Slashdot Mirror


Top General: Defense Department IT In "Stone Age"

CWmike writes "U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James 'Hoss' Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was sharply critical Tuesday of the Defense Department's IT systems and said he sees much room for improvement. the department is pretty much in the Stone Age as far as IT is concerned,' Cartwright said. He cited problems with proprietary systems that aren't connected to anything else and are unable to quickly adapt to changing needs. 'We have huge numbers of data links that move data between proprietary platforms — one point to another point,' he said. The most striking example of an IT failure came during the second Gulf War, where Marines and the Army were dispatched in southern Iraq, he said. 'It's crazy, we buy proprietary [and] we don't understand what it is we're buying into,' he said. 'It works great for an application, and then you come to conflict and you spend the rest of your time trying to modify it to actually do what it should do.'"

25 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. If only... by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only we gave the DoD enough cash for stuff like this....

    1. Re:If only... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You jest [quite successfully] but maybe the problem is too much money. If they had to throw bake sales to buy new radios maybe they'd be a little more careful about their purchasing decisions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:If only... by SomePgmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meh, they already complain that they can't afford appropriate armor and such to protect our guys. Then they buy another F-22 they'll never use. Yes I know, different budgets, etc.

      It's entirely misapplication. The military is a ginormous bureaucracy with truckloads of money, and has most of the same problems any other large government agency does. We can buy truckloads of consumables for the Javelin platform at $40,000 a pop, but a veteran has to kick and scream to have his PTSD cared for.

      It's almost like those guys we vote for to act as oversight aren't really doing their jobs...

    3. Re:If only... by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing the point. Javelins do the job army needs it to do. Discharged veteran doesn't. He's useless from army's point of view. This isn't "government bureaucracy", this is corporate thinking at its finest.

  2. Re:I think that the operational flight software in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...

    So you mean ... like it does already? Have you heard of the FAA? Do you realize they have to certify everything that goes into an sort of aircraft bigger than an 'experimental'?

  3. Former Marine by RingDev · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I spent my time under Clinton and Bush Jr as a 4067. That's a Computer Programmer in the Marine Corps. We had pretty solid gear available, decent servers, and a great network. One royal PITA though was the primary personel database was replicated out nightly from Kansas city. So any intra-base changes could take a full 24 hour window to propagate. Additionally, every 6 months we'd get someone new in charge of that database. And by "in charge" I mean a comitee, not a new DBA. And they would be compelled to rename half the tables and columns. Acronyms are good for 6 months, then all field names are typed in full, then we're down to 4 character codes, then into some strange "drop the vowels" campaign. ROYAL PITA.

    As if that wasn't bad enough, in 2001 Bush and military leadership privatized the entire 4000 MOS field. 4066 (networkers) and 4067 (programmers) were lat moved to the 0600 MOSs (radio operators and field wiremen, along with some shunting to admin/clerical). So at the point I was heading out, we were going from a situation where Marines could review and make recommendations, to the point where purchasing decisions were almost entirely in the hands of private contractors.

    It was removing just another cog in the machine to streamline the federal cash to corporate pockets process as the Foxes are now instructing the farmer on how to build a hen house.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Former Marine by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why the hell did the Marines have programmers?

      At a guess, one reason would be that they are under military discipline so can actually be sent where required. Meanwhile a contractor gives you a string of teenagers in India that are replaced and moved onto a bigger cash cow once they've got a bit of experience on your job.
      So I'd say it was about the Marines retaining control of their software projects. I'd also say the events of the past decade at least have shown that they are doing a lot more than storming beaches.

    2. Re:Former Marine by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 2

      The Marines are supposed to be a small, elite amphibious light infantry force. Marines should have two jobs, period: storming beaches and guarding ships.

      No, we're not. Light infantry, yes, which is why I hate the fact that as an infantryman my BASIC (i.e. patrol will only be out about 2 hours) combat load was over 60 pounds (mostly due to the armor).

      But a small force, not neccessarily. We are expeditionary in nature, so small tends to be the norm, but is not a requirement. We are also designed to be mostly self-supportive, having our own ground assets working in tandem with our own air assets. We rely on the Navy only for medical purposes (Corpsmen and the like). Lately, it's been the Air Force that transports us.

      We could not exist as a small force, because we need to support ourselves.

      Now the rest of your comment makes total sense, and some food for thought: The Marine Corps is only about 180,000 strong. Only ~10% of that is infantry. So is it bigger than it needs to be? Yes. It is inherently smaller than the Army? Yes. Is it supposed to be small? Not neccessarily.

