Lockheed has let it be known
that they are investing internal effort at packaging Patriot missiles onto
naval vessels (1) – this despite the existence of Standard anti-ballistic
missiles that already exist, do the same job, and already have integrated software
tying the weapon into the ship’s sensors and fire control system – in other
words, a complete and integrated package.
So, why is Lockheed looking at naval Patriots which would, at best, be
redundant? Self-interest. They’re doing what’s potentially good for
Lockheed. If they can sell an existing
product they can make money without any great development cost.
What’s wrong with that? Nothing.
Self-interest is the foundation of capitalism and free markets. However, Lockheed’s interests are not necessarily
the same as the US
Lockheed’s interest is
making money. The military’s interest is
combat. The point is that we, and the
military, need to recognize that when we turn to industry for products and
support, we’ll get whatever the company believes will generate the most money
for them rather than what will provide the best combat option.
When the Navy issues its final
Request For Proposal (RFP) to industry for the new frigate, Lockheed Martin and
Austal, the manufacturers of the LCS, are not going to respond with a brand new
frigate design – they’re going to respond with a modified (to the smallest
degree they believe they can get away with) LCS. Why?
Because that’s what’s in their best self-interest. It’s how they can make the most money.
When the government
initiates the next F-35 program, the manufacturer isn’t going to respond with
the most cost effective and efficient manufacturing program – they’re going to
respond with the program that is the least likely to be able to be killed off
just as Lockheed Martin set up the elaborate fifty sate/one hundred country
disbursed manufacturing model that they knew Congress would be unwilling to
kill due to the distributed jobs aspect.
When a manufacturer “tests”
a developing weapon system, they’re not going to test it under combat
conditions to see how it really works.
That’s not in their self-interest.
They’re going to test it in a contrived scenario carefully calculated to
make the system appear as good as possible.
If Bath
Consider all the ship type
variants that Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) has suggested for roles
ranging from a frigate to ballistic missile defense (BMD) to amphibious
assault, among others. Each was based on
– you guessed it – the LPD-17. What’s
the odds that the optimum frigate, BMD, and assault ship are all met by the
same LPD-17 basic design? Of course
they’re not! HII is proposing what they
can make money on, not what would be the most combat effective solution. HII’s interests do not align with the
military’s.
 |
| LPD-17 Frigate/BMD/AAW/Assault |
The point in this is that
we, and the military, need to keep this self-interest concept firmly in mind as
we deal with the defense industry. We
need to run everything we hear, see, or procure from industry through the
cynical filter of “what’s in it for them?” and recognize that what we’ll get is
a sub-optimum response or product that serves industry’s interests not
ours. That means that if we want an
optimum service or product we have to drive the acquisition process and not
leave it to industry.
When I hear comments like
the those from former CNO Greenert, and now Richardson, saying that they can’t
wait to see what industry “gives” us next, I cringe. Industry will give us what is in their best
self-interest rather than what we need.
Sure, industry will make some attempt to align their interests with the
military’s just because doing so will increase the odds of them getting what
they want: money. That alignment,
however, will be as minimal as possible.
There’s nothing wrong with
inviting industry to make suggestions as long as that process of research and
investigation is divorced from actual acquisition.
On a related historical
note, the Spruance was the first ship design that the Navy threw completely out
to industry. While the Spruance turned
out to be a fine design, there was no guarantee that it would. Witness the more recent LCS which was
designed with minimal [useful] input from the Navy and wound up being an
unmitigated disaster.
The military needs to stop
throwing out open-ended invites to industry which allows industry to pick the
product and, instead, start driving the acquisition process. That means re-establishing in-house
expertise, generating extensive and precise requirements, and demanding the
exact product that will provide the best combat performance. If the military doesn’t have a better idea of
what’s needed than industry then we need to clean house on military leadership
and start over. The military needs to
take back the acquisition process from industry.
____________________________________
(1)Breaking Defense website,
“Lockheed
Studies Sea-Launched Patriot PAC-3 & New 6-Foot Missile”, Sydney 9-Aug-2017 ,
In a previous life at Big Defense Company, the head people started to tell their uniformed customers that "hey, you know we're here to make a profit, right? Because if we don't meet our profit targets, we don't get to do this anymore, and you don't get anything."
ReplyDeleteSome of the generals and admirals seemed surprised at this.
Surprise aside, the answer from the military should have been, yes, someone will make a profit from us but it doesn't have to be you, Big Defense Company, and we will get what we want.
DeleteWe need to encourage and grow our smaller companies so that they become viable competitors to the larger companies. We also need to begin considering and using foreign companies if we can't get the products and services we want at reasonable prices from US companies.
Isn't bringing back the F-22 in Lockheed Martin's self interest too?
ReplyDeleteOf course it is - if it doesn't interfere with the F-35 production.
DeleteAn excellent post, CNO.
ReplyDeleteAddressing the related issues of outsourcing and deskilling that seemingly every western military has engaged in now for decades.
And over those same decades look at the outcomes we've been getting. Now a fighter (or transport) squadron cannot operate without a legion of contractors in support (for engines, avionics, etc). Contractors that may not be deployable. A simple navigation radar cannot be maintained by shipboard personnel, and a tech has to be flown in for basic problems. PPT slides from the Prime contractor are swallowed without chewing by the program office (see how the Australian F-35 office simply regurgitates the JSF PMO/LM talking points).
We manage contracts, not projects.
