Nationalizing Military Aircraft Aquisition

[FLEA]

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/07/us-may-need-nationalize-military-aircraft-industry-usaf-says/166894/

 

Interesting proposal, or more so, the problem set. The F-15EX was highly argued for on grounds to keep Boeing in the fighter game but what happens if they drop out an LM becomes the only supplier? 

[Blue]

Quote

Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, spoke Tuesday morning as the service finalizes ambitious plans to buy a new series of combat fighter jets called the Digital Century Series.

“We have multiple vendors who can still build a high-end, tactical platform,” Roper told reporters. “I think it’s really important that we find a new model where there are no big winners and no big losers, but continual competition.”

Sigh.  He's about two and a half years into his tenure as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.  This is a position where folks historically have spent anywhere from 1-3 years.  And he wants to completely up-end how we buy fighter jets?

At a base level, his reasoning is sound.  The reduction in players in the defense business is a bad deal for the services and the American taxpayer.  But the resultant "winner-take-all" production contracts are a great deal for the defense companies.  So, I'm sure Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop and the like are nodding politely at everything Mr Roper says, and will send a nice card thanking him for his service when he departs his position 6-9 months from now.

[Negatory]

Pretty defeatist attitude, huh?

I will tell you that a lot of smart people in AFMC are excited that someone is looking to fix some of the things that are wrong with the current acquisition/test/equip structure of the USAF and military at large. If this can help us be quicker and gives us more options, that is a good deal for America.  And at the end of the day, that’s what matters.

[SurelySerious]

13 hours ago, FLEA said:

The F-15EX was highly argued for on grounds to keep Boeing in the fighter game but what happens if they drop out an LM becomes the only supplier? 

I thought the EX was much less about Boeing production, and was put on contract because we finally realized the C model may have a sweet new radar but the airframe is 40 years old and ready to crump while we still rely on it for a mission. Politicians from MO probably have the view centric to the production line and jobs, though, so maybe there is that perspective. 

[FLEA]

32 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

I thought the EX was much less about Boeing production, and was put on contract because we finally realized the C model may have a sweet new radar but the airframe is 40 years old and ready to crump while we still rely on it for a mission. Politicians from MO probably have the view centric to the production line and jobs, though, so maybe there is that perspective. 

My understanding is it was a bit of both. The AF realised not getting the full buy order of 380 something F-22s was going to leave us far too short and the fact that after Boeing lost 2 massive fighter competitions in a row, and global F-15 sales were in decline as the world pursues 5th gen, Boeing contemplated closing some of its fighter production facilities. 

[SurelySerious]

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

My understanding is it was a bit of both. The AF realised not getting the full buy order of 380 something F-22s was going to leave us far too short and the fact that after Boeing lost 2 massive fighter competitions in a row, and global F-15 sales were in decline as the world pursues 5th gen, Boeing contemplated closing some of its fighter production facilities. 

I’ll buy that aspect. Another bonus is if you 1:1 into the ANG units that already fulfill that mission in the C model, in theory transition is minimal from the amateur perspective. 

[stract]

4 hours ago, Blue said:

Sigh.  He's about two and a half years into his tenure as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.  This is a position where folks historically have spent anywhere from 1-3 years.  

Too bad, because from my vantage point as a contractor at a SPO, he's done some great things in this world.  Would love to see him stay in the position longer. Dude's 41 years old.  https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/1467795/dr-will-roper/

Edited July 17, 2020 by stract
Bio

[Blue]

21 hours ago, brawnie said:

Pretty defeatist attitude, huh?

I will tell you that a lot of smart people in AFMC are excited that someone is looking to fix some of the things that are wrong with the current acquisition/test/equip structure of the USAF and military at large. If this can help us be quicker and gives us more options, that is a good deal for America.  And at the end of the day, that’s what matters.

 

19 hours ago, stract said:

Too bad, because from my vantage point as a contractor at a SPO, he's done some great things in this world.  Would love to see him stay in the position longer. Dude's 41 years old.  https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/1467795/dr-will-roper/

Not so much a defeatist.  I'd say it's better described as cynicism, brought on by seeing all of the previous "attempts" to fix acquisition.

Stract, can you give some examples of things Roper has done to make things better (honest question - not trying to be a smartass)?  I've googled around, but didn't see anything concrete.

