Coast Guard spends $400,000 on out of production computer cards

Why is this news? This kind of thing is everyday SOP for many military systems. How do you think we keep B-52s flying?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Why is this news? This kind of thing is everyday SOP for many military systems. How do you think we keep B-52s flying?
Click to expand...
And if they have to retool a line for 50 cards, it isn't even that terribly expensive.
 
Shucks... I thought this was going to be about 80 column punch cards. I could use them now. I haven't had a punch card Christmas wreath in years.
 
Last edited:
Headline was alarming but the story itself wasn't inflammatory against the Coast Guard. I don't mind seeing the question asked and getting an answer.

On the other hand, the waste I see here with Federal levee projects and funded freeway projects (dig a hole and fill it) is enormous. I don't even want to get in to it. It's probably spin zone stuff so don't comment.
 
When you operate systems that are no longer in production that's what happens. It's either buy the cards for 400 grand or buy all new systems for millions.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Why is this news? This kind of thing is everyday SOP for many military systems. How do you think we keep B-52s flying?
Click to expand...

We dumped the punch cards on the Buff when we transitioned from ASQ-38 to OAS back in the late 1980s. OAS was programmed by magnetic tape in the DTUC, Digital Transfer Unit Cartridge.

Did they put something back on the Buff that needs punch cards?
 
Velocity173 said:
When you operate systems that are no longer in production that's what happens. It's either buy the cards for 400 grand or buy all new systems for millions.
Click to expand...

And most importantly, integrating new things that are even in theory this simple, costs tons of money and time because anything new will require some sort of operational evaluation. Just because a newer, cheaper, more cost-effective replacement is out there, doesn't mean that we can just slap it into our aircraft and call it good (even if it does end up working just fine after installation).

Take my aircraft for example, a mid lot F/A-18C......with upgraded mission computers (even 10-15 yr old ones for that matter), we could do a lot of things that we can't do right now, that other newer aircraft can. We could also have a civilian ILS, and thus not rely on TACAN approach mins for alternate filing purposes (not to mention the extra peace of mind). We could get certified for GPS approaches if we had the ability to store the GPS wypt database in our jets in it's entirety (vice the 59 programmable waypoints, 10 marks, and ~200 stored GPS points that we currently have). We could also be RVSM capable with a few simple mods. Not to mention that there are additions that could be made in a pretty straight-forward manner that would help us out tactically.....even some things that have been developed, tested, and then benched because of lack of project funding. Just a few examples of things that relatively cheap technology could do for us, if it didn't require expensive contracts, and years of operational testing to ensure that it would continue to work in combat, and flying on and off the boat (a pretty rough environment admittedly). I'm sure the CG shares some similar concerns and acquisitions problems.
 
Last edited:
BillTIZ said:
Did they put something back on the Buff that needs punch cards?
Click to expand...

I have no idea.....I was just using the Buff as an example of an antiquated design that in order to keep it flying requires reproducing a variety of parts that would otherwise be no longer in production and consequently the govt pays a premium. I see this kind of stuff regularly in everything from pistons and cylinders for diesel engines to circuit card assemblies.

I have never been involved in the manufacturing industry, so can't comment on whether the $400k is gouging or not, but I can tell from experience on the acquisition side, that the mark up on reproducing obsolete parts is substantial across the board.

The only thing that might be news here is if the CG knew well in advance that they intended to keep the systems going for an extended period and didn't have the presence of mind to stockpile the parts when the manufacturer announced that they were stopping production.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
And most people wonder why the US is 16+ TRILLION in debt.:hairraise::yikes::sad:
 
N801BH said:
And most people wonder why the US is 16+ TRILLION in debt.:hairraise::yikes::sad:
Click to expand...

To be fair, this is only one small piece of that puzzle. That being said, I have never seen the military pay a fair price for anything. Contractors, defense firms, you name it......they all take us to the cleaners because they know they can, and we are often legally obligated to meet their demands. On a somewhat larger scale, I was recently talking with an FBO manager about our fuel contracts. When I land at a civilian field/FBO and get gas, I use the govt fuel card, charge it for 13-15 thousand lbs of jet A (no PRIST thank you), and the receipt never shows the price of the fuel, or even the cost per gallon. So I asked him what we actually pay. I'll just say that I had thought, until then, that the point of govt fuel contracts was to save money. :)
 
Last edited:
35 AoA said:
And most importantly, integrating new things that are even in theory this simple, costs tons of money and time because anything new will require some sort of operational evaluation. Just because a newer, cheaper, more cost-effective replacement is out there, doesn't mean that we can just slap it into our aircraft and call it good (even if it does end up working just fine after installation).

