You’re Off Base with Coast Guards SCIF Issue
On Saturday we brought forward and published under it’s post Put a cork in your assumptions on the future of Coast Guards WMSL’s; a comment by an anonymous poster with a good grasp of the issue. Today we do the same thing with “You’re Off Base on Coast Guards SCIF Issue.”
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 pushback. 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.
Outside opinion here …
Why aren’t you being given documents? Actually, you boasted your usage of data on the previous posting but never actually demanded them from that anonymous poster.
But, lets talk about your powerpoint presentation that you posted on the previous post. 1. it’s a scanned copy – not the original. 2. Let’s talk about where you got it…
The document you posted is a sensitive but unclass document. (See the sensitive at the bottom of the page.) Last year a Coast Guard Member in D1 went to jail for releasing Sensitive But Unclassified documents to a civilian in the fishing fleet. So who ever gave that to you is in the wrong. Technically, since you posted that document on a public website – it seems that the Coast Guard could have a pretty good case against you for releasing that material. Sea Service Group, whoever you are, that document wasn’t provided for public knowledge – and it’s on your website… follow the legal breadcrumbs.
On a separate note – your questioning the other anonymous poster’s credibility. Seems if they’re making a statement about the SCIF’s location and design – they just might actually have seen said SCIF. I would say that makes them a bit more credible than you. Have you even taken a tour of the ship yet?
What power point presentation on what post?
Michael, I’m on the deck plates for the NSC so it has nothing to do with taking anyone’s word. If these systems get turned on before they are ready then I promise that it will break wide open. the simple fact is that because of the scrutiny the CG is under it just won’t happen until the system is ready.
With respect to what is going on at the COMDT level and what happened with the 123’s I don’t really have the first hand knowledge to dispute what you are saying.
What i do know is that you are really reaching to make parallels. All of the issues you speak of happened when ICGS was making all of the calls. they no longer are in charge of the program. It takes time to stand up a proper acquisition program so you really need to give the process the time necessary to fix you rconcerns. The CG keeps putting out new builds of CGC2 to address TEMPEST and BERTHOLF is sailing right now (away from HP) with no crypto onboard.
Keep calling out the CG on the mistakes of the past but show the patience to let them fix the problems they created.
Regarding why the CG isn’t being fully transparent, I don’t knw what you expect. These are the capabilities of a national asset and the only thing the public needs to know is that it will all work at the end of the day.
BTW, the reason I don’t respond to some of your points is because I don’t have the first hand knowledge to speak on the matters. You might consider following the same protocol.
Your points are not correct.
The document was improperly marked Sensitive and released completely unredacted to POGO (Completely unredacted means there was no reason to black out any item. That can only happen if the document was not marked with any classification level that would normally prevent that. Sensitive being one of them). The Coast Guard sent the document as you see it to POGO after they filed a FOIA and D’Armiento’s lawyer filed the legal actions necessary to get the document in order to defend her client. Which she was able to do successfully. (Please feel free to call POGO or even the Coast Guard to confirm)
Read this series
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/homeland-security/hs-cg-20080201.html
The fact that the document was scanned means absolutely nothing. It is from the original document and not changed in any way (You are over reaching)
I did not say the SCIF doesn’t exist or wouldn’t exist. (I have stated that the SCIF had not been acquired yet in much earlier posts. Months ago. I believe that information was correct at the time. As for there being SCIFs on board now that could be true. That does not mean they can integrate them effectively and pass the relative testing including TEMPEST)
No I have not been on the ship. If you read through my responses I said that I believed the poster saw what they saw or heard what they heard. My push back was that they may not know the entire story.
Now that we know the document is real and not classified in any way I think we can stipulate by reading it that there were major TEMPEST issues at the time and they had to ADD thee SCIF(s)
Sorry – I posted a response as another was coming in. My last response was to Different Anonymous
You know when you post directly to me – it’s like you assume I don’t read what the other posters are saying. Let’s start with the add the SCIF comments by you and then look at what the deck plate level anonymous had to say – 1) No ship comes with a SCIF from the beginning and 2) The Coast Guard was still part of DOT when the ship was being designed. And then let’s look at their statement that the SCIF isn’t a bastardized space.