I saw his bio as well.  Props to him for rising to that position at just 41 years old, but his resume seems light for the caliber of the position.

[bfargin]

22 minutes ago, Blue said:

 

Not so much a defeatist.  I'd say it's better described as cynicism, brought on by seeing all of the previous "attempts" to fix acquisition.

Stract, can you give some examples of things Roper has done to make things better (honest question - not trying to be a smartass)?  I've googled around, but didn't see anything concrete.

I saw his bio as well.  Props to him for rising to that position at just 41 years old, but his resume seems light for the caliber of the position.

Def not "light" on education (GA Tech BS and MS in Physics and PhD in Math) but perhaps a little light on advanced responsibility work experience. But, any ad hoc/think tank type experience gives you great visibility and has varying degrees of responsibility attached to them. He must have excelled where he was planted.

[stract]

On 7/17/2020 at 1:20 PM, Blue said:

Stract, can you give some examples of things Roper has done to make things better (honest question - not trying to be a smartass)?  I've googled around, but didn't see anything concrete.

Actually forcing agile processes in lumbering SPO machinework.  DevSecOps.  Figuring out a way to identify early on where a given program is worth the squeeze; nothing is "too big to fail" these days.  It's definitely forced a mindshift change throughout AFLCMC.

As an operator now working at a SPO, It was eye-opening to see the lumbering machine, and then witness the beginning of the transformation to something better.  He's forcing folks to think outside the box, and not rest on "that's the way it's always been done". Some of those things are less tangible to the warfighter right now, but will pay dividends over time.

ETA: Also, he appears well-respected in the Acquisition community.  So even though he's effecting change, it's been executed in an effective manner.

Edited July 19, 2020 by stract

[Chuck17]

On 7/16/2020 at 4:08 PM, Blue said:

Sigh.  He's about two and a half years into his tenure as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.  This is a position where folks historically have spent anywhere from 1-3 years.  And he wants to completely up-end how we buy fighter jets?

At a base level, his reasoning is sound.  The reduction in players in the defense business is a bad deal for the services and the American taxpayer.  But the resultant "winner-take-all" production contracts are a great deal for the defense companies.  So, I'm sure Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop and the like are nodding politely at everything Mr Roper says, and will send a nice card thanking him for his service when he departs his position 6-9 months from now.

Will Roper has been noted in certain circles as being the guy with good ideas, but also as a neophyte when it comes to how “the system” works. Instead of working within, he wants to scrap and rebuild. There’s merit to that. But there’s also the Mil-Industrial Complex to contend with. They have constituency shareholders, and congressional reps in their deep pockets. They won’t change for Will Roper. 

Your assertion is spot on.

Chuck

[Seriously]

Much credit to this guy. He's been slogging through the bureaucratic and political bullshit for years. I'm sure his time at the MDA wasn't a whole lot of fun.

[Bucket]

New prototype fighter already flying...

[Tonka]

On 7/19/2020 at 5:02 PM, stract said:

 

ETA: Also, he appears well-respected in the Acquisition community.  So even though he's effecting change, it's been executed in an effective manner.

Meh, id call that a stretch... The grown ups that get to act like theyre kids (O-6s wearing logoed t-shirts with blazers), think it's the easy new way to climb the acq ladder and they like him... But, flipping the process from "what does the fighter need" (i.e. Requirements) to "that looks new/flashy how should the fighter use it" is a gutsy move... 

Trusty me, I get it... He's trying to bolster the civilian market (agility prime) so it'll drive competition and lower prices, but there is less than 50/50 chance that his replacement will follow it if he doesn't show success... The "powers that be" move mountains when it's time to change, he's kicking pebbles up a hill that'll roll back.  Maybe I'll eat my words.  But how many plasma tvs should we buy so that we can eventually buy LCD screens at the same price... Maybe i should learn economics again.

He's not well respected, the acq community just isn't a combatant command that stands up to poor leadership... They usually just wait for them to go to jail.

[jazzdude]

There's been a movement within DoD acquisitions to get faster and not keep doing things the same way. Dr. Roper is probably one of the more vocal advocates, but it's not just him. The basic DODIs for acquisitions were recently updated, emphasizing tailoring of the acquisitions process and giving more options for how to structure a program, aiming to get capabilities out to the warfighter faster.

The irony of all of this is that a lot of what Dr Roper is pushing for is already out in industry as best practices, our processes have just been slow to adopt.