Take my aircraft for example, a mid lot F/A-18C......with upgraded mission computers (even 10-15 yr old ones for that matter), we could do a lot of things that we can't do right now, that other newer aircraft can. We could also have a civilian ILS, and thus not rely on TACAN approach mins for alternate filing purposes (not to mention the extra peace of mind). We could get certified for GPS approaches if we had the ability to store the GPS wypt database in our jets in it's entirety (vice the 59 programmable waypoints, 10 marks, and ~200 stored GPS points that we currently have). We could also be RVSM capable with a few simple mods. Not to mention that there are additions that could be made in a pretty straight-forward manner that would help us out tactically.....even some things that have been developed, tested, and then benched because of lack of project funding. Just a few examples of things that relatively cheap technology could do for us, if it didn't require expensive contracts, and years of operational testing to ensure that it would continue to work in combat, and flying on and off the boat (a pretty rough environment admittedly). I'm sure the CG shares some similar concerns and acquisitions problems.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the same problem we had when I flew Black Hawks. They took our POS VFR only GPS and converted it to IFR. Instead of spending the money for a far more capable Garmin moving map GPS they just upgraded the existing one at probably 3 times the cost of a Garmin. We still don't have precision GPS capability either. I was in one of the early classes on our new GPS back in 2006. I raised my hand and asked the contractor. "How come this thing isn't precision (WAAS) capable?" He said the Army didn't want to spend the money to upgrade to WAAS and that we didn't have the need anyway. Great, we get a certified IFR GPS and when I arrive at my destination I'll need to do an ILS to get below the low WX. The only thing you can use it for is flying direct cross country. Even then, we really don't fly far enough for that to be of value.
 
Velocity173 said:
Sounds like the same problem we had when I flew Black Hawks. They took our POS VFR only GPS and converted it to IFR. Instead of spending the money for a far more capable Garmin moving map GPS they just upgraded the existing one at probably 3 times the cost of a Garmin. We still don't have precision GPS capability either. I was in one of the early classes on our new GPS back in 2006. I raised my hand and asked the contractor. "How come this thing isn't precision (WAAS) capable?" He said the Army didn't want to spend the money to upgrade to WAAS and that we didn't have the need anyway. Great, we get a certified IFR GPS and when I arrive at my destination I'll need to do an ILS to get below the low WX. The only thing you can use it for is flying direct cross country. Even then, we really don't fly far enough for that to be of value.
Click to expand...

I know very little about GPS approaches, as I have never done one in 11 years of flying, but they sound nice :)

And yes, I think it probably would have been a similar experience. I see a G1000 and think how nice that would be to have, rather than 2 monochromatic DDI's and an early 1990's color digital moving map between my legs (which is basically an HSI overlaid on pre-loaded maps/imagery). I still have to break out 6 ft charts in a 2 ft cockpit, and still have to reference paper approach plates. The common train of thought is that we don't have all that stuff because we use our mission computers for higher level things like weapons delivery and using sensors and whatnot.....which would be valid if it weren't for the fact that my laptop hard-drive could do all of the above AND power a G1000 type display system, AND still have leftover capacity to simultaneously watch movies and listen to itunes while I fly. Then again, I recently had the chance to sit in the cockpit of a MIG-29, which is home to most of the rest of the guys in this world that are in my line of work, and realize that things could be much much worse (poor souls) :) I guess it is all relative
 
Last edited:
35 AoA said:
To be fair, this is only one small piece of that puzzle. That being said, I have never seen the military pay a fair price for anything. Contractors, defense firms, you name it......they all take us to the cleaners because they know they can, and we are often legally obligated to meet their demands. On a somewhat larger scale, I was recently talking with an FBO manager about our fuel contracts. When I land at a civilian field/FBO and get gas, I use the govt fuel card, charge it for 13-15 thousand lbs of jet A (no PRIST thank you), and the receipt never shows the price of the fuel, or even the cost per gallon. So I asked him what we actually pay. I'll just say that I had thought, until then, that the point of govt fuel contracts was to save money. :)
Click to expand...

