Posted by Jim Dolbow in UncategorizedTags: by Jim Dolbow
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Question posed to me by a friend:
A group of highly trained, motivated, and compensated employees who have to use 1990s equipment/technology to accomplish their jobs.
There has to be a more relevant term for today’s increasingly ‘hollow’ force but it is nothing like the 1970s. Would appreciate your insights!
Posted by Jim Dolbow in UncategorizedTags: by Jim Dolbow
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
17 Responses to “How Would You Describe?”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
Subscribe
A military force can be super modern and yet, if it isn’t relevant to the challenges threatening our national security, it is still hollow.
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:26 pmI second G’s most excellent point…
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:28 pmMight add too, the vintage link I provided above shares the same kind of, “Ooh-Ahh! See how technology keeps us out of Harm’s Way!!,” tone that this more contemporary account exudes…
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:53 pmBack when I joined the Navy in ’63, it could have been written this way:
A group of highly trained, motivated, and poorly compensated employees who have to use 1940s equipment / technology to accomplish their jobs today?
At least the pay is better these days.
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:09 pmIt’s the wetware. Age of ship and age of technology correlates poorly to actual performance. Tell me who the skipper is and I’ll tell you how the ship will do.
There’s even a splendid argument that it wasn’t the fleet that went hollow in the ’70s, it was the leadership. Cowboys don’t cry…
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm“Pimp my Ship”
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:27 pmTwo observations:
1. When I first joined the Fleet in 1975, I worked on a Terrier Missile System (AN/SPG-55B Mod 5) that still used TUBES dating from the early 1960s
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:37 pm2. From 1985 – RADM Wayne Meyer (and AEGIS) dragged the Navy kicking and screaming into the mid-1970s – that’s when we had AN/SPY-1 and AN/UYK-7 hardware.
eighteen years ago i took over a turret lathe section that had been frozen in 1960′s technology. i immediately converted it over to 1990′s equipment. to the invietable howls of dismay i told the guys “you can’t imagine the heartburn and pain that you will have missed getting to this position.”
C
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:22 pmI read with some interest technology sharing in regard to the DOD and NASA utilizing similar delivery designs. Report: Obama May Merge NASA, Pentagon Space Programs.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475369,00.html
The question I think is this, can the Navy manage better spending than say they did the last time we had the three similar factors, energy shock and the DECEMBER 1969 – NOVEMBER 1970 (11 months) recession and the NOVEMBER 1973 – MARCH 1975 (16 months) or where nearly half a decade of spending was impacted by recession.
http://recession.org/history
One advantage that the Navy has now is better communication capabilities, Galrahn and the IDF lately has seen the importance of communicating their perspectives in new media and video. In the late 60′s and 70′s the message was controlled entirely by MSM which had it’s own agenda and reaction to the economy and social events.
The second issue that the current circumstances and the 80′s and 70′s have in common is that an existing conflict Vietnam focused attention from Naval issues to other branches of the military as filling the breach of needs was met.
The Navy might find itself competing for funding and resources for half a decade as conflicts rage in deserts where traditional naval power projection cannot be brought to full use. It is easily projected that a recession can last the majority of the total of a five year span and that that cicumstance along with an energy shock will affect technology procurement.
Short of specifics, the Navy needs to seek means to share technology and prioritize carefully and put aside if need be the items unproven for practical and acheivable (by metrics) improvements.
As an example, a fleet of smaller Corvairs as an alternative to DDG and LCS commitment.
The Coast Guard’s original Deepwater acquisition strategy, how it was meant to work, and how it actually performed is a damn poor example of how the concept is supposed to work, but that is the concept.
But the USN might reasonably be facing an era where the majority of the next 1/2 decade is in severe recession with energy shocks possible.
Creativity will prevent the corp from being hollow, the USN has traditionally done the impossible by ultilizing nearly nothing despite conventional thinking and against all odds.
Even in a recession or wartime, the one resource that cannot be discarded is creativity and ingenuity.
Dual use technologies and solutions instead of technological silos is the answer.
