(click on picture to enlarge it)
So Pops — *this* was the slide you told us to post? #1 doesn’t think so but he doesn’t know jack anyway.
Do you really do this….stuff…at work? Now we know what they mean about not trusting anyone over 30.
-Steeljaw Apprentice #3
Back out to the front range of the Rockies this week and again, most of it to be spent in a windowless building for a major conference. Ergo – limited posting this week. Flightdeck Friday will be a bit different and in preparation for that, would like for all to think about what they would…
Quick note to pass along that VAJoe.com has an interview of Your Humble Scribe up at his site. Try not to laugh too hard… The rains (and oppressive humidity) have relented so with blue skies in the offing, believe it’s time to hit the roads for the mountains of WVa with the family – in…
Setting EMCON Charlie until after Christmas and various guests are departing the pattern/outbound. ’til then, limited posting (Flightdeck Friday returns next week).– SJS
New! Improved! Singing snowglobe (Buck – this one’s for you…) (click on image to start snowglobe – flash needed) And don’t forget — NORAD tracks Santa again this year: —– —–
RTB today from our Midwestern sojourn. Some news we will be posting on the morrow – in the meantime an update on the Vikramaditya (“Brave as the Sun”) via Barents Observer shows that it has been floated from dry dock (or beaching as was the case):
Comments are closed.
All kidding aside, what is the decision-making process like for something which is feasible, needed ASAP, and is cost-effecitve? Would the path to a final decision still be so convoluted?
Veritas et Fidelis Semper
I think the first thing would be smelling salts for the procurement officers! I worked in the DOD world many years it’s extremely rare to find all of those in the same package. If it’s needed ASAP it normally costs more, if its feasible we still have to investigate the non-feasible alternatives (sole-source justification), and if it’s cost effective we have to investigate for some months or years to make sure it’s really what they say so that means you can’t get it ASAP. By the time it’s justified, researched and approved it’s no long feasible as there has been a work around found or a new and better technology available.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, sir. Basically, it appears that absolutely no one benefits except, of course, the………..well, I don’t really know what to call them………..paper-pushers who invent these mazes to make something which should be perfwectly clear and easy exceedingly complex!
Well, in the meantime, we “shortest path from A to B” folks must keep plugging away and not become discouraged. Either that or come into a great deal of money so that we may overhaul this process…….it could be done, and that’s not just wishful thinking.
Veritas et Fidelis Semper
The system is the system. Many different SecDef’s have tried many different methods of acquisition reform but none has had the kind of impact that would lead to a “sensible” process by your expectations. And don’t forget Congress is involved too, they have to pass TWO bills, one to authorize the budget for purchases and one to FUND that same authorization. Those bills can be seriously different. So even IF there was a fast-track process (which there sorta is but its still slow by civilian standards) the money has to be there from Congress to buy the items or has to be taken (and moved..which requires more paper) from other areas. The areas that lose the $$ can put up a fight within the system or via their CongressCritters. Case in point was body armor and up-armored HUMVEEs for the troops in Iraq, that process kicked off close to 2 yrs ago, Congress gave DoD the money pretty fast and the needs are just now getting filled. You can’t turn the Titanic on a dime.