So what if it hasn’t been acquired yet? What do you care? Did you know that the Coast Guard still doesn’t have properly trained personnel to even man one yet? The IS rate was developed a year and a half ago – so what good would a SCIF do especially if other systems aren’t TEMPEST certified yet! What do you want to do, make problems more difficult so you can sit back, point, and laugh?
Let’s counter another point – I am over reaching… You’re over reaching. The 123 does not equal the NSC or the FRC. The FRC isn’t remotely near the NSC. Another anonymous poster wrote about the fact that the design process is different – new hull concept vs. proven hull concept. Jack Mehoff stated “C4ISR on the FRC wasn’t evaluated because the CG is going to do that part themselves. Considering the C4ISR garbage that ICGS provided with WMSL, I don’t blame them. LMCO and NGSS do some pretty shoddy work.” which directly corresponds with anonymous posters statement of “You have beat the horse but it takes time for the CG to completely redesign the C2 system the LMCO built.” Which then that point of the CGC2 system being supplied by the Coast Guard for the FRC completely destroys your system of system’s argument. If the hull wasn’t designed in the same way, and the C4ISR system isn’t being designed the same way – how is it the same?
Of course, all these posters could be lying like you assume that Admiral Blore is.
Or you can rant about the 123’s in Cuban waters – hell if I know anything about that. You can talk about dates slipping – it’s a first of class cutter – do you think dates slip? Talk to the crews of the LCS – they’ve been commissioned and are way more in trouble than the NSC. And the Navy had an acquisition department to “manage it”. Talk to the crew of the WAESCHE – that one’s not coming out until 2010. Dates slip especially when you have two wack job contractors, NG and LM, who calling them incompetent is generous.
Or go back ranting about Ron Porter. Fact is, he’s still in a job. He’s overseeing the TEMPEST testing on the NSC program in fact. Totally looks like those waivers were illegal doesn’t it?
No, you haven’t been on the ship… even though it was parked in your backyard and was open to public tours. But then again, I’m sure they only had people doing the tours were only actors, paid to look like Coasties and spew just flagrant lies to continue the CG-9 conspiracy.
Stop treating the people that you talk to like they’re idiots. I know that scanned copy wasn’t the original because I saw the original document. Wasn’t aware the Coast Guard officially released it until now. I know that the anonymous poster isn’t lying about the SCIF space being onboard, because I’ve stood in there myself. There is no equipment, but it certainly isn’t a bastardized space. When people say you are reaching, maybe you should take them at face value.
Focus on the facts, not your suppositions. If you want to write a whole article about how the NG shipyard in Pascagoula sucks, and is part of the problem – go for it – that would be awesome journalism. How about an expose on your previous employer? The CG is trying to change the problems internally. Why don’t you hone in on the two biggest ones?
First to Anon
What does on the deck plates mean? First hand knowledge? Your background is in what? You see or heard what directly? They are over a year late in getting the classified systems installed. Is there a SCIF now? Do you acknowledge it was an added requirement and wasn’t added until last fall – well after the design was complete and most of the ship was built? How would it “break wide open?” What would cause that? Who would break it open?
Thank you for your comments on the 123 now. (I was going to leave it at that then I read the rest of your post. As I state below it is interesting that you can’t find a way to simply cede the point and choose instead to back out of the specific discussion because you don’t have “first hand knowledge”. You apparently thought it was OK to challenge me without it? )
Again I do not stipulate that CG isn’t making calls. I am saying that ICGS is more in charge than you say they are. First – ICGS has not ceded that? Have they? Where is the contract letter saying that? As for the press announcements – I will treat those as suspect – as most should be given this leadership’s history – until I see something objective that proves the action. Also you did not address my points about ICGS not contractually losing all control yet – especially the congressional bills that have yet to pass. I think the contractors yield a whole lot of power behind the scenes. The CG and the contractors have each other by the short hairs regarding the cover up and illegal activity. The contractors might take one or two on the chin but they will not let the CG knock them out.
