AUVSI: Northrop Grumman attacks approps staffer -- by name! -- for RQ-4 funding cut

Defense contractors now resorting to selling products by accusing customers of "killing soldiers" by not buying them? Sweet. How about Northrop Grumman "save some soldier's lives" by cutting the profit margin on everything they make in half, thus making the government able to buy more stuff?

What Royce said. Looks like the anti-health-care-reform crazies' tactics are "trickling up" to defense company executives. Very troubling indeed. Such rhetoric has no place in this sort of dialogue. My guess is that the unnamed, named staffer will still have a job next week, but this Walby bozo may graciously contribute his own share to grow the unemployment rolls by one...

why are you not disclosing the staffers name? the more i learn about the workings of Congress the more they (staffers) appear to be the puppet masters. at least give us a clue to help with personal research.

Let's face it, all these defense cuts are due to one man -- that lying, vile, left-wing weasel Obama. Obama and Team Evil are redistributing defense money to payoff their corrupt cronies and centralize power in left-wing hands. That means less money to Northrop and more money to union thugs like SEIU or ambulance chasing trial lawyers.

Solomon - Congressional staffers do indeed have more "power", or shall I say "say", than anyone who is not familiar with the legislative process can imagine. They are the one who do the research and provide recommendations to their bosses, who are often completely ignorant of the issues presented by this or that bill. They are not puppet masters or little Richelieus or anything of the sort, though. The congressperson in question is still the "decider." But obviously, given the logistics of the process, they can be extremely influential, given that no single person can read, say, a 1,000-page bill. You should also look into how influential court clerks can be, particularly those on the Supreme Court. The Congress members you see on TV, and the Supreme Court Judges, are but the tip of a huge iceberg. Think of it like how a fighter pilot depends on hundreds of people so he can drop a bomb or fire a missile. He, or she, is but the pointy end of a very long spear.

Interesting post on two fronts (at least).
1. Solomon beat me to the unnamed staffer question, so 'Ditto'. These career 'staffers' bounce around the halls of Congress, with no one having elected them, gathering informal influence over the years that can rival all but the most powerful legislators. Knowledge of the system is King, when procedures and rules are complex and nebulous. Staff sizes of Congress have balooned over the years to the point that we now have lawmakers passing laws that are 'too long to read'. Forget term limits. Limit 'staffers'. These guys are the ones that made the old BBC series 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister so funny, relevant, and a favorite to military acquisition types 'back in the day'. (AFTER Monty Python of course)
2. It is VERY atypical that a specific villian pulling strings in the background can be identified by name. Usually they are more careful.

Hey, Mark, think I saw you shouting at some health-care town-hall on TV. Cheers! Great work! Way to have a civilized dialogue! Man, I love this country...

BTW: The term 'attack' seems somewhat inflammatory given the information provided. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state the NG guy "assigned responsibility" or "identified the person responsible" ?

Just askin' ;-)

I think the term "attack" is entirely appropriate, given that this NG wacko virtually accused the staffer in question of killing U.S. troops through lack of funding...

"Looks like the anti-health-care-reform crazies' tactics are "trickling up" to defense company executives."
*************************************************
I find it humorous that the lefties are having a BIG problem with the very tactic they have employed since the Demo convention of the 60's in Chicago. Hummm! Turn about fair play?

"Obama and Team Evil are redistributing defense money to payoff their corrupt cronies and centralize power in left-wing hands."

The defense budget is going to be the same size in FY2010 as it was in FY2009. Which cuts to programs are rewarding Obama's friends? Hawker Beechcraft got a big new contract for ISR aircraft, but these are aircraft that are going into service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

RE: I think the term "attack" is entirely appropriate, given that this NG wacko virtually accused the staffer in question of killing U.S. troops through lack of funding.

No. You apparentlyFEEL term "attack" is entirely appropriate.

As cited, the NG rep expressed his POV, his valuation, on the risk reduced vs. $ needed to reduce that risk. Like it or not, this cost-benefit, risk-reward tradeoff is made with every weapon system acquisition decision, and for that matter every battle plan ever executed.

Getting back to the actual quote:

"It's a good cut if you want to save the taxpayers money, but I think soldiers' lives are more important than $300 million or $400 million,"

The NG rep is simply voicing his view that the $ would be worth it for the lives it could save. The implication of that statement is that the NG rep thinks the staffer thinks the $ would NOT be worth the lives saved.

