3 ms·

So you're a software guy, right? Ever do a phased release? Wherein you design capability to be released in different increments. I know this isn't the most popu

So you're a software guy, right? Ever do a phased release? Wherein you design capability to be released in different increments. I know this isn't the most popular of software methodologies, but it's how defense projects work. Your complaint is like saying, "You worked all this time to get to phase 2 and you don't have feature X done yet?" and the engineers say, "But feature X isn't even intended to be in the software until phase 4!" EDIT: I should point out that as a defense acquisition project, THIS (http://www.hjspllc.com/2014dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DAUlarge.jpg http://www.hjspllc.com/2014dev/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DA...) is what governs the F-35 and most projects the DoD does. Look upon these works, ye sorry engineers, and despair. I took several hundred hours of courses about this process and I could not even begin to explain it, it's so ridiculous. Tons of waterfall and spiral development there.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
I'm a systems & software guy w/ a high assurance focus so I'm familiar with that sort of thing. It taught me to prioritize based on what was more vs less critical. So, it's supposed to destroy targets. Means it has to take off, detect the target, destroy with missiles/guns, and return. The essentials of these get done first and then everything else. A program that's spent this money with this many features without a working gun is not how we do phases in delivery. That's defense programs gone wrong. Further, the other commenter's link shows this isn't a phase: it's a delay caused by the failure of one. Plenty of delays, overruns, and even decommissioning to make up for it support how poorly-managed this program is. And such poor management and priorities support that this isn't merely a lifecycle issue.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Well, you would have to prioritize how you wanted to kill targets, as you say. The program has chosen to delay focus on the gun until later. Was that a wise decision? I honestly don't know. And also, history nerd that I am...most of the high profile defense programs that I can think of were off the rails at one point or another. This is not to excuse anything (boy, people love that argument, that other programs had issues but turned out fine, so this will, too...I don't like that one), but to point out the fact that we as a society really don't understand how to do this kind of thing well. F-15 and F-16 were both lampooned in their day as being bloated and late and ineffective (I can anticipate the objection now -- not to this same degree -- and cannot argue against it). The Bradley's problems were so famous that HBO made "The Pentagon Wars" (which is a movie that I would actually highly recommend). The A-10 was not paid much attention to publicly but the Air Force of the 1970s hated it and wanted it to die before it ever left a drafting board (they were wrong, of course).
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I was saying the program has had many delays and overruns in general with the gun issue maybe being part of that trend rather than pure design decision. Each possibility paints it in a different light. Regardless, I agree that many programs have had issues despite making it. I did watch Pentagon Wars and was amazed that some issues even existed. I think the main concern, outside the original link, is that this plane is one of the most expensive we've ever done while not delivering the value or effectiveness a few different, focused planes would. They still could've consolidated on radar, comms, weapon/missile systems, and so on while making the plane physically ideal for its missions. In process, they could leverage proven approaches in other best of breed fights. That is what I meant by upgrading our current best stuff. You can straight-up improve their existing configuration. Or you can create new planes with their best qualities with vastly improved capabilities. As illustrated above, there's still plenty of consolidation allowed and would probably be cheaper (in development) due to less troubles.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      Well, from my experience, the low-hanging fruit with improving existing configurations has mostly been done. The Navy has taken the Hornet to its logical full development potential by orchestrating the creation of the Super Hornet, which is more than a simple 15% scale up, it's a whole new airplane. The Super should serve for the next 25 years or so. Although the Navy is beginning to do the initial studies for its replacement... One thing that constrains a lot of the older aircraft is electrical power. They don't have the big generators and high voltage DC power systems that the newer jets have. Those newer systems provide a lot more power budget for running all the advanced sensors. Now, I suppose you could add this capacity to older aircraft, but that's expensive because all this is really tied into the engine and would require some extensive mods. That means time out of service, and tying up depot maintenance. Maybe this is worth it in some cost/benefit comparisons -- I haven't really done the math. Just trying to point out a big gotcha in upgrading that most people don't often think about.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
robotresearcher 11y ago
I have enough experience with phased development to know that the later phases rarely happen.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Or they get mashed together, or neutered, or otherwise transformed to poor shadows of their original conception.
plonh 11y ago
? Spiral is the opposite of waterfall that people like these days
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  That process chart has some waterfall in it -- that's clear to see -- but the steps of those waterfalls are often done in a spiral manner (sounds confusing, it really is). So you go down a waterfall in this chart, do some work, but you split the functionality of what you make into "blocks". The first block features the basic functionality. Subsequent blocks build on that. Really the DoD chart is what the DoD tells itself about how it designs and develops products, but in reality, it's even messier and more confused. It's the world's biggest exemplar of a spaghetti process.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    "Really the DoD chart is what the DoD tells itself about how it designs and develops products, but in reality, it's even messier and more confused. It's the world's biggest exemplar of a spaghetti process." Well put. It's how I've interpreted it from the outside looking at descriptions/slides vs results.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Spiral is waterfall with short iterations and the predecessor to Agile's increments. It's also not how defense procurements usually work. They get a big contract, divide that into different phases, subdivide each phase's work into subcontracts, these might be further subdivided, and there are various points of integration. There are DOD efforts that used Spiral or want to do Agile but the status quo is quite waterfall-like. Even if your small part is Spiral, you might still be forced into an overall water-fall structure. One of many reasons I stay out of that sector. It can be like working in a straight-jacket sometimes.
plonh 11y ago
? Spiral is the opposite of waterfall that people like these days