Patience to let them fix things? They have lied repeatedly – and still do. They stonewalled congress and the IG – and still do. They only make changes when backed into a corner. Look at most of the Commandant’s changes. They came under pressure – most just before or after hearings or press coverage. He is not proactively transparent – far from it. We will need new leadership before our patience will ever be rewarded.
As for what I expect regarding a “national asset”. I expect the full transparency the Commandant boasts about – except when there is a legitimate national security reason for not doing so. They should divulge the whole story about the SCIFs, the Porter debacle etc.
As for your second and final explanation about not responding to my points because you don’t have first hand knowledge. That’s a cop out. Again – you didn’t need first hand knowledge to make your comments in the first place – especially those stating I was incorrect. No – what is happening here is you challenge me, I provide a good argument and data and you decided to opt out. Which would be fine except you make a hypocritical excuse for doing so instead of taking the high rode and ceding the point. As for your suggestion that I don’t have first hand knowledge and as such I should stay quiet – when I believe I am incorrect about something I say so. When I believe something is fact or it is a supposition I say so. I will continue to do just that until something objective persuades me to change. My first, second and third hand knowledge has served me well so far so far (mistakes and all) so I will stick with them until something objective and verifiable comes along to change that.
Now to Different Anon
I only said the last was posted directly to you because I noticed that after I posted another post showed up in between ours. I just wanted to make sure you knew I was responding to you.
1 – You are incorrect. If the spaces were to be originally designed for a SCIF and SCIFs were to be added they would usually be part of the prop and design. Why? Because the costs and schedule would have to be covered. Additionally the contractor would want that approach approved at design reviews etc. Was the SCIF even mentioned at CDR? (If it was why use and ECP later?)
2 – You are incorrect. I was there when the C4ISR systems were designed for the NSC. They started in parallel with the 123s and then continued well past the 123s design. (As they have much more than the 123s that makes sense). Northrop couldn’t finish the design of the interior, cable ways. Exterior mounting etc until Lockheed figured out their C4ISR part. Northrop would want to know how much of what is needed, where does it all go, how does it all connect, what is supposed to be in a secure space etc. As such you are incorrect – most of the design was done well after 2002 and after the CG moved to DHS. (Now conceptual conversations and the prop etc did take place during the DOT period. If your point was that the SCIF discussions would have first taken place then you might have been correct. But that was not your point)
I care if they don’t have the SCIF because it helps confirms the pattern. (I also know from other industry sources which direction they look to be headed regarding the type of SCIF they will use) If the SCIF design was always part of the plan they wouldn’t need that ECP (which you have yet to address) and they would most likely buy more than one set to get a good price. They would also sign with a vendor much earlier than this to give them time to figure out the design etc
As for your point about the IS rate. I actually don’t understand it – please explain. Is your point that a SCIF isn’t needed on board until the systems are TEMEPST certified? If it is they actually can’t get the full cert – and pass instrumented testing – until the SCIF(s) are in and all of the equipment, cables etc are in their final resting places. So no SCIF – no testing – no testing – no acceptance.
Regarding the 123 and FRC not being “equal” to the FRC or the NSC. If you are talking about the C4ISR systems you are wrong. With system of systems, the commonality needs to operate with the rest of the CG and other organizations, the need to continue some designs to avoid exposure and being locked in to some designs due to previous acceptance (illegal, improper or not) and other entities as well as the availability of some COTS equipment they are far more common than not. For example they have to stick with the same crypto, the same radios, the same cables etc (in most cases). They also have to stick with the C2 system unless they plan on ditching the whole thing and paying for a whole new software system or pay another vendor to make another system that plays with the old one. I doubt that they have the money, schedule or legal grounds to do that. As for the hulls and other HM&E issues being not being equal I assume you are correct. Ship design is not my area of expertise so I will defer to your point.