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 pmNinety’s equipment? When it takes more than 10-15 years to field equipment you are doing well to be using 1990′s technology. While the Navy (as all military) have a LOT of outdated equipment, age alone isn’t a factor. The old stuff is well debugged! When they replaced the Radar Data Converter on the A6 with a modern digital version it had major teething problems as it would display rain as terrain! Not good in the Pacific Northwest at all. Seems the old analog technology was highly tuned and better at what it did, even though it was a bear to keep running.
Why do you think there is so much COBOL running major corporations even today? Because it works and replacing it is cost prohibitive. There are many many IT projects that tried to replace old systems and never could do it or ran WAY over budget for modest performance. New isn’t always better.
Our technology isn’t causing a “hollow” force, it never did. Wearing out our equipment is a real concern but instead of buying the Airforce all new shiny F22s, there is no reason we can’t buy very good F15s, the pilots are the biggest factor anyway (just ask Chuck Yeager and Duke Cunningham). To keep the force from going hollow we need to train the way we did before Iraq and replace the hardware we have broken with more of the same. Once we are back on track we can get back to updating in the normal course of operations.
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 pmI served in the 1980′s –
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:43 amfirst & second ship 1960′s tech (AE & FF)
third ship 1950′s tech (MSO)
what i meant was that we leapfrogged the years of poor reliability, inept programmimg,non qualified tooling, short offsets, equipment that was just plain lobidder junk……
because of that the transition was much easier.
C
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 amI have not spent enough time onbard todays ships and boats to tell if we are hollow today. I get a few tours here and there and a DV trip once every few years. However, it appears to me our Navy investments are out of balance.
Our force is choking on the transformational new developments we invested in the last 6 years. Eight new developmental items on one ship class (DDG1000)?
BALANCED INVESTMENT IS KEY!
How does our Navy ensure a balanced investment? Maintenance, Modernization and Re-capitalization. Becuase our ships last 25 to 35 years we must modernize to pace the threat. Therefore we cant spend all of our money on new acquisitions.
1. The re-write of DODInst 5000.2 is a great start.
2. Re-instate the phased development we used to have in Navy R&D.
3. USN must win over Congress and industry in supporting their spending plan!
4. Force new requirements reviews to consider cost!
5. Focus on total life cycle cost/capabilities of our ships.
(Wow I was ranting).
When I joined the Navy in 1974 I was assigned to an AGSS. She was pretty old. One day, when I called Ship Parts Control Center (SPCC) looking for a spare, they told me “we don’t have SS’ anymore, all our subs are Nucs”. I felt like the Navy was a little hollow that day.
Cheers!
AMIGuy
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:01 pmwe used to figure that when we got a “first ship” of a new class in for post commissioning availiability that the stuff that we would be working on was at least ten years old. that is time for designing the components, time to build the components and test them and time for the componenets to get a good enough reputation that the builders and navy people would accept the stuff. then there was the three or four years to install the thing in the new hull and for the operators to get to sea for a few months before they got to us (a public shipyard).
case in point: USN spent about 12 years testing controllable pitch propellors (on top of the time they had with MSO’s and the county class lst’s in the fleet) before they settled on the bird johnson stuff that they finally put in the spruances and the ticonderogas and the ffg7′s. even then the first half dozen spruances all had to go into dock to get hydraulic leaks corrected.
for those contemplating “great leaps forward” study up on the chinese goat f&*k pushing their steel industry forward quite a few years ago.
C
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pmAQOne:
“instead of buying the Airforce all new shiny F22s, there is no reason we can’t buy very good F15s”
You said a mouthful. What I would give for new A-6 intruders that can carry some ORDNANCE, new M-14s and new M1911 pistols. With modern updates to the basic designs, we would have a hell of a lot of bang for the buck. URR
January 5th, 2009 at 11:07 amUnless you pretty much start from scratch for a new F-15 design, the first time it goes up against aircraft like the SU-33/35 and Rafale, you’ll get your butt waxed.
It’s called “evolution” for a reason, otherwise the Air Force would still be flying Mustangs.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:37 amI thought you called them “Buff Drivers.” Oh wait – that’s 1960s technology.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:15 pm