It's been almost 30 years since I last worked for an aerospace company, but one of the reasons the military pays through the nose for things is the incredible pile of paper that is generated for each contract, required by the government. That paperwork isn't free and the customer pays for it. Makes the markups we pay for GA parts look miniscule by comparison.
 
Then there is outright fraud and abuse.

For instance............ Back in the early 90's, my mom worked for the DOD in the Orlando area during the testing and rollout of the J-STARS program. About the time it was ready for primetime, the Gulf war started and the chiefs in DC decided to rush both prototypes over to the sandbox to play.

So, procurement officers were tasked to buy spares of of each componant. My mom ordered 6 regular cannon plugs from a sole source vendor, these exact same plugs sold at digikey for 16.00 dollars. This sole source vendor was a mom and pop operation based in an alley in an seedy side of town with two full time employees and a part time shipping clerk.

So... off went the planes to deployment and about 2 years later my mom was given orders to randomly audit those purchases, like in 1 out of 100 vendors were checked. She just happened to pick this one "aerospace" connection provider. So she checked the original purchase price they bid during the testing phase and then the price they charged for the "spare parts" order...

They originally bid 37.00 per connector but " accidently" charged the DOD 370,000.00 per connector, times 6 for a total of 2 million 220 thousand dollars. Keep in mind this vendor has yearly sales of around a hundred grand . So my mom called and asked to speak to the owner and he promply tells her that he didn't notice any overbilling but would check with their accounts receivable clerk, who happened to his wife, to double check the numbers.. Like those crooks didn't see a 2.19 million mistake in their favor just 23 month earlier..

The very next week they filed bankruptsy.:mad::mad2::mad2::mad2:.

I remember to this day, my mom saying that was just one audit out of 100," I wonder what the other 99 vendors billed the DOD".:dunno::yikes:.

With fraud like this it is amazing the US is not 30 TRILLION in debt. IMHO.
 
Electronic parts obsolescence for aircraft gear is a big issue. Ever try to buy an out of production chip? I tried to help a girlfriends son with an electronics project from an old book. People quoted me prices over $100.

It's probably cheaper than modifying the fleet of aircraft. It probably represents a lifetime buy.

At one former job, the OEM for the TCAS system told me that the production run for the LCD glass for a lifetime buy, was 2days. Once they retooled the production line, that was it for new purchases of display glass.


With an industry that tries to keep the same gear for decades, the rapid obsolescence of electronic parts is a real problem. Aviation electronics represents a fraction of 1% of the market. Chips and devices come and go to support the pace of the consumer electronics market.
 
35 AoA said:
I know very little about GPS approaches, as I have never done one in 11 years of flying, but they sound nice :)

And yes, I think it probably would have been a similar experience. I see a G1000 and think how nice that would be to have, rather than 2 monochromatic DDI's and an early 1990's color digital moving map between my legs (which is basically an HSI overlaid on pre-loaded maps/imagery). I still have to break out 6 ft charts in a 2 ft cockpit, and still have to reference paper approach plates. The common train of thought is that we don't have all that stuff because we use our mission computers for higher level things like weapons delivery and using sensors and whatnot.....which would be valid if it weren't for the fact that my laptop hard-drive could do all of the above AND power a G1000 type display system, AND still have leftover capacity to simultaneously watch movies and listen to itunes while I fly. Then again, I recently had the chance to sit in the cockpit of a MIG-29, which is home to most of the rest of the guys in this world that are in my line of work, and realize that things could be much much worse (poor souls) :) I guess it is all relative
Click to expand...

Just before I retired some units had started issuing out iPads. Sad when that thing has more navigation/SA capability than the installed avionics on a UH-60 panel. As far as I know they still have to carry paper charts as well. :(
 
Maybe a better question is why does the CG constantly have to fight for funding to upgrade equipment, or keep antiquated equipment running because they can't acquire the equipment they need when we see other branches wasting in a single year what would fund the CG for a decade. The Coast Guard is responsible for search and rescue, environmental protection and national security over 12,000 miles of coastline and 14 million square miles of area in Hawaii and the Pacific territories. There are 42,000 members. Congress is cutting the budget again next year.

