service it wants for a fair price.  Another problem the PM runs into is that the functional customer doesn't know the specifics of what he or she wants, and thus the PM must write the SOW in such a way that there is flexibility to responsibly adjust as the program evolves.  One must remember there is risk on the part of both the buyer and tyhe seller.  If the SOW is too general (and it is a firm fixed price contract) the contractor must up their bid to cover the "we don't know what we don't know" element.  If the SOW is overly specific, the Government increases the risk that the specified product is not what ended up being needed.

In my 53 total years' service I have had the pleasure (AND non-pleasure) of working with and knowing many, many DoD folks, both active duty military and civil service, and the overwhelming majority are dedicated to the mission and did not try to enrich the defense contracting establishment or themselves, but just tried to be part of developing and running the best military fighting unit possible. 

There is no doubt that the defense industry is a large chunk of our economy, and there are ways that dollars could be saved.  However, the waste is more through ill-conceived or ill-executed contractual agreements or unanticipated changes in the required product or service, or the dates that produce or service is needed than any pocket-lining by our senior military leaders.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Just so you know
Date:	9/8/2020 2:15:53 PM

The inability to write of scope of work is not just with DoD.  I've seen SOWs for environmental work from DoD, DoI, DoE, USACOE, etc. and they are often poorly done and hard to bid.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Just so you know
Date:	9/8/2020 2:21:35 PM

So " it's good enough for govt work" comes into play, huh?

Craftsmanship is a thing of the past in so many arenas!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Just so you know
Date:	9/8/2020 3:53:25 PM

Personally I think its the nature of the beast.  Govt procurement is so bulky and cumbersome that the best of intentions get lost in the fog of the bureaucracy.  That's why I believe that the less they do the better......

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	They Were Great
Date:	9/8/2020 4:10:13 PM

Well, yes and no.  They are political appointees, but they spend far more time in the Pentagon than they do in the WH.  He is left trying to balance the needs of the military (and think of the million military members) to the desires of the Administration, and he is also anwerable to the Hill.  Think of the Military as a big-ass air craft carrier - you don't sling a turn on a whim.  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Spot-on, Hound
Date:	9/8/2020 4:21:06 PM

That is so true about the SOW.  The government is notoriously bad in writing SOWs.  And there is a lot of pressure to put everyting on firm fiexed price contracts now, so the contractors are going to bid the worst case scenerio, so they don't lose money.  

What I find somewhat amusing is that Norm Augustine wrote his book about government acquisition way back in the day, after he was the USD for Acquisition and it hasn't changed all that much.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Just so you know
Date:	9/8/2020 5:02:53 PM

I know how my specialty has had to deal with supply chain upheaval during COVID.  I cannot imagine having to deal with that issue on the scale of government defense procurement.  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Just so you know
Date:	9/8/2020 6:23:21 PM

I think having worked with the defense procurement system, it gives you are real appreciation of the problems associated with the COVID crisis.  

I knew a general that headed up a parts procurement organization.  The Chief of Staff of the Army decided to change from hats to black barets and said "wouldn't it be great if they all had them for the 4th of July".  That then became a mandate and the general (who really was a great guy) found only one source that could meet that deadline and the company was in China.  So they got the barets and then someone realized that they were made in China - which of course wouldn't do.  The general got fired.  Sometimes you can be between a rock and a hard place.