Partially that is due to short posting cycles. 2-3 years really isn't enough in the context of a 20+ year procurement timeline (we committed to JSF in 2002 and optimistically will reach IOC by 2021).
Contributing to the problem is the deskilling. Basket weaving degrees have replaced STEM degrees in many areas. Non-engineers (in contrast to engineers who would have been experienced in project management, back in the day) can be sold any fairy tale the contractors please - and the contractors like it that way.
It seems no-one questioned the assumptions behind the LCS. The JSF. The Zumwalt. The Ford.
Given manpower caps. Given those posting cycles. Given the fact a project management career stream is unlikely. And given the increasing dependence on contractor support. Is this a trend which can be reversed, short of an all-out war in which we suffer terribly in the initial stages?
Changing the direction of the Pentagon seems to be a Herculean task, beyond any mortal. Same for the Australian DoD.
Of course, the services aren't helping. When we commit to supposedly 5th gen VLO 'fighters' for simple air defence roles. When we spend $3B each for ASW frigates. Or close to $4B for AAW frigates. And probably $4-5B each for a fleet of de-nuclearised SSGs.
The contractors see us coming a mile away, and they milk us almost to the point we would walk away. And we don't see the con job for what it is. How could we when MBAs are the benchmark, and 'business' principles are foisted upon us?
If we could accept a 90-95% solution, we could buy enough quantity to matter. But that is a different matter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat I ended up deleting accidental was Eisenhower stated that our biggest threat was the military industrial complex after the LCS F35 Zumwalt and Ford phiascos I have to agree due in part to industry mergers etc and the military not designing what it wants the taking those designs to industry for production instead of accepting what industry sends to the military I don't even know if they do trials in stuff anymore before accepting the hardware as is accept maybe in a computer simulations
Delete"War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."
Delete"military industrial complex ... I have to agree ... the military not designing what it wants"
DeleteI have to agree. The mil-ind is a problem, especially the way it is currently structured, however, it would only be a nuisance, not a severe problem, if the military would do their part correctly.
Good comment.
All of what you say, CNO, is true, and has been for at least 200 years. This is why the USN built up its own shipyards and design teams. Not because it didn't want to use private industry's capabilities, but because it wanted to do so as an informed and capable customer. Naturally, that requires industry to work harder and its senior managers to think harder. They hate that, like most people.
ReplyDeleteIn the last few decades, political ideology has been saying that private industry is intrinsically better. It is - if the objective is its profits and an easy life for its managers (which is weighted surprisingly highly in most businesses, although never in those terms).
So now the Navy needs to rediscover nineteenth- and early twentieth-century wisdom. Hopefully the politicians who been convinced (by money) that private industry is always the answer can be fooled by a "conservative" turn back to the wisdom of the past. If not, the Navy seems doomed to a future of trying to make overly-expensive equipment perform as well at that built on a tenth the budget. By the Chinese.
When exactly did DOD and more specifically the Navy give up control and the brain trust associated with research and design?
DeleteTo my naive mind, the DOD SHOULD be in the business of R&D and SHOULD have full intellectual ownership.
As I have a libertarian bent, this is difficult to support, but I don't see any other solution.
I have a 1911 in the safe that has Remington Rand stamped on the slide. These folks made typewriters until they decided to bid on a 1911 contract in 1942. Ford used to make jeeps, tanks and B-24 parts. All these designs were owned by Uncle Same and farmed out to industry. While I agree that defense consolidation does have its efficiencies, the monopoly it creates in R&D, management and production is too much.
I've covered this in previous posts and you check the archives for details but the short version is that the General Board produced conceptual ship designs, passed them to BuShips for detailed engineering, and then BuShips bid them out for construction (including captive Navy yards). So, the very general answer to your question is that the Navy gave up internal design when they abolished the General Board by order of then CNO Forrest Sherman in 1951 in a power grab political move.
DeleteTo the best of my knowledge, the Spruance class was the first ship designed and built entirely by industry.
bring back govt run navy yards to design and build ships. Or just nationalize all defence industries
ReplyDeleteWith the overwhelming evidence of how badly the govt runs large organizations (Soc. Security, Post Office, welfare programs, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) you want to have the govt run shipyards? What leads you to believe they'll do a better job at that than any other task they've attempted?
DeleteIn fact, look how badly the govt is running the military right now: gender sensitivity, diversity, appeasement, green energy, inability to manage weapon procurement programs, women in combat - everything but a combat focus. And you want to let the govt run the shipyards!?
I was thinking more on how it was done during WW2.
ReplyDeleteOr Germany during WW2, private industry heavily directed by the military. Not perfect, there's always corruption somewhere but it worked better then, than how things are going now. I do fear that the system is so corrupt at this point that its beyond fixing though.
Fair enough.
DeleteSo, why do you think it worked better in WWII. Do you think simple corruption is the difference? We had lots of corruption in WWII; we just didn't have extensive media coverage and 24/7 cable news to beat it into our consciousness. One could make an argument that while today's problems are more visible, it is actually less of a problem - maybe true, maybe not.
Is there some other explanation? What do you think?
You asked why ...
ReplyDeleteLockheed says "The Patriot PAC-3 MSE is a smaller and less expensive missile than the SM-3, since it’s designed to intercept ballistic missiles in the atmosphere rather than in space, which makes the two weapons complementary".
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/lockheed-studies-sea-launched-patriot-new-6-foot-missile/
But they use/require different radar software sounds terribly expensive and redundant also SM6 has a demonstrated intermediate ballistic missile capability
Delete