We used to joke that instead of our motto being Semper Paratus, it should be Simply Forgot Us.
 
Since Coast Guard is part of the DHS these days... Maybe tell 'em to spend less money on nudie scanners and screeners for nail clippers, and more on Coastie stuff? ;)
 
Can the Navy help your guys? I hear they have a few boats. :D
 
denverpilot said:
Since Coast Guard is part of the DHS these days... Maybe tell 'em to spend less money on nudie scanners and screeners for nail clippers, andmore on Coastie stuff? ;)
Click to expand...


Amen to that. As I was in line for screening this morning, I was pleased to see them running the herd through the magnetometer instead of the irradiator. Then they decided the person in front of me was the last one and diercted me to the scanner. I declined. They were less than appreciative, but my flight had just been delayed half an hour so I had the time to burn.

They still didn't think I was a threat, just an annoyance. I guess that means we're on equal footing now.
 
denverpilot said:
Since Coast Guard is part of the DHS these days... Maybe tell 'em to spend less money on nudie scanners and screeners for nail clippers, and more on Coastie stuff? ;)
Click to expand...

The politics of the funding battle within DHS are the snake den I stomped around in as my last assignment on a port security working group. Seems that if there is a choice between buying 50 small boats for the pointy end of the spear or 5 scanners who are marginally operable but in the public view the window dressing wins every time. :dunno:

Anthony said:
Can the Navy help your guys? I hear they have a few boats. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, but not the types for the missions we had. Besides The CG can use Navy ships any time they want. When the Navy does interdiction missions they need a CG LeDet on board and when the time comes to stop a vessel the CG ensign goes up and the CG officer takes command under Title 10 of the United States Code to perform the law enforcement function. Last Tuesday when in Hawaii for a sea story session with some old friends, I was chatting with Paul Zukunft, who is currently the VAdm commanding the USCG Pacific Area and he related that the Coast Guard had operational command of the USS Stennis, a Nimitz class carrier last year for a fisheries enforcement action in the Eastern Pacific. But they wanted it back. :thumbsup:
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Maybe a better question is why does the CG constantly have to fight for funding to upgrade equipment, or keep antiquated equipment running because they can't acquire the equipment they need when we see other branches wasting in a single year what would fund the CG for a decade. ...
Click to expand...

um, apparently you don't quite know the challenges other services have to upgrade equipment or fix DMS stuff.
 
I'm sure the CG gets the shaft, as I am well aware that the USMC does (spent ~2 years flying in a Marine squadron). That said, anyone in the DoN basically has to fight with the surface or sub community for upgrades on the aviation side. I go on det an an AFB, and I see that they literally don't have enough rooms to put all their 60" flat screen monitors in, and have a specific shop that does about half the things I just have to do myself on the Navy side. They have Airmen writing their flight schedules (an O-3 job in my world), and O-4's standing duty officer (also an O-3 job in my world). They just have enough money that they can afford all those luxuries, IMHO in part because they don't also have to support an entire Navy of surface and submarine ships/boats. And I'd be willing to bet that even the AF guys have similar issues with outdated technology being built into their aircraft, that they still need to maintain well beyond it's foreseeable lifespan.......they are talking right now about waivering specific Eagles from 9000 hr service lives (as MacAir intended), to 18,000 hrs to bridge the gap between right now, and future capabilities. On my side, we are taking our jets that were originally certified for 6000 hrs, doing high time waivers up to 8000 hrs, and talking about extending those waivers to 10000 hrs with center-barrel replacements (the structural member that lives between the wings and bears most of the fatigue in the airframe). I can count on one hand how many Hornets I have flown with less than 6000 flt hours on them. I say this because these jets were all intended to be in a boneyard by now, along with their dated sub-systems, but that has just not come to fruition. With the SH also racking up completely un-intended flight hrs (thanks Bin Laden) and in some cases, approaching high hr limits, we basically have to shut up, color, and make the technology we currently have work for the near future. This includes paying OEM manufacturers big $$$ to feed the supply chain for legacy systems, well beyond the point that anyone had thought to be plausible.
 