    3. Re:Former Marine by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but I don't get it. You seem to be arguing that "we need to be separate because we need to support ourselves", but you don't say why you need to support yourselves. It seems to me that you don't need to support yourselves at all, and you should just abandon your separateness and become part of the Navy. After all, the Marines have their own ships, aircraft, etc., and this really doesn't make sense. That's supposed to be the Navy's job.

      In fact, it seems to me the entire "Marines" branch could be eliminated. Anyone who wants to work as a soldier guarding ships should just be part of the Navy. They could be called a "Marine", just like the guy cooking the food is called the "Cook", the highest enlisted guy on a ship is called "Boson", other guys who do non-violent duties like swabbing the decks are called "Sailor", etc., but they should still just be part of the Navy organization.

      The Army has its own internal units, such as the Rangers, Green Berets, etc. which do special missions that other regular soldiers don't do. So why not just make the Marines a special division of the Navy, that gets to do certain missions (storming bearches and other on-shore missions) that your average Sailor would never do? Why do they need their own branch, ships, aircraft, etc.? It just seems to be a good example of bloat.

  4. Already up to date by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He cited problems with proprietary systems that aren't connected to anything else and are unable to quickly adapt to changing needs. 'We have huge numbers of data links that move data between proprietary platforms â" one point to another point,' he said.

    To me that sounds like military IT is perfectly in tune with modern corporate IT. It sure sounds like every big company (or even smaller ones) I've ever been at.

    The problem is what he really wants is the future. What he really needs is a good IT dictator with some vision, and a lot of power to send balky IT people out to the front line. If anyone can iron out the ego issues that keep traditional IT mired in fiefdoms, it should be the military...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Already up to date by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A critical difference between corporations and the military or any federal organization is that you cannot overcome these problems by simply appointing super great leaders, because those leaders will still be bound by the same federal laws. The problems really do start and end with Congress and that is what the General was getting at when he talked about contractors knowing how to manipulate the procurement system. Federal and Military employees are extremely limited in how they can manage a contract or bid. A contractor that knows how to manipulate the system knows that they can easily lock the Federal Gov into proprietary platforms and that there is not a whole lot that the government can do to get out of it until Congress changes procurement laws.

  5. Open Standards are booring by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Military, Police, Fire departments....
    Have this odd mindset when making decisions. Way back I was putting a bid in to to do a financial report in (I think we proposed a basic Crystal report to read off their SQL Database) reports for a fire department. Quick job easy to do... If the project failed no real impact. However the Chief was insist the quality of the the product was of utmost concern because what the do can be the difference between life and death. Then they went with an other company who was willing to make their own reporting system from scratch for a lot more, but they liked it because it was there and custom just for them. And some how this system was better then using an off the shelf system. And being that their jobs are so important they deserve better then off the shelf.

    A lot of the mind set is in terms of hardware these groups have a lot of specialized equipment that is better then off the shelf, and non standard. Firetrucks, Police Cars which are highly modified version of standard cars, the military has "Military Grade" for their equipment. So they are use to thinking that their stuff in order to be useful needs to be non-standard and custom.

    I am sure we know IT is kinda more broad. That a system designed to process data for 100,000 people either for corporate use or military makes little difference. The difference is if something goes wrong do you get attacked by lawyers from the company or do you get attacked by the lawyers of the military.

    The internet is such a hostile place to move your data anyways military grade isn't any different, they just do it in a way that makes it difficult for it to moved to the right spots.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  6. Re:I think that the operational flight software in by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FTFA:

    "If you want to open up the operational flight software in an airplane, think something along the lines of five years and at least $300 million just to open it up and close it, independent of what you want to try to do to improve it," Cartwright said. "We've got to find ways to do that better and more efficiently inside the Department of Defense for sure."

    Damned right. Operational flight software on a aircraft is so fundamental, it should be thought of as part of the hardware. 'Opening it up' is akin to redesigning the aircraft. You don't do that outside of the design and manufacturing environment. If you missed something in testing and acceptance, then there is a process for that. It takes 20 years sometimes to deploy new aircraft. You want to fiddle with the software over the weekend?

    General Cartwright has NFI what he is asking for. And should be kept away from it. Stick to the desk, General, and the troops, and leave the engineering to the engineers.