Having a loved one now in the 'Stan, with a good chance of having another one there in the not too distant future, and being acutely aware of the UAV's contribution on the current and future battlefield, I am highly sympathetic to the NG rep's POV.

If someone else thinks as the NG rep believes the Staffer does ($ not worth the potential lives saved) I would be interested in hearing a rational explanation as to exactly WHY they would think these UAVs contribution to protecting lives would NOT be worth the $.

If it had been another UAS other than the poorly managed Global Hawk, I would be more sympathetic.

So if Ed Walby can name the staffer, why can't this piece of "reporting" do the same?

Integrity in journalism is dead. Thus, I will assume Steven Trimble has been "gotten to".

What Johnny said. A large part of the reason why the Global Hawk was cut was because it has been very poorly managed, to the extent that the USAF itself has singled out NG for criticism. It wasn't just a gratuitous cut to save a "mere" $300 million to $400 million. Further, regarding SMSgt Mac's comments, the problem with going down the "cut a defense program, kill soldiers" approach of criticism is that it's a slippery slope and little better than a cheap shot. Any defense company that sells any product to the Pentagon can make the same argument, in which case NOTHING should get cut, not even when the company in question is not delivering a given product to specifications. And it is a rhetorical cheap shot because, well, who wouldn't want to spend every last penny protecting precious American lives, right? And if you don't, why, you're a monster, of course! Give me a break. Most problematic of all is the fact that this argument was advanced by a DEFENSE COMPANY EXECUTIVE and said of a staffer, who is obviously rather influential with his boss, who happens to be a member of the "powerful" (quite an understatement) HAC. It's problematic because not only are we talking about an executive who works for a company that's in the business of killing (sorry, but that's just a fact) preaching about the sanctity of human life, but because if NG wants to continue to get funding for anything in the future, you don't go around pissing off your best customer, who's in the HAC, no less! I would be interested to learn Walby's fate, as I am pretty certain he won't have a job come next week. From a purely cynical, political point of view, what he said was just extraordinarily, almost unfathomably stupid, which his bosses at NG are unlikely to just brush off. Ethically and morally - which, of course, NG could care less about - what Walby said was irresponsible and reprehensible.

And to Five-sided Puzzle Palace (!), Steven is exactly right not to name the staffer in question. The accusation levied against him is inflammatory and potentially dangerous, and given that protesters are showing up at town halls with loaded guns and others are painting swastikas on the offices of congresspeople they disagree with, it could be persuasively argued that to publish this staffer's name could put his safety in danger. It is shameful what is happening in this country right now, the inflammatory rhetoric being advanced and perpetrated by influential talkers who are inciting a virtual civil war. Not even at the height of the Iraq War debacle did the Left behave like this, and they had far more reason to be incensed about what their government was doing in their name. Now, the idea that a single penny could be used to aid someone other than oneself is driving a small but vituperative portion of the population veritably insane. God forbid the government tax me so it can provide health care for anyone other than myself! What's in it for me!? And this from a group that is traditionally religious. So much for the whole brother's keeper spiel (sounds nice on Sunday, but not on any other day of the week). Forget that whole love thy neighbor like thyself crap (instead, arm thyself in case you have to kill him). What would Jesus do? Never mind. What does Glen Beck say!? Let me tell you, John Edwards was right: there are two Americas, divided less between the haves and the have-nots, but between those who find it entirely normal to be taxed so that others may live and stay healthy, and those who are appalled by the thought. And you know what: I don't want to be among the latter. Have your half, and be gone with you. Let the South secede and take your ilk with you. I'll take New York, I'll take Chicago, I'll take Seattle any day. But the America, and Americans, I know and love has no resemblance whatsoever to that portrayed and spoken to and for by the Limbaughs and the Palins and the Becks. And what's ironic is that these clowns who are most un-American have the gall to accuse others of what they are most guilty of. Sorry about the rant, but it saddens and angers me to see the spectacle this country has become...

wait a sec Obamanite, i live in the South and i like being a part of the United States. second. although this is an aviation site and its readers are aviation "centric" i think that airpower's biggest contribution in the current war isn't bombs and bullets...ground pounders have plenty of those...its information. systems like Global Hawk really do save lives. lack of Global Hawks can honestly be said to be a failure of leadership to understand their importance. if you could have a continuous orbit of Global Hawks over Afghanistan, just imagine how much of a combat multiplier that would be! FOB's wouldn't be exposed, would be alerted to the enemy massing for attack and artillery or aerial guns could be brought to the fight much faster.