Bob Noel said:
um, apparently you don't quite know the challenges other services have to upgrade equipment or fix DMS stuff.
Click to expand...

Actually I am.

The average age of US Navy DDs, DEs, FFs and FFGs is 15 years.

The average age of Navy support vessels is 20 years.

The average age of the 210 class cutters is 37 years.

The average age of the 378ft. cutters is 35 years.

The 378s are being phased out and the 13 members of that class are being replaced with 6 of another. that speards thing a little thin.
 
Bob Noel said:
um, apparently you don't quite know the challenges other services have to upgrade equipment or fix DMS stuff.
Click to expand...

Really in Army Aviation we didn't have much of a funding problem when I was in. Once they made the stupid decision of canceling the Comanche, that freed up billions for other airframes. I went from flying a Hawk in combat with a useless old ALQ-144 "disco ball" to an infra-red flare dispensing system that lights up the sky if sees someone smoking a cigarette. Sat comm, moving map GPS kneeboard, new survival vests with GPS/radio, new HUD and a soon to be had day HUD, M-240 replacing the old M-60s. The biggest upgrade would be modernizing the enitire UH-60 fleet to the glass cockpit M model. These are all upgrades to the UH-60 side of the house. The other airframes all got similar upgrades. On the active side we don't have a problem with aircraft age either. I flew aircraft that we're made in the late 90s and had less than 2,000 hrs on them. I did fly a Hawk at Rucker that was made in 1978 and had over 11,000 hrs but that was a training environment.

So on the Army side of the house they are sitting pretty well off. While we still don't have a clean sheet aircraft coming of the drawing board, what they do have are old designs with plenty of the latest upgrades. Unfortunately all of this came because of the demise of the Comanche and the start of the GWOT. Now if they could just get an IFR (precision) certified GPS. :)
 
Last edited:
Threefingeredjack said:
Actually I am.

The average age of US Navy DDs, DEs, FFs and FFGs is 15 years.

The average age of Navy support vessels is 20 years.

The average age of the 210 class cutters is 37 years.

The average age of the 378ft. cutters is 35 years.

The 378s are being phased out and the 13 members of that class are being replaced with 6 of another. that speards thing a little thin.
Click to expand...

As with airplanes, the platform age isn't the real challenge. Rather, it's the computer equipment on the aircraft or boat or ship or humvee. How old are the B-52's? E-3? F-15? Fortunately they don't have all the original equipment... well, I'm not sure about the E-3.
 
Bob Noel said:
As with airplanes, the platform age isn't the real challenge. Rather, it's the computer equipment on the aircraft or boat or ship or humvee. How old are the B-52's? E-3? F-15? Fortunately they don't have all the original equipment... well, I'm not sure about the E-3.
Click to expand...

Platform age is exactly the problem. If you have ever spent any time around ocean going vessels you will know the comparison is not apt. Aluminum does not corrode and melt away in air like steel does in salt water.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Platform age is exactly the problem. If you have ever spent any time around ocean going vessels you will know the comparison is not apt. Aluminum does not corrode and melt away in air like steel does in salt water.
Click to expand...

Relatively speaking, the platform ages more slowly that the systems onboard. And don't make the mistake of thinking that aircraft somehow are immune to corrosion. Of course, it's easier to replace structural components of aircraft than on the larger ships/boats.
 
Bob Noel said:
Relatively speaking, the platform ages more slowly that the systems onboard. And don't make the mistake of thinking that aircraft somehow are immune to corrosion. Of course, it's easier to replace structural components of aircraft than on the larger ships/boats.
Click to expand...

I spent over 20 years flying over the ocean at low altitudes. I kinda know about the salt environment. :D
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I spent over 20 years flying over the ocean at low altitudes. I kinda know about the salt environment. :D
Click to expand...

I've been working military acquisition for over 28 years. I kinda know about the challenges of upgrading systems. :-)
 
Threefingeredjack said:
All it takes is money..... :D
Click to expand...

Not just money, but the correct color of money, the correct year of money, getting the obs and expenditures to meet goals, and be able to deal with CRA's and must-pay bills and acq taxes and ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top