Put a cork in your assumptions on the future of Coast Guards WMSL’s
Michael DeKorts 12 January 2009 post GAO comes down on Bollinger’s side has generated pretty healthy discussion. One anonymous comment deserves its own post in the interest “fairness in reporting.” The anonymous author of the post was to point, articulate and apparently has detailed knowledge of the topic. We’ll try to give such comments, and rebuttals thier own space.
I want to go back to the original comment and your reply. The comment stated that the CG has rogered up on the importance of TEMPEST on the WMSL. As such, to date no classified systems are functioning onboard BERTHOLF. This will not changed until the entire ship, its cabling, it C2 systems, and its procedures meet FULL TEMPEST standards. Recently BERTHOLF successfully completed its visual TEMPEST inspection and the CG is making necessary modifications to full satisfy TEMPEST requirments. With that said (unless you want to say all above is a lie) where is your beef. I’ll gladly admit that you probably know more about the 123 “CF” than most that read this blog and if you want to go on about that then fine. The plain and simple truth is that everything you say about the WMSL is from third party sources in conjunction with your own extrapolations and suppositions. Stick to what you know and leave the WMSL discussion to actual sources and cited references. Regarding your opinion of whether the WMSL should have a SCIF; that sounds like your diasgreement with policy not TEMPEST itself. Throwing such a bold one-liner out there is inappropriate unless you intend to actually follow it up. Your repeated crying that the CG allegedly transmited near Cuba with inproperly shielded systems does not give you the credibility or experience to claim that the CG is incapable of properly creating, integrating, operating, and maintaining a SCIF. In fact, the SCIF will never be turned on until those parties that do possess such authority clear the system. So please do me and all the readers a simple favor. Put a cork in your assumptions on the WMSL’s future. Feel free to call out ICGS and the CG for the blunder that was Deepwater. Use the benefit of hindsight to show every wrong decision up to now. Tell CG-9 that they have a long way to go. Tell everyone how like evey Navy first of class hull 750 is painful. Please feel free to do all of that but until the day that the red side of BERTHOLF is turned on shut up about WMSL TEMPEST. You have beat the horse but it takes time for the CG to completely redesign the C2 system the LMCO built.
You can either report the facts and leave the fiction to those that call it a profession or you can take a stab at the great American novel and leave the journalism to those that do that for a living.
Let me take these in order
- The fact that the NSC has yet to run the instrumented tests, which it promised to do over a year ago (and then announced several major schedule slips) demonstrates there is still a problem. Would you like me to post the slip dates?
- You never addressed my point that a s SCIF was never part of the original design, something Adm. Gore stated incorrectly (a lie?). I have the original requirements as well as the CG’s own status report showing the status of the Engineering Change Proposal to add the SCIFs. Would you like me to send you those docs? This data is first hand – not third hand as you suggest. This means the SCIFs are new and a design addition. Why? Why add interior modules to spaces that are and were supposed to be designed to secure spaces on their own? Of course there is some supposition on my part – but I don’t think very much given the history and the data shown here. (That history included the Porter improper and illegal waivers, which are at the heart of the cover up. Something I also see you didn’t address either). Additionally others have posted (including on other sites) that there are major design flaws with the interior of the NSC, that they would cost hundreds of millions to fix, if they could be fixed at all, and that the SCIFs are a huge bastardization of the ship to hide that situation.
- I know the Coast Guard transmitted the SIPRNET, the government wide secure internet, because the Coast Guard bragged about doing that from the 123s in a press release. Additionally the committee that held my hearing last year concluded the exact same thing. Shall I send that first hand data to you? Would you like me to post that here?
- I do not know if SCIFs can be forced fit or not and if they were they could probably be maintained. The issue real issue is that the Coast Guard and contractors are willing to bastardize 8 ships, over $3b worth of ships I believe, in order to hide their continued incompetence and to avoid being held accountable for those and previous issues.
- I do want to commend the anonymous blogger. While they shot the messenger a little they made what appears to be an attempt to deal with the issues and information. I applaud that. Unfortunately the writer does not appear to be in possession of the correct or first hand information they lambaste me for not having – a charge I demonstrated is incorrect. Now let’s see how the response is handled
- Lastly I will send the data I mention to ANYONE who provides me a means for doing so. If you pay attention to this site you can see that I post quite a lot of the first hand information I have. To date I have never had a single data item successfully refuted. (To be honest 99% of the time when I post data the bloggers who challenged me ignore it)
Let me post one piece first hand data – again
This is CG presentation showing they had to ADD a SCIF. Page 7
http://pogoarchives.org/m/wi/deepwater/risk-brief-20070830.pdf
This is in reference to the last sentence of the second to last paragraph “You have beat the horse but it takes time for the CG to completely redesign the C2 system the LMCO built.”
I wish you complete success. If anybody is going to get it successfully done it is the crew working together with Coast Guard resources such as the Coast Guard Yard.
If the poster meant C2 as in command and control only – maybe it has to be redone. The C&C software was delivered after I left so I never got to see it work. i read there were issues and they made updates.
If the poster meant all the C4ISR it actually doesn’t need a complete redesign – at least as far as the core internally installed equipment goes. Fix some location and cabling issues as well as buy the external equipment higher up in the line that meets the environmental requirements and they are probably good to go on most of it. Given some of the requirements there actually aren’t that many COTS choices for most of it. Having said that this it also depends how far along the later designs are. Did or will the FRC design get all of this right? Maybe there is time for them. (And time for the OPCs?) But the NSC is well beyond that. It was being designed in parallel with the 123s. The location, hardening of the external equipment and cabling issues could be huge as they would probably have be redesigns Hence the addition of the SCIF(s).
