Contractors Doing Combat Service Support is a Bad, Bad Idea

[Ken White]

Could not agree more that keeping contractor logistics support (CLS) out of fielded systems is a desired end state. However, with the trend these days going to ever more COTS procurement as a way to do rapid fielding to bridge perceived capability shortfalls, we are more and more stuck on the CLS horns with the systems we are currently fielding.

Sadly true, in fact -- but that's the Army's fault for just reacting and not thinking ahead. That and skewed priorities that put big ticket items ahead of must have items of little glamor. Yes, I'm aware that the US Congress is a BIG part of that problem, as is DoD and our civilian 'leadership' (scare quotes advised on that one).

Still, the capability to plan ahead, to rationalize and procure the right things has always existed -- the Army has not been willing to put the energy into doing that. That's a senior leadership failure. They are the Stewards of the Institution in their view and I submit they have not done a particularly good job. I'll fault all of the services for being a tad arrogant and not explaining what they need and why they need it very well -- sadly because I think in many cases, they don't know. However, I also believe they've all been guilty of not really thinking ahead and getting a really good handle on their own roles and missions. I am fully aware that is very easy for me to say when I have no responsibility but there was a time when I did have a little and I think I exercised that better than I see with respect to rational and sensible efforts to prepare for combat -- because that is really what it's all about.

It will come as no surprise to many that I blame a lack of common sense and full training in the basics, the personnel system and DOPMA for much of this...

The institutional training base is not geared up to provide the kind of rapid response needed to produce uniformed maintainers to sustain equipment fielded using rapid fielding initiative processes (but I think ken and I have had these discussions about the "issues" in the military, at least TRADOC, training design and development process before ).

True, it is not -- nor do I think it should necessarily be. A better process would be to more carefully select what is bought and buy stuff that is low maintenance; LRUs, swapouts, reliability requirements and so forth. Add to that better and more comprehensive training of new entrants, Officer and Enlisted to include maintenance at above the 'call a mechanic' level and life could be better.

Personally, I'm not giving the Army a bye on any of that -- nor am I holding my breath on any of it....

[J Wolfsberger]

... That and skewed priorities that put big ticket items ahead of must have items of little glamor. ...

... However, I also believe they've all been guilty of not really thinking ahead and getting a really good handle on their own roles and missions. ...

... A better process would be to more carefully select what is bought and buy stuff that is low maintenance; LRUs, swapouts, reliability requirements and so forth. Add to that better and more comprehensive training of new entrants, Officer and Enlisted to include maintenance at above the 'call a mechanic' level and life could be better.

When the Army moves to all the wonderful "net-centric" capabilities that are going to completely change the nature of war ...

[/Sarcasm] Sorry.

Whatever I think of it, and I personally believe it has been dramatically over sold, the Army is becoming increasingly information centric. The technical specialists necessary to keep those systems up and running, and especially to keep the bad guys from knocking them down, won't be in uniform. The sad truth is that once they're trained, they make way more as civilians. Which means they get out, go to the contractor, who puts them back in the same duty station as a civilian at 4 or 5 or more times as much pay. I really don't think that could be solved by making them officers, either.

And that's just one area. That sad truth is that the technical sophistication of our systems are (and have been) at a level where the Army can't compete with the private sector for the expertise required to keep them going. CLS is here to stay.

[Ken White]

My mom told me. I think she was right and I think we've forgotten that...

Whatever I think of it, and I personally believe it has been dramatically over sold, the Army is becoming increasingly information centric.

Too true -- and that has one driver. Over centralization.

That, in turn is driven by the lack of willingness to trust subordinates induced by the experience in the last few years of Viet Nam where Bn Cdrs found out that instant NCOs and 2LTs were wonderfully willing and dedicated but didn't know much and required constant supervision. A partial solution to that is far better training and a better personnel system. Until those very significant problems are fixed, we will over rely on technology and pay the CLS price. Seems dumb to me but what do I know....

And that's just one area. That sad truth is that the technical sophistication of our systems are (and have been) at a level where the Army can't compete with the private sector for the expertise required to keep them going. CLS is here to stay.

IF we keep edging reliability and and simplicity out for sophistication -- which the industry wants to sell, it's got a bigger markup -- and if we keep insisting on trying to solve human problems with mo' better machinery...

OTOH there may be other, less expensive and more reliable ways to do things.

Not to mention that in my experience, reliance on electronic systems is dicey at best. They have the annoying habit of working well for months on end for unimportant things and then failing when you need them most...

[J Wolfsberger]

OTOH there may be other, less expensive and more reliable ways to do things.

Not to mention that in my experience, reliance on electronic systems is dicey at best. They have the annoying habit of working well for months on end for unimportant things and then failing when you need them most...

I have this persistent vision of the next highly kinetic war beginning with a three or four day orgy of destruction of multi-million dollar systems ...

... followed by weeks, months and years of old fashioned infantry slug fest.

[Ron Humphrey]

I have this persistent vision of the next highly kinetic war beginning with a three or four day orgy of destruction of multi-million dollar systems ...

... followed by weeks, months and years of old fashioned infantry slug fest.

Something to the effect of ( Not sure about wwIII, but WWIV ; sticks and stones)

[Ken White]

We can't afford to fight $7M Tanks...

[wm]

The technical specialists necessary to keep those systems up and running, and especially to keep the bad guys from knocking them down, won't be in uniform. The sad truth is that once they're trained, they make way more as civilians. Which means they get out, go to the contractor, who puts them back in the same duty station as a civilian at 4 or 5 or more times as much pay. I really don't think that could be solved by making them officers, either.

And that's just one area. That sad truth is that the technical sophistication of our systems are (and have been) at a level where the Army can't compete with the private sector for the expertise required to keep them going. CLS is here to stay.

Bingo. The Army already had that problem back in the 70's with the troops it spent 12-18 months training to maintain its SIGINT/EW systems. I/EW system maintainers left the schoolhouse for their first assignment with civilian job offers already in hand.