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I'm a systems & software guy w/ a high assurance focus so I'm familiar with that sort of thing. It taught me to prioritize based on what was more vs less critical. So, it's supposed to destroy targets. Means it has to take off, detect the target, destroy with missiles/guns, and return. The essentials of these get done first and then everything else. A program that's spent this money with this many features without a working gun is not how we do phases in delivery. That's defense programs gone wrong. Further, the other commenter's link shows this isn't a phase: it's a delay caused by the failure of one. Plenty of delays, overruns, and even decommissioning to make up for it support how poorly-managed this program is. And such poor management and priorities support that this isn't merely a lifecycle issue.

engi_nerd 11y ago
Well, you would have to prioritize how you wanted to kill targets, as you say. The program has chosen to delay focus on the gun until later. Was that a wise decision? I honestly don't know. And also, history nerd that I am...most of the high profile defense programs that I can think of were off the rails at one point or another. This is not to excuse anything (boy, people love that argument, that other programs had issues but turned out fine, so this will, too...I don't like that one), but to point out the fact that we as a society really don't understand how to do this kind of thing well. F-15 and F-16 were both lampooned in their day as being bloated and late and ineffective (I can anticipate the objection now -- not to this same degree -- and cannot argue against it). The Bradley's problems were so famous that HBO made "The Pentagon Wars" (which is a movie that I would actually highly recommend). The A-10 was not paid much attention to publicly but the Air Force of the 1970s hated it and wanted it to die before it ever left a drafting board (they were wrong, of course).
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I was saying the program has had many delays and overruns in general with the gun issue maybe being part of that trend rather than pure design decision. Each possibility paints it in a different light. Regardless, I agree that many programs have had issues despite making it. I did watch Pentagon Wars and was amazed that some issues even existed. I think the main concern, outside the original link, is that this plane is one of the most expensive we've ever done while not delivering the value or effectiveness a few different, focused planes would. They still could've consolidated on radar, comms, weapon/missile systems, and so on while making the plane physically ideal for its missions. In process, they could leverage proven approaches in other best of breed fights. That is what I meant by upgrading our current best stuff. You can straight-up improve their existing configuration. Or you can create new planes with their best qualities with vastly improved capabilities. As illustrated above, there's still plenty of consolidation allowed and would probably be cheaper (in development) due to less troubles.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Well, from my experience, the low-hanging fruit with improving existing configurations has mostly been done. The Navy has taken the Hornet to its logical full development potential by orchestrating the creation of the Super Hornet, which is more than a simple 15% scale up, it's a whole new airplane. The Super should serve for the next 25 years or so. Although the Navy is beginning to do the initial studies for its replacement... One thing that constrains a lot of the older aircraft is electrical power. They don't have the big generators and high voltage DC power systems that the newer jets have. Those newer systems provide a lot more power budget for running all the advanced sensors. Now, I suppose you could add this capacity to older aircraft, but that's expensive because all this is really tied into the engine and would require some extensive mods. That means time out of service, and tying up depot maintenance. Maybe this is worth it in some cost/benefit comparisons -- I haven't really done the math. Just trying to point out a big gotcha in upgrading that most people don't often think about.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago

robotresearcher 11y ago

I have enough experience with phased development to know that the later phases rarely happen.

engi_nerd 11y ago
Or they get mashed together, or neutered, or otherwise transformed to poor shadows of their original conception.

plonh 11y ago

? Spiral is the opposite of waterfall that people like these days

engi_nerd 11y ago
That process chart has some waterfall in it -- that's clear to see -- but the steps of those waterfalls are often done in a spiral manner (sounds confusing, it really is). So you go down a waterfall in this chart, do some work, but you split the functionality of what you make into "blocks". The first block features the basic functionality. Subsequent blocks build on that. Really the DoD chart is what the DoD tells itself about how it designs and develops products, but in reality, it's even messier and more confused. It's the world's biggest exemplar of a spaghetti process.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  "Really the DoD chart is what the DoD tells itself about how it designs and develops products, but in reality, it's even messier and more confused. It's the world's biggest exemplar of a spaghetti process." Well put. It's how I've interpreted it from the outside looking at descriptions/slides vs results.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Spiral is waterfall with short iterations and the predecessor to Agile's increments. It's also not how defense procurements usually work. They get a big contract, divide that into different phases, subdivide each phase's work into subcontracts, these might be further subdivided, and there are various points of integration. There are DOD efforts that used Spiral or want to do Agile but the status quo is quite waterfall-like. Even if your small part is Spiral, you might still be forced into an overall water-fall structure. One of many reasons I stay out of that sector. It can be like working in a straight-jacket sometimes.

plonh 11y ago

? Spiral is the opposite of waterfall that people like these days