The Cuban/Porter is important because it was illegal and improper; it set up contractually approved designs for assets after the 123s and created a situation where the CG and ICGS have to cover that up – thereby greatly inhibiting their ability to make the right decisions, in the same area, in the future.
As for first in class dates slipping. Sure I get that. I get that first in class ships are bound to have issues and in today’s defense bidding environment everyone is pretty much over bid and behind schedule. My issue is with the extremely avoidable problems – which all of these are and were. My problem is also with knowingly allowing those problems, pushing them on to every asset for the life of the contract and putting lives and the nation at risk. These were not simple mistakes, issues based on complex designs etc. People made the wrong calls – knowing they were the wrong calls. They started out looking small and piled up. It’s that simple.
OK so the LCS may be in worse shape. That means what? Don’t try to get the NSC right? Allow for a slightly less screwed up ship and only a couple hundred million $ wasted in comparison. That is a nonsensical point and the kind of nonsense that got us where we are.
Porter still working in no way means he did nothing improper or illegal. It simply means his superiors are still covering for him. Did you see the docs I posted proving what Porter did? Shall I post them again? Would you like to refute each of them? (By the way there are ongoing DHS IG and DoJ investigations. Let’s leave the final word on this until they finish)
I didn’t tour the ship because I have certain restrictions placed on me and I am observing them.
I am not treating anyone like an idiot. I take this seriously, I take objective challenges seriously and I take non-objective challenges and some of the messenger shooting seriously. This is not a game. This matters. If someone is going to chime in, especially to shoot the messenger, put forth spin or makes charges and then completely ignore the data I am going to call them on that. (Having said this if my rhetoric and choice of words does make it look like I am being excessively critical, harsh or demeaning then I apologize)
You are incorrect about the scanned copy not being accurate. You say you saw the original. Produce the doc and demonstrate the difference. If the scanned version is wrong then the CG sent a knowingly false document in response to a FOIA and a legal filing requesting the documents for discovery. Additionally I have the original SCIF page that was sent to the press originally by D’Armiento and they match. Lastly – you say you didn’t know the doc was released until recently. It was actually released almost a year ago. I first started using it 6 months or so ago. Lastly – what is your point about the doc not being correct? Are you saying the data was wrong or fabricated? Exactly which slide and bullets are you referring too?
If you say the SCIF is there and the equipment is not I believe you. (I just took you for face value – and that is with your disagreeing with me) The timing makes sense. It also means they won’t be done for quite a while – if ever. (As they have a long way to go). As for bastardizing the space. The SCIFs were not supposed to be there or needed. They are covering for a boat that was designed wrong. Therefore the interior of those ships is bastardized compared to how it was supposed to be.
As for writing something on the contractors. There is plenty of time for that. Let’s see what the final chapter is.
Regarding the CG trying to change and I should go after the contractors. Again – the contractors are the party who is most at fault. They started this. However – the Commandant and his staff made very bad choices and made things worse. Additionally the CG has pushed ICGS to the side a bit – taking on a bigger role. As such they own the problems from the time they realized things were screwed up. They knew the NSC and 123s hulls would be an issue prior to 2002. I told them about every C4ISRissue, the first time, by December 2003. (And many times after. Along with their own C4ISR 123 engineer Joe Michel). The current CG senior leadership squandered their chances – time and time again – and are still doing so. (I gave the Commandant and his staff the benefit of the doubt – and for a long time. Did you see my hearing, – almost two years ago? Did you hear the CG C4ISR engineer for the 123s, Joe Michel, state every one of my allegations was accurate and he tried to get them fixed with his won CG chain? He got nowhere)
I’m not going to respond to some of your silliness – call it a cop out or whatever. I will talk to you about the SCIF because it seems you might actually be listening. It’s really simple story.
Once upon a time, the Coast Guard was in the Department of Transportation. They had a pretty simple job, SAR, LE, ATON, although they didn’t get a lot of money for doing it. Important fact here: No “Legacy” assets have a permanently installed SCIF. Hence, there were no personnel who can operate or maintain a SCIF.
