Want to see a service secretary slap around the defense industry? I’ve been covering defense for a little while now and I’ve never seen a military official dole out the very public ass chewing to their industry partners like this one from Air Force Chief Gen. Norton Schwartz.
Schwartz is responding to a question from Defense Tech friend, aviation reporter Stephen Trimble, who also shot the video, about some critical comments Schwartz made on stage earlier at the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium, and whether industry is letting the Air Force down. He says the military isn’t blameless when problems arise similar to the F-35.
“But,” Schwartz told leading defense executives, “this is no longer a time for wishful thinking, tell me what you can do, I expect you to deliver what you promise.” When asked by Trimble whether he thinks industry got the message, Schwartz said, “If they don’t, what occurred recently with the F-35 program is only the start.”
Trimble points out that the F-35 government program manager was canned but not Lockheed Martin’s lead guy. Schwartz’s response: “Dan Crowley [LockMart’s F-35 program manager] doesn’t work for the secretary of defense. But he’s short $600 million. That ain’t trivial.”
– Greg
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Perhaps when Gen Schwartz graduates and goes to work for industry he will have a moment of clarity how difficult it is to live within a year by year funding profile.
Whatever, I work in an industry with a year by year funding and we hit our budgets within 10% every time.
Perhaps we should never push the technological envelope and send our troops to battle with substandard equipment. The Taliban aren't a technologically adavnced adversary, but China would be (remember Taiwan
is our protectorate). Every major weapon system pushing technology has experienced cost overruns. This to be expected in something that has never been built before. The F-22A demonstrated many of the technologies of the F-35, but not all of them. The only solution to the cost issue is never develop anything using cutting edge technology!!
Going on a tangent from this article, but Taiwan is NOT a US protectorate. We have no defense treaties with Taiwan except for the hardware we sell them.
Don't try and give the industry a break on this stuff. There is 100% no reason they should be this far over budget year after year on this stuff. Every industry deals with the fact that their budgets are given out on a year to year basis. To suggest that the Defense industry can't survive on that and results in over budget programs by hundreds of percent year after year, and their deadlines are missed (decades at times and almost never on time) is just silly. I am not going to say here that the DOD and there ever changing requirements don't effect costs and deadlines, but every other industry in the world manages to get products to market in reasonable times at reasonable costs usually using their own money for R&D. They do this because if they don't someone else will and make the money. These companies include everything from billion dollar projects like buildings and planes, to the stuff you get at the Dollar Tree, and it all has to work and be safe just like the military equipment.
Lets stop letting them do this stuff to us. You tell them what you want, develop it or don't cause someone else is willing to do it I am sure. Get it on time or we will take what you learned on our dime and go somewhere else. Get it at or below costs or we won't even ask you to bid next time. This is how highways, skyscrapers and an other large project is done. Why not for the military?
I think we need a grand jury investigation about what General Schwartz and Sec of Defense Gates knew about the troubles of the F-35 program a few months ago when they pushed the cancellation of the the F-22 and hailed the greatness and affordability of the F-35
Much of the savings differential between the F22 and the F35 is they are very much alike in the design of the shell; during the development of the F35 they used the already proven technologies of the F22 and cut and pasted it to the contract. They didn't have near the questions during the development of the F35 because those questions were proven during the F22's R&D.
IMHO, this site does best when doing original work, instead of merely cross-referencing other sites without addiing content. But since this is recycled news, it gets my recycled comment from DEWLine:
—–
His act doesn't vary much from the above in less public forums either. It never occurred to me to check his official bio until after viewing this video.
I have to say that while the good General's background has the solid stink of 'operator' that should be a prerequisite for any Chief of Staff, compared to previous CoS' he has just about the weakest background in engineering, science, and technology yet. I wonder how much this hinders his understanding exactly how advanced technology is developed and fielded?
continued…
Part 2:
I'd be impressed with his 'scolding' ways IF the good General were at the same time making certain that contracts wouldn't go to low-ball bidders, TRL6 really was TRL6, AND he fell on his sword over Congress to expose their control of the 'game' (and Acquisition IS Congress' and NO ONE ELSE's game).
Without the rest, just beating up on contractors that have no choice but to deal with whatever the government monopsony throws at them strikes me as just a tendency to exhibit pretty chicken**** behavior…just because he can.
—
I must say though, that it is heartwarming to find this post is getting pretty much the same feedback as at DEW Line.
SMSgt Mac,
Thanks for the input re. original content. We're trying to strike a balance and I always like to collect worthy material I find from trusted sources.
We'll try and keep the original content coming!
Best,
Greg
Don't try and give the industry a break on this stuff. There is 100% no reason they should be this far over budget year after year on this stuff. Every industry deals with the fact that their budgets are given out on a year to year basis. To suggest that the Defense industry can't survive on that and results in over budget programs by hundreds of percent year after year, and their deadlines are missed (decades at times and almost never on time) is just silly. I am not going to say here that the DOD and there ever changing requirements don't effect costs and deadlines, but every other industry in the world manages to get products to market in reasonable times at reasonable costs usually using their own money for R&D. They do this because if they don't someone else will and make the money. These companies include everything from billion dollar projects like buildings and planes, to the stuff you get at the Dollar Tree, and it all has to work and be safe just like the military equipment.
Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of China; December 2, 1954. TMB this treaty in still in place I believe.
Carter cancelled it. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm
The silver spooned coddled to brass do more than come up with ideas and try to see how close industry is to developing what they are looking for; shop.
The reason so many projects cost so much is because when you are given an RFP (idea) you are committed to occur the R&D until you have a blueprint to deliver and all is accepted;during the design phase. All during the construction phase of projects like the F35 changes are bound to be manifest themselves , they always do. The newer mouse trap is worth it in time; everytime we deliver the impossible we raise the ladder for the future to keep moving in a learned and costly manner. We have a way about doing things; as Americans want to be the best it can be to live and to learn. I know if we do not when we can improve our defenses we will be asked to speak another language and give up our homes.
If Carter cancelled the treaty to defend Taiwan, then why did Clinton send a carrier task force when the mainland threatened Taiwan in 1996? The latest
information from now Secretary of State Clinton is we have an obligation to arm Taiwan. I think that it is for all practical purposes a protectorate of tehe US.
There is a risk of armed conflict over Taiwan and the Chinese are pushing their
defense industry hard to catch up with the west.
Bit of kabuki theatre, really. Much of the US' spending on military hardware and research is simply welfare for a particular political/economic class, and a make-work program for retired military brass. Programs don't drag out of 20 years and 10/100s of billions because the job can't get done; they drag out over that amount of time and money because the people running the programs want them to (talk to anyone involved in the engineering or production of the Comanche helicopter). And that includes contractors, brass, and Administrations and Congresses of all political parties.
Cranky
Welfare? At least we get something out of military hardware spending unlike the real welfare waste going on in this country. I would rather have all of my taxes go to a RAH-66 than some social program I will never see.
I am not denying that things are horribly inefficient, that should be corrected, but we shouldn't be spending a dime less on defense.