Hacker News Reader

Comment by ok_dad | Hacker News Reader

I agree in the case of planned maneuvers for sure, however if you want the result of the "5 Whys" (kinda joking) then my answer is: because the contractors that build this stuff SUCK ASS. Sorry for the harsh language, but I worked on a pre-com ship during my time (an LCS, go figure) while it was being built, and the absolute lack of standards on every level (from the top of the SWO military chain through the dogshit contractors) is part of what made me leave the Navy.

I'm not gonna complain about it too much, but man oh man, I think you and I could build better software than what I saw, and I don't even know you from Adam.

View on HN

I do want to build better software for DoD, but I can't figure out how to sell in. I'd start by tackling VMS! No clue how I'd go about it though.

Defense contracts are awarded extremely subjectively: there is very much an old boy network in play here. There are only a few primes. If you dig deeper into the "small businesses" that are awarded contracts, many / most are started by people already deeply involved in the defense space.

The Air Force has an initiative called Kessel Run [1] to embrace agile software development — that might be your best route to building better software for the DoD. I'm not sure if other branches have similar programs.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/not-going-solo-air-force...

Without having a foot in the vendor / contracting process, it's going to be near impossible.

Other responses have mentioned some routes inside... but beware... make the incumbents look bad too much and you'll be bought out and shut down.

Pride takes a seriously distant back seat to maintaining the current procurement monopolies and relationships, and maximizing contract payments for the least effort.

I'll stop there before I start to incriminate myself or get on watch lists if I mention possible solutions.

If you have a business you can start by going through a program like SBIR (https://www.navysbir.com/) or STTR. The catch is that the Navy has to want to buy a replacement (i.e. I don't see VMS on the list of SBIR topics you could apply to solve).

So that means you'd basically have to do business development first with an organization like NUWC Newport or NUWC Keyport (the undersea warfare centers who do submarine R&D) to drum up interest so that the government can issue an actual RFP or similar, and then you could bid to work on it.

I'll be the first to admit it's super difficult but if you're interested you might also consider talking with a local NavalX Tech Bridge (see https://www.secnav.navy.mil/agility/Pages/tech_bridge.aspx)

Thanks!

Borrow a few hundred billion dollars from investors, aquire a major defense contractor like Lockheed-Martin, and have your lobbyists get Congress to insert a sole-source VMS replacement line item in next year's defense budget. Simple.

My understanding is that all government vendors must be listed on the GSA - getting onto that is a start. Or, buy a company already listed and then start fighting for procurement contracts.

This difficulty is part of why their software is so bad.

For sure the vendors are garbage. But maybe the COTR should've rejected the work if it was unacceptable.

> maybe the COTR should've rejected the work if it was unacceptable.

That would require the spec to have been written to allow that kind of rejection. I strongly suspect the spec was not written that well.

Exactly. VMS probably literally "meets the requirements".

HN dunked all over that agile vs. waterfall article from a few days ago, wondering whether or not waterfall wasn't just some boogeyman that a bunch of consultants had to invent to sell certificates, but I'm here to tell you waterfall is a thing and it's still alive and kicking in the Navy, even now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com