There's a difference between an independent analyst evaluating the strategic or tactical importance of funding for a program and the executive whose paycheck depends on said funding. There's a reason why manufacturer claims are always taken with a huge grain of salt.

Well, Congress had to pay for their new Gulfstream 550s, so they had to cut something else . . .

TDT

Obamaite is there a chance you can take your bombastic rants, hyperbole and half truths to MoveOn, DailyKoz and Keith Uberlefty and let this blog remain an aircraft enthusiasts place to discuss and debate AIRCRAFT. I am sure the DNC would love your input as would the union "protesters". Three of your five "comments" are political bullshi- and frankly I come to this site to get away from that propaganda. You are entitled to your opinion but please take it to someone/someplace who cares what you think.

Ok, I've let the line run out far enough. Time to reel it in.

Please provide link(s) to the specific proof of the "poorly managed Global Hawk". I'm calling the "B.S. Alert" until convincing info is provided.

Now...I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what the 'search engine commandos' are yakking about. I'd like to know if I'm right and maybe have a little fun so ante up there my good fellows.

Hint 1. Is history repeating? In1999, Ryan Aeronautical folks had to get the real story out against a so-called 'spiraling costs' problem that was little more than a smear campaign. That time it was every mother's-son-of-a-sensor/payload program glomming onto a successful program and tieing their costs to the platform. This time it is..... ?

"Please provide link(s) to the specific proof of the "poorly managed Global Hawk". I'm calling the "B.S. Alert" until convincing info is provided."

Former U.S. Air Force acquisition chief Sue Payton's letter to Grumman comes to mind. I also provided a link below.

The Great Global Hawk Shortage
https://www.strategyworld.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090504.aspx

14,000 Jobs? At $415M that is an average salary of just under $30k for those 14 thousand people. That's not even taking into account materials and profit. I don't think I can sign off on that 14k job claim.

As a former Hill staffer, I find this whole “drama” hilarious. Where is it written that naming staffers is unprofessional, unethical or immoral? Why is it that, as a country, we are willing to allow people to gain power, hold power, use power…and then escape the consequences of their decisions. If this female staffer wants her cushy job, big paycheck and powerful position, she has to learn that she is responsible for the outcome of her decisions.

But this bureaucrat would rather not be confronted with the fact that GH can and has saved lives. That would force her to face the awesome reality of her power and that her decisions do have life-and-death repercussions. Not just where GH is concerned, but in all defense and even some non-defense programs. No, no…just let her do her time on the HAC, so she can get out and become a rent-a-lobbyist like all of them do.

Walby put his name out there, and as an employee of an evil corporation (those capitalist pigs!), he will have to take responsibility for his comments. Why would anyone refuse to require a government employee, who has far more power and sway over our lives, to do the same?

Oh, that’s right, I forgot…because power is as power does. And whether it’s a two-bit reporter who’s wife works for Lockheed, a misguided staffer with immense power or a rent-a-lobbyist who greases their wheels…they all circle the wagons when someone isn’t willing to play their game by their rules.

If I was the staffer, I’d be proud to put my name to the cut…that is, if I really believed in it. If this staffer doesn’t own up to her cuts and let her name be released…guess we know where she stands. Maybe she’s shilling for a GH competitor…or as Tim D-T says, maybe she wants a ride on one of those new Gulfstream 550s. Man up lil’ lady…you shouldn’t play with soldier’s lives if you aren’t willing to deal with the consequences. And when you cut programs that work and programs that are needed on the battlefield…you affect lives.

PS…I hear through the grapevine that GH may, in fact lose this exec…he’s gotten a job offer BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT HE HAS THE CHUTZPAH TO DEAL IN FACTS AND REALITY.

A few years ago, I escaped the Beltway because they live in a parallel universe…I feel bad this exec hasn’t escaped yet.

And one more thing…Obamanite: what is it with this righteous indignation about defense companies making an argument about lives saved and lost. What is it about the word DEFENSE that you don’t get? If NG and the other defense companies went out of business because they couldn’t make a profit, how do you think American soldiers would defend your right to be an as$?

Picture this: You’d be left in the sand, with not much in your hand, to fight the Taliban.

Now wouldn’t that be something to see. Layoff with the socialist rants, Obamanite. Don’t step on another man’s right to make a living, just cause he does it better than you. As you have plainly illustrated, making money is not the greatest of sins, stupidity is.

We are still under a B.S. Alert awaiting CONVINCING evidence.

One of your retorts was expected. But you have GOT to be kidding with the other one.