You are off base with the SCIF issue Michael. Show me one Navy ship that was acquired with a SCIF in it. The original design and contract of the ship did not call for a full SCIF for two reasons:
1) Builders rarely every install above secret level systems. SCIF’s are routinely installed afterwards due to the sensitivity of the systems, their lack of integration into other systems and the need for instalation by government agencies. You can’t install these systems are private yards because it would interefere with the installation of the rest of the CIC equipment. This is why it was never meant to be installed until after the CG owned the ship.
2) The P-spec for the ship was released in 2002. At the time the CG was still under the ownership of the Department of Transportation. As the CG migrated to DHS the desired use of the WMSL changed. The new reality of CG operations and DHS priorities has made the SCIF a necssary tool.
Even with all of that said, the SCIF is not just some cobbled together space on BERTHOLF. The SCIF space onboard is logically placed and isolated from the comms space and CIC.
I will gladly agree that the internal layout of the ship is prroly conceived and for the size of the ship, the it is not laid out very well. I think that such reports are fair and worth talking about further. You should focus on things like this. Please point out that idiots designed and built the ship. Please point out that the CG should never have signed off on such designs. The fair thing to say about the TEMPEST, SCIF, and C4ISR systems is that the CG has not signed off on them. The CG has taken over the updates and redesigns of CGC2, is forcing LMCO to comply with TEMPEST standards, and pulling them back in to make all of the radars and comms gear function properly. From what I am seeing first hand, the CG is holding the two main player’s feet pretty close to the fire. Its slow and its painful but its happening.
What is the CG supposed to do when they call them out and instead f getting the results they get sued instead. LMCO and NGSS are the enemy here and you should be focussing on them instead.
First – are you the same Anon who posted 5 blogs down? If so I see you chose to ignore most of the points I made – especially where I mentioned specific data items I can post/provide. Why is that?
1 – You mention the SCIF being installed after the CG took position of the ship. It appears you are not actually addressing my point. I never said the installation sequence was wrong. I said the SCIFs are added to the spec and contractually after the design had already been completed and accepted. Hence the ECP which I provided the link for. That means that having SCIFs at all was never intended. That means they are being added for a reason. As I understand it that reason is to cover for the original design. It was determined that fixing it the right way, if it could be done at all, would be too expensive as well as too politically dangerous to perform.
2 – My issue with is not with whether or not SCIFs can or are frequently good choices. Additionally the original spec I mentioned the SCIF not being a part of what the spec of record in 2004. That was well after the transition to DHS.
I agree with the rest of your points and don’t quite understand why you believe I don’t mention the poor design of the ship or that the CG should not have signed off – enough. I try to stick with the C4ISR issues because that is where my technical expertise is. When that intersects with the ship construction, contracts or acceptance I try to mention that. As such I do mention the C4ISR more.
As far as I know you are correct – the CG has not signed off on the TEMPEST systems for the NSC. That implies they will get things right. The track record doesn’t show that. The CG created the Porter issue. As a matter of fact both the DHS IG and congress confirmed that event and my associated allegations, especially TEMPEST, as being accurate and the CG still maintains they are not. (Also remember they said every one of my allegations was baseless originally. Not too strong a showing if leadership, honesty, integrity and ethics matter). The CG leadership dug a hole for themselves that looks to be getting deeper. If they were doing the right thing why not actually be transparent for a change and admit there were and are issues? Why not say they are adding SCIFs because of a major screw up? No – they won’t do that because that would be opening Pandora’s Box and would be an end to quite a few careers.
As for holding Lockheed’s feet to the TEMPEST fire and you’re witnessing it first hand I am not sure what to say. I am sure you see what you see. Do you KNOW they are – or are just being told that? Did they make some changes but not all? Do you have a background that affords you the ability to know the difference? Are they solving some of the TEMPEST issues while sacrificing other areas – like the SCIF solution?
As for focusing on the contractor. I can see you are passionately defending the Coast Guard. Let me say this – again. The contractors got us all in this mess. They are beyond pathetic – especially given the importance of the subject matter post 9/11. The problem with the CG leadership is that they blew their chance to rise above it. They knew about the NSC hull issues way before the NSC was designed. They knew about the problems associated with making 110s longer before the 123s were designed. I told them about EVERY 123 C4ISR issue before any of them were delivered – let alone 8. (At my hearing. Joe Michel the CG’s own C4ISR engineer for the 123s stated he tried to get them to make changes as well). The CG covered for far too many problems and as such wound up as an acomplis. They didn’t want to be exposed or have the program halted so they aided in the cover up – which quickly snowballed. The reason you should be frustrated with your own senior leadership is because they had a chance to get things right and not only did not make things right they made most of it worse and are continuing to do so. (The DHS IG himself stated that he had never seen the lack of cooperation he was seeing in his career. That statement was about Admiral Allen’s organization). They are in so far now the only way out is for all of those responsible, actively or passively, to be removed. I completely understand your loyalty – and you strong desire to defend your leadership. I gave them the benefit of the doubt way before I went to any outside organizations or the press. (I talked to Adm. Allen’s own staff and tried to get them to do the right things). After a while I came to the unfortunate realizations they went from victims to being part of the problem.
In closing I want to say that I appreciate your passion and your push back. All I can say is that this issue is far too important to take anyone’s word for – mine or your chain of command’s. Demand proof – then go through it with an open and objective mind. Let the information guide you. These things are far too important to do otherwise.