    Sheesh. A fair argument for not giving them more.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  7. Lobbyists by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what you get when government bureaucrats are bribed and bidders take the rest of platforms that are needed. Surprise, since I.T. in these departments have no say in the purchases all hell breaks loose and the government wonders why hundreds of billions of dollars are missing. Meanwhile the corrupt companies use that money earned to buy off more politicians to write laws stating to buy their products at inflated prices where you and I pay for them in our taxes. Lovely ... anyone in the private sector knows what I am talking about too with this. Specifically when a CEO has lunch with his buddy at Crapware Inc, which sells a product that you need to support that only works with Windows Vista update 23303 on May 12th 2009 ... on a tuesday, in addition to another product that Crapware Inc. sells, that only works with IE 6 in Windows XP with Java 1.3.1, not 1.3.2 or 1.3.0, which all of course has to communicate together. More fun and joy and of course it is all your fault and not the CEO if it is expensive and can't work together you are the computer guy right?

    The difference is in government all software and hardware is done this way and not just for some dumb executive's decision one time. Maybe if the pentagon had a CIO who made these decisions instead they could standardize on a platform so they can talk to each other.

  8. Blame the procurement process by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When your process is so complex that procurement types have to go to classes just to understand it and has so many rules that no one really understands it you get a system that heavily favors companies that understand the rules better than the people running the system. They know exactly what to do to meet the letter of the law and how to protest if they lose a bid so inmany cases the government is at their mercy. Combine that with a contracting officer's fear of even accidentally violating the rules and winding up in trouble and you have a system that always goes the "safe" route

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  9. yea well by Osgeld · · Score: 2

    what do you really expect when you whore out every project to the (random) lowest bidder?

    1. Re:yea well by dwillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But it's no longer the lowest bidder. The way it usually works in military IT systems, is someone's getting out, either by retirement or just ETS'ing. They see a need and talk with their buddies about what exactly they (in that small unit) need or want in a system. They then rough out some very specific specs, rough up an initial product and then work with their buddies to finalize their product to meet those very specific needs. And they start Battle Specific Hardware Internetworking Tech Inc. and make up pretty business cards that say BSHiT Inc.

      The buddies in the military then start the procurement process for said very specific system, setting the specs to be exactly matching what they and their former military buddies at BSHiT have developed. They do this because they know that in a few years when they get out, doing so will guarantee a nice high paying position at BSHit Inc.

      Thus when bid time comes, anyone else has to design a system from scratch, to meet those very specific criteria, while BSHiT Inc, has the product already designed and built exactly to the required specs. And thus not having to go through a full design process they are able to bid very competitively, plus they have the in with the buddies still in the service who are managing the program, thus they win the bid because they have the advantage of not just being very competitive on the bid but also having "Worked very closely in the development of the product to meet the specs (when the specs were actually created to meet the product), so they win the bid.

      Now as the procurement process goes on, other units and folks in the same field also now get to chirp in with what they'd like this system to include. Oh it needs to be able to communicate over the radio, and that radio, and satellite and Ethernet and via cans on a string! It needs this, it needs that. And thus the hardware becomes a mishmash. Then it needs to be hardened.

      And finally we get to the software, to make the sale they gin up their software package, ensuring it works wonders in the small scale demonstration. That's fine until it gets deployed and the software soon craps out when the real-world turns into a large scale event.

      So finally the product gets to the soldiers in the field, they are ordered to use this system because we've spent millions buying and fielding it, but it barely works. Oh but BSHiT wisely built a very expensive support system into the purchase contracts, so now on every major FOB in Iraq and Afghanistan they're paying some slob six figures tax free to keep the system barely scraping along. This highly paid geek, who gets full room and board for free as well, might have to occasionally work, but after a couple years they've tweaked the system and trained the soldiers how to not crash the system so they might have to work a couple hours a week.

      So the system scrapes along, and it survives because the soldiers figure out how to work around the system. They create their products, then export them to MS Office, clean them up and email the products. Their still running the overpriced, under-capable system but their best final products are created by taking the output of the system, importing it into a kludged together Access database, and presented via PowerPoint or on a Publisher produced website. But when asked they can always point to the BSHiT system and prove that they are using the system.

      Lowest bidder didn't win because to be lowest bidder they couldn't quite meet the custom designed specs.

      Oh and after a few years BSHiT will be swallowed up by Lockheed, L3, or one of the other big corps. The product and service won't improve, just the name behind it gets better known.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  10. My time in the Navy on an FFG by AntiBasic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I enlisted under what the navy calls Advanced Electronics Computer Field. I expected to actually, ya know, work on advanced electronics or computers. Was I in for a shock. Instead, I wasted my early and mid 20's working on 1970's era comm gear. The computer I spent the most time on was the UYK-20 which actually had a PAPER TAPE as the primary method of input. I actually envisioned working on modern equipment. The newest piece of gear I got to work on was the R-2368 receiver.

    God I wish I could sue the navy for false advertising. Fuck them.

