> I think if I could get over the moral aspect of making weapons the bureaucracy involved working with/for the military would still drive me insane.

It's not so bad. Okay, it is bad, but I'm driven crazy by a lot of the stuff in the civilian world as well.

Someone, I don't think you, opined that we shouldn't be planning our war machines out a few decades. Not to be mean, but they are clearly woefully misinformed. I'll try to add some data for those not in the field.

I was just watching a youtube clip on a B-52 upgrade. A plane we plan to fly into 2040 or so, which is an 80 year life cycle. I started cackling while watching this 'modernization' as I watched a crew member pull a black rectangle out of the avionics. My gf asked me what was so funny. How to explain.

This was a DTM. I have done a lot of work with them. They are more commonly called a 'brick'. It's a tiny amount of flash memory used to move data on and off the airframe. Cost many thousands of dollars, slow, old technology - well, I'll let google tell you, I don't yack about military capabilities (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a1ff338...). But old, obsolete, and so expensive we kept them locked up in our SIL, with sign out procedures to actually get the chance to put your hands on one.

Replace that puppy with a USB stick! Pivot! Be agile!

Ya. Okay, so this is a device to move data around, and yes, one of the last things I was working on was a USB version of these. Oh, it was still the 'brick', but with some ports added. I also worked on previous versions that had a slot for PCMCIA cards. This is still the state of the art version, so far as I know.

Why so slow to update? Well, there is the one vendor problem, to start. The military is trying to move to open, but it is slow, and we have untold systems that are not open. It's sole source, and the lead time for orders are, interesting.

Screw that noise, I'm putting in a USB port. Sure you are. Equipment on a 1960's airframe should handle that, no problem. Okay, so we have a major development effort ahead of us, but it is not insurmountable. How many billions do you want to spend? Because it makes no sense to do this for a B-52, and not other airframes. So it needs to be robust, radiation hardened, capable of operating in dust storms at 150F, in Siberia during blizzards. It needs a self destruct capability so the crew can destroy it if they need to abandon their equipment. And so on. We aren't exactly talking 2 week sprints here.

Okay, we built it. Bolt that puppy on! No. Have you ever gone through the logistics of a retrofit? I have. So, a few of the things to consider. You have to ground each individual airframe - make time for the installation and tests. That means taking it out of service. What do you do with the crew in the meantime? Someone has to install it, someone has to test it. You need to give them training, and then test them to make sure they know their job. which means earlier some defense contractor had to author that training material, and someone else had to make sure that that material is correct. Then we have supply chain issues. Okay, so how many of these do you want me to build? At what price? Oh, ha, ha, add two zeros. Okay, for that price I will make a single line in a factory. Some of this is classified, so we are building a secure facility. Better add another zero to that price. It's built, let's start the run! Hmm, need workers, need to get them clearances, need to train them, need to do all the paperwork required by the government to prove you are handling classified materials correctly, prove that you aren't ripping them off (I honestly think we spend more money proving we aren't ripping the Government off than we save by avoiding the rip offs, but I digress). Okay, line is running. You only needed 1,000 units, you aren't paying to have these workers sit idle, so they are invited to pursue a career elsewhere. My line is mothballed. Oh, got a new order? I can maybe rehire and retrain and be ready in 6-12 months.

Okay, so we have our units. Who is going to maintain them, repair them, test them, store them. How do they get shipped to a war location? Who is going to track them?

Oh, forgot we actually have to get data on and off them. You aren't allowed to just stick a USB stick in a military computer (I hope the security reasons are clear). JMPS, the station the air crew uses to write and read data to these things, needs to be upgraded. This is a 'one size fits all' unit - they serve many different aircraft, so there are multiple data formats, multiple requirements. Which airframe do you want me to upgrade first? (insert massive politics here which don't necessarily bear much resemblance to the rest of the logistics). How fast and cheap do you want it? I can honestly give it to you fast and cheap - by using the same, obsolete protocols and formats from 40 years ago, tying you in deeper to that obsolete technology. But, I can do it faster, testing is easier. Oh, you want a new protocol? Hmm, wonder how many systems that is going to affect? Anyway, decision made, we hire some programmers, get them cleared, get that process going. Somewhere down the line we have to actually test this stuff, so at some point some aircraft will be idling on the runway while us software squirrels swarm around it, running out tests. Opps, some bugs. Can we keep this an extra two weeks? You have a war to fight? Maybe we can get some time in 2016? Awesome!

Software is written and tested, we have a 10 year installation plan, let's go! This is so friggin' agile! I mean, sure, USBs will be obsolete by the time it is fully deployed, but hey ho, we are current to the century!

Not so fast, young and foolish one. Time to rotate the air crew through training. They only have to understand 100 different systems, adding one more ain't no thing. They have to know the old system, and the new one, because it is not being rolled out all at once, and then there is the massive infrastructure for all the other airframes still using the old system. We have to interoperate. So, train air crew, either train the soldiers and marines who will be supporting this in various war zones, or wait for them to be rotated out and rotate in ones that have been trained in the states. Impose a whole friggin' logistics infrastructure over that to deal with having two incompatible systems fielded. Hire up IT folk willing to travel to IRAQ to install all the support hardware. It goes on...

I'm thinking, what, 3 sprints? Ya,right ;). Waterfall will become your best friend, and for a good reason, not obstinance and thick-headedness.

Anyway, this is a small view into how development and 'waste' goes on in the defense world. I put waste in quotes because a lot of this is unavoidable. At least, I've wracked my brain, and I don't see any easy, obvious way to stream line a lot of stuff. I was brief; the above implies a huge amount of logistics, and anything misplanned, any setback, has a ripple effect.

All of that has its frustrations, but it is also very challenging. It's a huge optimization problem. Sure, you are one piece, but your piece is inevitably trying to optimize for a very difficult environment (budget, schedule, capabilities, environmentals, you name it).

We can iterate, pivot, and throw away web apps. There was an article on Ars on how the old Android sw doesn't work because google is shutting down the servers for the obsolete capabilities. It doesn't, and cannot work that way in the military.

I don't mean any of this as a rant. I think it is a really fascinating world, and not many here have experience with it, unless they served (I didn't) or worked for a defense contractor. I do urge you all to rethink making easy potshots at government programs. I have my thoughts about the F-35, and other programs, but hey, until you've tried to run even a tiny program you really aren't in the position to make an informed judgement. I certainly don't feel competent to say "you did it wrong" to F-35 except perhaps in the most sweeping, broad things. That DTM-PCMCIA-USB thing? Real story, and a reflection of the tradeoffs of having different hardware in different systems vs one-size-fits-all. You make 10 disparate systems, well, you are just duplicating effort and wasting tax payer dollars. Try to make one system to do 10 things? Whoa, buckaroo, specialization is the way to go. Solve one problem, cheaply. Okay, I am going to use COTS (commercial off the shelf). I don't think so. It is not secure, hardened, etc. Okay, I'll pay someone to make a system. Oh, tack on 3 zeros to make the IP owned by the government? Yell at me for that. Okay, we will accept a proprietary format. Don't forget to yell at me in 5 years when the company goes bankrupt, gets acquired, or whatever. I should of foresaw that, right? Oh, we'll be agile when that time comes and just swap in a new system. How long could that take? (I refer to to the top of the post for that). When we have all that yelling done, don't forget to yell at me for not having the insight of going with secure wireless that the military just invented... Oh, you want a modernization program to replace the USB? Okay, how big is that checkbook? And don't forget to schedule some yelling time when the wireless gets jammed in the next war.