Coast Guard Lead System Integrater
Coast Guard takes charge as integrator lead in procurements
By Michael DeKort
Doesn’t this mean all of the NSCs will be built with LM/NG in charge of those efforts. What if they put the OPCs under contract before the end of 2011 – does that get grandfathered? That effort alone is 1/2 of the entire Deepwater budget.
Do any of the NSCs have approved and working SCIFs? Do any of the NSCs have approved and working secret level communication systems? Did the TEMPEST tests pass? If so did they pass because they were designed and built properly or the Coast Guard either leveraged the illegal 123 waivers or created new ones?
Our FCA trial will be over before the deadline of 2011 mentioned in the article. Let’s see how everyone comes out when all is said and done at the trial. The Coast Guard senior leaders, congress, officials in the US Navy, the DHS IG, the CEOs and senior program management, engineering, quality and ethics leaders of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman will all have to answer for what they did and did not do before that deadline is reached.
The first SCIF is still being installed and won’t be tested until this spring (as planned). Its tempest testing will be complete prior to its sail from PSA. BERTHOLF’s ATO was received in May after SPAWAR instrumented testing recommended approval(of course you know this because you posted on this website that it was a lie and a grand conspiracy). WAESCHE was accepted last week with a SPAWAR tested and approved system. NG/LM are playing no LSI role at this point beyond work on STRATTON and the completion of the COSAS and HC-130 acquisitions. They have no seat at table for the FRC, OPC, or UAS (other than potential contractors if they bid and win). In fact, there is strong possibility that they won’t even win the contracts for the NSC hulls 4-8. CG-9 has taken over as the LSI, CG-6 is taking over most of the C4ISR work, and the only way NG or LM are doing work for the CG is when they bid on individual projects.
This is one of the worst posts you have ever done. Usually when you put lies on paper you at least try to make it coherent. This issue is dead and no one really cares anymore. If you want to see the progress take a look at the INSURV message regarding WAESCHE. I’m not a big fan of NG or LM but their second product to roll of the line has turned out much better.
I will always agree that you were treated unfairly by LM and you deserve a big pool of money. Also, no one disagrees with the opinion that the private LSI was a horrible idea (a fact illustrated when the army fired their LSI Boeing/GD earlier this year). Was it a bad decision not to hold LM’s feet to the fire WRT the 123’s; of course. It required a change in leadership before the culture changed. The changed happened and the program was terminated years ago. How naive are you that you would assume no one learned their lessons?
I don’t even know why I am wasting my time. They say insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result. I must be insane to think that if I put out logic and truth that it will mean anything to you.
BRAVO!
Nice. Doubt Michael DeKort will pay much attention since he’s been beating this horse so much the bones have become powder but a great comment.
I like how even when people post in support of Coast Guard programs, they still do so anonymously. Is it that they fear they might not really have it right and bought the company line.
If you’re sure you got it right in support of the 2nd Deck, say so. What do you have to be afraid of?
Original Anonymous
Before I address certain points and criticisms I want to than you for those areas where you were supportive and the comments were positive.
If someone other than LM or NG (or one of their surrogates who subs them back) wins the other NSCs that would be very impressive.
I have no doubt it’s not possible to build a good ship or to get these things right. It may even be possible that these companies and the CG can get it right. (LM for example does very well on Aegis and many other programs). What I do not believe is that the same groups of people can get it right. All of a sudden they are became competent and ethical? The only way they get it right is if there is no way to do so and not violate the SoS requirements established by the 123s. They can’t alter their approach because it would prove the original fraud. The NSC can only be right where there is no overlap from the 123s.
The Navy and SPAWAR tested TEMPEST before and Porter waived the failures. The event was then called successful. I think they will never have working SCIFs on the first few NSCs if any at all. Watch them say there is no need and change the requirements. Curious – if it was always planned why is it taking so long?
The FCA trial is in one year. The legal system and the DoJ are keeping this all alive now in addition to me.
Where’s that 123 refund?
As for no one learning their lesson. I am sure someone has. The issue is that most have not and most will never. These people didn’t just make mistakes. They made knowledgeable and willful decisions that put the CG and nation at risk and have created a huge bed of lies that effects the decision making to this day. Corrupt people at that level don’t miraculously change their stripes. If they really learned something wouldn’t that include being transparent and admitting their mistakes and bad decisions? Wouldn’t that include coming forth with the truth. Why not admit and apologize for the Porter issue – as well as the others? Why not apologize to the nation, the CG and me and my family? No one was fired? Which individuals were held accountable? The CG has nothing to say relative to the conduct of the contractors or how they were treated? Again – where is the 123 refund if the lessons were learned? Why would the contractors blame the CG for the problems if lessons were learned? Nonsense. The crucial lessons were not learned by those who most need to learn them. What they learned is how to work the system, stretch things out, spin, lie, tell small truths to appear truthful and transparent overall and protect themselves and their mates. They learned how to handle you and most people who don’t have all the data or want desperately to trust in their leaders.
Keep an eye on our trial. Everyone is going to have to answer for what they did and did not do.
By the way – and this is not bating – exactly where did I lie? I have never lied. Gotten some small details wrong yes – but never lied.
Amen Brother. I’m sick of this whiner. It is obvious that the CG screwed the pooch on Deepwater initially and I’m sure all those Flag Officers and SES’s got reprimanded (that’s code for promoted and given positions of much higher responsibility and more pay). But give it a break please, the whining is too much….I get it, you are smarter than anyone in the CG.
Michael,
Here’s the problem, you are taking real mistakes from the 123’s and extrapolating them to the NSC’s. I was outside of the program during the entire 123 project and only walked into the aftermath. The first I ever heard of the issue was actually from you on You Tube. In my opinion there are two reasons why the 123 debacle happened:
1) NO CG cutter had ever gone through instrumented TEMPEST testing. In fact, to date the only cutters in service that have gone through anything other than visual testing are the NSC’s. This can be best illustrated by the fact the the SPEC for the NSC had no mention of TEMPEST requirements (written by ICGS).
2) During the beginning of the NSC program and throughout the entire 123 conversion, the CG really had no say in the program and there was a really big fear with interfering with NG/LM. Hell look at where the CG is now, Reject the cutters, fire the contractor, and sue them and they have the gaul to sue the CG.
The TEMPEST issues really came to light a bit too late for BERTHOLF. For the first year more than 30 server racks were replaced on the ship to actually pass TEMPEST and miles of cable were replaced. Now look at WAESCHE, its a non issue now.
Now WRT the SCIF, I have no desire to go down the road of why it was an ECP instead of part of the original contract but when you include the its entire install time and all associated testing, the RFO period for BERTHOLF (first in class) is shorter than the period for the DDG’s that are more than 60 hulls deep in the class.
I’m never going to change your mind on some of these issues. I would suggest you file a FOIA request for the instrumented TEMPEST report and do the same following the instrumented tests for the SCIF. Unfortunately you are never going to be able to see anything on how well the SCIF works due to its high level classification. Please keep in mind though that SPAWAR is the contractor for the install and not LM.
I’d recommend you provide some background on this trial because while it sounds interesting, I don’t think most readers have much background.
To respond to the question on why I comment anonymously all I can say is there is no benefit for me to give my name. I don’t know if it would hurt my career but a little caution never hurt anyone. I have no illusions about the faults of senior leadership now and in the past. You also won’t find me saying anything positive on modernization. I’m at a supported unit and all I can say is that the support suck before and it sucks no more or less now. I’m also not very surprised because senior leadership loves to tell the field that they will provide you some % of the solution and leave the rest for us to figure out. So I don’t buy the company line, I simply report what I’m seeing and living on a daily basis.