  11. I worked for MARCORSYSCOM by buzz_mccool · · Score: 2

    I worked for the Marine Corps Systems Command (Quantico, VA) and tried mightily to move the Corps to inexpensive open systems and protocols. I don't know where General Cartwright was at the time, but the Marine Corps leadership did not look kindly on my attempts to implement solutions to the problems the General states exist. The General was quoted as saying "... we buy proprietary [and] we don't understand what it is we're buying into," My direct experience says this not a true statement. The Marine Corps understands to the highest degree that they are buying proprietary, closed, expensive systems. That's precisely what they specified, so that's exactly what they get. If anyone in this forum thinks that the Marine Corps leadership lacked sage advice or that nobody was willing to put their career on the line to get the leadership on the right path, you are mistaken.

  12. You misunderstand me by DesScorp · · Score: 2

    I'm all for smaller is better, but turning 50 government people to 50 contractors really doesn't make government smaller.

    I don't want jobs simply turned over to contractors... I don't want any military duties turned over to contractors at all. My point, more directly would be "why is a Marine doing a job that a sailor should be doing"? Traditionally, the Navy provided whatever support Marines needed. But in today's environment, the Marines get their own programmers, cooks, accountants, etc, simply so they can be more "independent" from the Navy. But they were never supposed to be independent from the Navy. They're Marines, after all.

    That kind of "He's got it so I want it too" attitude is a huge reason for that growth in government.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:You misunderstand me by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      OK, you're making a totally different argument here. Basically, you're questioning the way the Marines work as an organization, not the need for programmers.

      Marines need programmers for the same reason the Navy and the Army need their own programmers: they're separate organizations, run separately. Now, you're calling that into question, which is perfectly fine, and you have a good point: aren't the Marines supposed to just be the muscle on Navy ships? But for whatever reason, that's just not the way it is. The Marines aren't just riders on Navy ships, they have their own ships, their own aircraft, etc. Why is that the case? I don't know, probably bloat like you say. But whatever the reason, as long as they're a separate organization with their own ships, aircraft, cooks, etc., they also need their own programmers.

      You have a good point though: personally, I think the military needs to be severely downsized, and making the Marines just part of the Navy would go a long way towards improving efficiency.

  13. Re:I think that the operational flight software in by rhook · · Score: 2

    And yet they have more stringent certification requirements. US Military aircraft are some of the safest, most well maintained in the world.

  14. The problem is system accreditation by Chris453 · · Score: 2

    I currently work as an Air Force civilian and the biggest single problem is the crazy accreditation process. We would LOVE to use the best and newest open source programs and utilities to do our jobs but we are stuck using technology from 5-6 years ago because the accreditation process was intentionally created by contractors to be as complex as possible so that only they were qualified to get anything approved. (Job security anyone?) Got a great new product that would save 1,000 lives and countless millions? It *might* be fast tracked and only take 2 years to get approved.... The system IS a mess and our adversaries don't have to deal with it - they can use the best equipment and software immediately....

  15. Re:Good boys network. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    The hidden military is ran by the most top notch scientists in the world working on back engineering technology either not from earth, or hidden technology on each that was discovered using our tax dollars (but we don't get to see anything from this research, it trickles down over the years)

    You're kidding, right? While the idea that the government has a UFO from Roswell sounds cool and like a great movie plot, if they really had been reverse-engineering UFO technology, don't you think we'd have seen some more concrete results of that work by now, especially after all these decades? What modern technology can you possibly point to that was from UFOs, rather than something obviously invented by humans with no outside help?

    Some people like to argue that our rate of technological progress is obvious evidence of such a "conspiracy" (though a positive one, rather than your typical negative one). But mankind has had a very high rate of technological progress ever since the start of the Industrial Revolution, way before anyone was talking about UFOs. Just look at the changes in technology between 1900 and 1945: airplanes invented, jet engines/airplanes invented, radio, radar, the list goes on and on. In fact, many tech areas have been progressing much more slowly in the last 50 years, namely aviation. Except for lower cost, crappy or absent meals, and much smaller seating space, and of course getting irradiated or molested at the airport, there's little difference between flying a commercial plane from NY to London now versus 30 years ago. In fact, it was probably a shorter trip back then, as they're more worried about fuel economy now. The biggest change is probably that the airplane now has GPS navigation, and some fancy-looking glass-panel displays.

  16. Let's throw some money Ballmer's way by juliuszs · · Score: 2

    "Hoss" could do something right away - scuttle the "upgrade" to Vista and go straight to Win7. I know, I know, the whole business of using MS in the government is insane, but it would be nice to get to spend less by avoinding some of the criminal insanity,