You are perfectly illustrating the problem… which is you. I don’t say that to be pejorative as in you personally, but rather the active-duty component that turns a sour face to every new method and then falls back to the dogma that is failing. You can’t get software updates because you keep going back to the same primes, then turn a jaundiced eye if someone suggests there is another way—just because they are former bros in polos? Believe it or not, some of us really care about the customer. More and more companies outside the big five primes are doing things the way AFSOC does. AGILE software development was the start, and it changed the game. For those who don’t know, computer engineering major dinosaurs like me learned to program using a method called waterfall. In short, you start at the beginning of the problem and write the program sequentially. Years ago, industry came to understand that this is a horribly inefficient way to program and developed a method called AGILE/SCRUM. AGILE breaks the problem down into segments and assigns effort based on the toughest problems to solve within the task. I had a classified program in 2017, and the government came to do a progress review for milestone payments. They were completely clueless and actually wanted to terminate our contract because we had not started on the first module. Despite 12 months of trying to educate them, they were so stuck in their dogma they could not wrap their heads around a new methodology. I had to go directly to the three-star, who stopped them from canceling our contract. Ninety days later, we delivered the completed project nine months early and with zero defects. We even gave the government an SDK (Software Development Kit) for free so they could make changes on their own—meaning no vendor lock. A few months later, that program experienced a crash due to Spatial D. We delivered a software aid to reduce risk in less than 30 days (17 with regression testing), and we did it at cost (approximately $90K). We used the same approach on our E-3 replacement and the KC-390 by employing MOSA/SOSA. If you don’t know, MOSA stands for Modular Open Systems Architecture, which means that in all new designs almost all of the “boxes” can be swapped out or replaced by non-OEM parts. That means the aircraft OEM does not have vendor lock, and if the government finds a new, cheaper vendor that develops a better box of knobs, they can swap it out on their own. There are ICDs that regulate the input and output of each box so anyone can compete, which drives faster innovation and lower costs to the government. There are several problems with the E-7. Yes, it is “proven” — but proven not to work all that well at times. Look no further than South Korea and its trials and tribulations trying to operate it in very hot conditions. In fact, they are divesting it and going with… a freaking bizjet with a radar. Who would have thought it? Another problem is the 737 platform. The airframe and wing have been engineered to the limit of what is possible without starting from scratch. As a result, you are stuck with a platform that will struggle to get to FL350 fully loaded, which severely limits what can be done due to physics. Boeing is the other issue. The 737 production pipeline has a five-year backlog. Yes, the USAF can cut to the front of the line, but our allies can’t, so you are going to end up with a mixed fleet. The allies have caught on and are all (sans the Aussies, who are already invested) going with bizjets. It’s sad that our allies will have better capabilities (20 years newer and operating at FL510). Embraer, thanks to help from L3Harris and now Northrop Grumman, is taking the risk out by certifying platforms on its own — meaning it is not waiting for the government to do it (see the Gripen example). They are getting the certifications on their own dime and doing it rapidly. Industry is not perfect, and there are some who are simply there to make a dollar. At some point, the Bobs have to invest some intellectual capital and actually read the proposal and the engineering work instead of hand-waving away nine months of effort in less than an hour. There are ways to assess risk, force companies to give honest assessments, and hold their feet to the fire — but they don’t. Instead, you pivot back to the big five primes who have been battering you for 50 years. Finally, I do take it personally — because not everyone is trying to screw the government. Again, I’m not attacking you personally. I don’t know you. I’m grateful you stepped forward to serve, but we don’t know each other. So let me briefly share my story and a situation I encountered that should tell you where I stand. When I retired, I was recruited to interview with a big company, which I did. They went quiet on me, which was fine, as I was in the throes of the airline hiring process. I was hired by Delta and was waiting for training when the company suddenly called to make an offer. Something had been messed up in the HR process, and they thought they had made an offer two months prior. Anyway, they wanted to bring me on as a VP with a pay package equal to seven-year pay at Delta, accelerated from there. I was sitting at a bar with my wife when the offer came in, and we laughed knowing I had the Delta job. She jokingly said, “Ask for more.” So, over my third beer, I crafted a note and asked for a lot more — and they accepted. Fast forward a year, and I was working some tough problems when the engineers came to me with newly developed, highly classified technology that solved a very difficult issue. I’m purposely being vague here, but they needed diagrams from the government to ensure it would fit on the platform without interference. I made some calls, and a well-meaning, hard-charging bro on the staff — who had previously worked for me — sent me the aircraft diagrams. I opened the PDF, and at the bottom they were labeled “Proprietary” by the OEM. I immediately closed the PDF, notified my boss, IT, and our in-house counsel. They verified that I hadn’t forwarded the email, notified the OEM and the government, and closed the issue. A few weeks later, the SVP of Engineering approached me and asked if I had ever received the diagrams. I explained what had happened, and he got an odd look on his face. He then asked if I could share them with just him. I immediately said no. He then asked if I could at least tell him what they said — specifically the measurements. Again, I said no and went straight back to my boss and in-house counsel. I was prepared to quit if anyone pushed the issue further. Fortunately, they did not, and the SVP quietly left the company a few months later. In my ten years in industry (I retired last year), I only had one other incident like that, and it went down much the same way. In both instances, the individuals with questionable ethics were career industry Bobs. I know not all former bros wearing polos have the same ethics, but I did. So it was beyond frustrating to take a solution to the government that was not only better and cheaper but would save lives — only to have some jaundiced staffer pay little to no attention to my brief and immediately write it off with zero intellectual rigor. It’s a two-way street. As long as the staff maintains the attitude you’ve expressed, then you — and the Bros — are going to be stuck with the same crap they’ve been buying for 50 years.