One day they noticed their ships were getting pretty old and they decided to embark on a project called Deepwater. In the middle of this planning project a little thing called 9/11 happened and the Coast Guard’s roles change significantly – and they ended up in a new department. At some point someone said “We’re beefing up our intel program, let’s add a SCIF”. So that space went into the ship’s hull design. Fact: Ever since the ship was up on blocks, the space was intended to be a SCIF.
Well, in the interest of beefing up the intel program in general, in addition to manning these new SCIFs, the Coast Guard developed the IS rate. Basically they took who ever wanted to swap rates, and if they had a clearance and could speak some foreign languages, they made them an IS. There isn’t an IS school yet, and the training they have gone through has either been job specific or in what their previous rating was. (Want documentation – go to Fred’s place, I’m sure the message announcing the creation of the IS rate is on there somewhere.)
So progress continued on the NSC – the SCIF remained empty – because there was a bigger problem – C4ISR. No secure comms, well, you can’t even do your regular job, let alone tack this SCIF thing on.
The SCIF was never and is not intended to integrate with the shipboard C4ISR program. So, in the spirit of keeping it simple, address the known TEMPEST issues with the current C4ISR program. Get the darn thing certified. Then, talk about adding the SCIF and the personnel. Don’t compound the problem, when as of right now it isn’t even a necessity. It seems fairly rational.
Yes, it’s taking a long time. I would say that is due to a multitude of problems – a 3 week strike at the shipyard resulted in NG pushing the delivery date back by 3 months. I don’t know how that math works out, but that’s kind of why you should look into how the contractors have screwed up. That behavior sucks for the Coast Guard since they desperately need new ships. It sucks for that crew – as all they want to do is their job. Slowly it’s happening though.
If you want to have a open discussion about this – fair. Don’t shoot messengers like me or other anonymous posters because you don’t like finding out that you’re off base or there isn’t a grand conspiracy. Which in all honesty is what you do. If you don’t like what you hear, then you’re like what about the 123’s or Ron Porter? I don’t care. This statement is about the SCIF, the lack of personnel, and how things take time to do it right.
Your response is unnecessarily sarcastic and disrespectful. Especially given your comment about how I treat others.
“The SCIF was never and is not intended to integrate with the shipboard C4ISR program.”
That statement is literally impossible if the SCIF is where all the comm circuits etc terminate. This may be a crucial point in our discussion. In most cases a SCIF is used to house the secure (red) equipment, the personnel who process the information, information storage, crypto keys (in many cases), office equipment etc. Help me understand what is in the SCIF(s) you are talking about? The only way it or they can be entirely separate from the C4ISR systems is if the C4ISR comm terminations are in another space. That would make the SCIF you are referring to a room(s) where information is only handled – not received or sent. I have been in DoD and State Department SCIFs. They all resembled the set up I described. Of course that doesn’t mean they can’t be different. Please explain.
Again – as far as I know you cannot certify the C4ISR without the SCIF in and everything installed unless – again – there are no electronics in the SCIF(s) you are referring to.
Let me add another point. If the SCIF(s) are passive as you state what is the C4ISR TEMPEST equipment and testing hold up? Your explanations do not explain a 1 year or more delay. And why was an ECP needed, last fall, for the SCIF(s)? You have yet to address that. (Was the point of the last response that someone manufactured that slide set? If so who?)
I do not believe I am shooting anyone. I am simply pushing back on those who challenged me and asking for data and for my data to not be ignored – which it is far more often than not. Notice how I address pretty much each and every statement you and others make? I do not see those who challenge me doing that. More often than not they pick and choose. I also request and offer to provide data and to discuss each. Far more often than not those who challenge me ignore that.
Again you did not discuss the merits of the my Porter push back or the data.
Lastly my push back has nothing to do with what I like or want. It has to do with what makes sense given the history and data. So far you have not made the case