Sue Payton fired a parting shot memo only 4 months after she was praising the GH program. NG took issue and refuted the memo. The DoD distanced themselves from the memo. There was absolutely NO traction to any of the claims since then and according to the AvWeek site lot of counterfactual info afterwards:

'Schedule Slips'
"Dyke Weatherington, deputy director of the Pentagon’s UAS Task Force, says he expects at least a six-month slip.The delay is due to “a number of relatively small issues,” but come on top of each other and “conservative” test approach and throughput issues at Edwards Air Force Base, according to Weatherington. “It has just piled up and they are behind on flight testing.”

'Issues'
"Moreover, more than half of the issues identified by Payton “were resolved long before the IOT&E date was established,” an industry source says. And Northrop has been praised privately for rapidly recovering from issues found during test flights, this source claims."

'Requirments Creep'
“We do know there has been a huge growth in testing requirements levied on the program, and we’ve been working with the Air Force to reduce those testing requirements as much as possible,” says Ed Walby [hey everybody! Its Ed from the original post above!],

So the bottom line on the Payton flap looks like:
1. One top official had a 'problem' with GH (although it looks suspiciously like the real sticker under the saddle blanket may have been MP-RTIP) only a few months after the official was known to NOT have a problem with the program. Odd.
2. A lot of what Payton was going off about was apparently fixed before need - and that is an indication of an effective program structure and execution not a poor one.
3.. It looks like test requirements creep was occurring due to 'Customer' decisions. Fault the AFFTC, SPO, or End Users for that. Could be due to a rational reason like a learning curve in effect or could be something stupid, but it was not due to NG mismanaging the program, at least based on the accusations offered.

Now the laughable...

The sad, and of course unattributed, Strategy Page piece is a disjointed amalgamation of half-truths and total errors delivered as uncontextualized factoids. It appears to have been manufactured to complement the Payton episode. Example of gross error: Crossing the Pacific 'last year' was actually achieved in 2001. Heh.. ONLY 7 years off.

Sarge, there are a lot of less expensive systems available and currently in good use in the Stan and Iraq. They have EO and IR capability, cost considerably less (less than 2% the cost of a RQ-4)and have much less support cost. The money that was cut is for the Blk 40 ships that won't even be delivered until 2012. In the mean time Blk 20's aren't starting test until 2013. Cart before the horse? I would rather see the RQ-4 money go for Predators, Reapers and Scan Eagles which can be delivered quicker, at less cost and will save troops live immediately. The RQ-4 has its place and need but not in the guerrilla warfare of IED's, car bombs and small unit firefights we are currently fighting.

Comparing Predator/Reaper to Global Hawk is, at the very least, comparing 'apples' and 'oranges'. this isn't a question of either/or. It is a question of what mix do you need?

The GH (in any Block) has manifold times the persistence of the medium UAVs (I have seen '18 times' quoted, but I believe that could be too simplistic of a comparison). The GH uses this persistence to good advantage over the medium systems in finding the enemy in the first place be it a tank platoon in defilade or specific bad actors coming and going out of buildings. For now, the medium UAVs only have the edge in their exclusive capability to close the find-fix-attack equation. This is not a trivial distinction, for as Gen Dave Deptula noted in his briefing while rolling out the new UAS Flight Plan, the 'finding' part of the equation is the most difficult and critical aspect of the find-fix-attack process, and the one MOST dependent upon persistence.

There is no explicit data publically available that I am aware of that details the GH's contribution in the GWOT, as the GH operations that are conducted, like those of its predecessor in its mission-- the U-2, tend to be performed in the shadows. However, from the recent GH PR blurb we know that the GH has been flown heavily in the GWOT having "recently reached a major milestone - 25,000 combat hours - during an operational sortie July 8-9 from a deployed location".

So not only is comparing the Predator/Reaper to the Global Hawk like comparing apples and oranges, in this case you actually need both the apples and oranges.

Minor points:
1. "Blk 20's aren't starting test until 2013" is suspect without further clarification. Is that IOT&E which generally includes operating (the 'O' in IOT&E) the system in operational environments?

2. EO/IR is great when the weather permits, but a good SAR allows ops when there's weather.

3. IF the missions COULD be interchangeable, simple straight unit cost comparisons exclude a lot of other costs that should be considered to have any meaning, like:
a.) How many units of apples or oranges each are needed to provide the same coverage in quality and area?
b.) How many GCSs and operators are needed to provide the same coverage?
c.) How many operating locations do you need to provide the same coverage?
...and other questions come to mind as well.