Saturday, July 4, 2015

“Concurrency” are You Nuts Military

Most American citizens aren't aware of this term, but the best laid plans of mice and men say concurrency in its military planning language. I say, "are you nuts!" Not everyone knows we are a weaker nation with concurrency running our military industrial complex. Now its up to me to explain this fools notion to make industrialist rich and the US Vulnerable. I will be writing about concurrency with the following epic demonstrations listed below:

  • DDG1000  Zumwalt $2.6 Billion
  • F-35 A,B,C   $150 million each
  • Gerald R Ford CVN-78 $12 Billion
Latin definition for the word Concurrency (with your currency). :)

The military explanation did not have your vote nor your common sense. It simply made the case to congress and stated, Build a program on the fly and we will learn and make changes as we go! This is a paraphrased concept of the military and a process killing its own military industry, while losing its ability to defend, and then losing this  nation who gave its trust for the complex. Concurrency is not a component of American exceptionalism. It defeats the competitive process and gives our country far less back than what is spent on its defense, leaving the country vulnerable to any aggression. Strong words, I hope so!

The DDG1000 is the first boat point up. It is the Navy's newest iteration of a war ship at sea. It cost 2.6 billion for the first one now plying the oceans in our defense. It is stealth, it is speed, and lethal. Designed with out of the box of thinking and beyond. It could fire a projectile 75 miles on target within inches of accuracy. So what is the problem my friend? They are only going to build only three copies and are reverting back to a decades old DDG51 series with new destroyers to fill the gap from cutting the DDG1000 program. Concurrency killed it! The billions up front on ship number 1 made it a no! for twenty more of its type. A continuing progression going from model to model found in the concurrency group think would take the DDG1000's series cost to infinity and beyond. So they think. Rather than let BIW find continuous march towards efficiency, through additional builds or  supplier innovations lowering the cost of each succeeding model, Washington lost its stomach for the Navy's venture into concurrency leakage of your money on the boat. However, China is now exceeding where we have pulled back strategically on the sea theater. The are building new destroyers and building new sea Islands near our old friends in the Philippines.

Concurrency programs are grinding innovation backwards as military money dries up. Doing upgrades on the fly with concurrent programs is a flawed mindset, and does not make the military as able. I going to jump to the F-35 program. In the beginning where the bidders of the JSF program. A one size fits all workshop theme not yet applied to the military. The bidders had to supply three models to three services  with one frame concept. It had to be stealthy. It didn't have to be fast. It had to beat every aircraft out there. It would cost 60-70 million per aircraft. I am getting to the point. ... and so forth.

Image result for f-35

The F-35 Lockheed award beat Boeing's flying potato. Then stage II of concurrency started. The F-35 under performed, it has many short falls. The claim came forward from test pilots. The F-16 flies better, faster, and can beat the F-35 nine times out of ten in dog fights. But the F-35 looks good like a fighter and now costs $150 million each. Its a long stand-off weapon not a dog fighter.

I will quote an unnamed source not to protect identity, but I can't remember his name. But you can find it, if you read as much as I do online. Anyways, he said "only if the Marines would have been awarded the Boeing VTOL offering". It did a great job, it looked ugly like a Marine, and it flew better than anything they had seen, including Lockheed's offering. But wiser heads prevailed and opted for looks in the beauty pageant, and choose the sleek looking F-35. Concurrency was now on board for the long taxpayer run on the bank.

It has been stated the F-35 has delivered its first block point, and the military has sent back its review and short comings on jet performance. They produced another batch and then got re-reviewed. In fact they have gone through three rounds of aircraft generations for 100 within just one service for configuration changes.  The F-16 is still better at flying. Conclusion, people could get killed up there flying the F-35 against an F-16. Concurrency doesn't work and military operations do not make a good testing process just to discover something is truly inadequate prior to a pilot's ejection.

Solution: Best Practices Best Fit. The F-35 Air Force and Navy frame gave up speed when accommodating design features for the Marine VTOL version. Drop those speed robbing features in the non Marine frame. Award the Marines a Boeing frame, for a run with the expeditionary forces, they fight ugly. Award a move towards a F-35 frame revamped for the Air Force and Navy. The purpose is for gaining additional speed air superiority it lacks.  Complete additional war characteristics that are missing. The concurrent change will enhance the war bird so it can out-fly the F-16 and out perform any adversarial combatant up close or with a long distance advantage. That is true concurrency philosophy after the one-frame-fits-all, miserably fails costing this nation more than just money.

The Pentagon's 'Concurrency Myth' Is Now Available In Supercarrier Size

The Gerald R Ford the newest Nuclear Aircraft Carrier is just going to completion. Let's go to sea for 12.5 billion and see what we have to change in the spirit of Concurrency. We can build the next one correctly in ten years! What if the Gerald S Ford stumbles during sea trails? No problem, it will come in for a $2 billion in up-charge and fix. Do this three times, and the carrier will tap the people of these United States for a total cost of $18 Billion  making the CVN-78 program scandalous, before its combat ready. It will be a great ship concurrently speaking. Actually the word concurrency should replace the word currency. After all "a con is a con" only with currency on the table.