Lockheed Martin Sabotages Coast Guard Vessels - Collects Billions

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas

The article calls him a "whistleblower" but at the same time he didn't come forward until after he was let go. Lockheed says for "financial" reasons he says it's otherwise ... but if he was really a whistleblower I would think he would of been making noise prior to his termination.

As I understand it, he made noise internally before his termination. When he was fired, he went outside.

First off, money doesn't grow on trees. Cutting corners is common to stick with the budget.

Great philosophy. I'll remind you of this the next time I fix your car and give it back to you with one wheel and no engine. After all, I had to cut corners and provide you with less than you paid for, because of my own inability to do a good job. Would you be a happy customer?

Of course not. The difference between private citizens and the government is huge, because private citizens have no problems taking their business elsewhere. If I mangled your car, you wouldn't come to me for service again. The government continually patronizes these companies, despite the huge problems we've had in the past, and continue to have, because of the influence of the revolving door.

This situation destroys the single greatest argument for capitalism, and makes one wish for simpler days when corporations were chartered by the government, tasked with specific duties, granted only limited power, and answerable to taxpayers.

Now, taking a look at some of the things that were wrong... first would be the blind spots.. Now, I don't know about you guys but I have been on many ships, and I'll tell you they do not float on water perfectly level and flat. They bob and weave all over the place in 3 dimensions. This kind of movement will most likely close the gaps a bit more in these blind spots. Also, these are just camera blind spots. What about the live humans on board? Their eyes cannot fill the gap? You can't rely on cameras alone, you must use your eyes.

It's encouraging to see that you don't know what you're talking about - it makes me feel even better about holding the opinion that I do.

If you had taken the time to watch the video, and read the related material, you would know that the cameras are not necessary when the ship is underway, because of the presence of the crew. The cameras were pitched and paid for as a way of reducing overhead when the ship is docked.

They are in place to prevent tampering with the ship during times when the crew is not present. Usually a watch would be stationed to prevent tampering/theft, but these cameras were offered as a way of reducing the costs associated with having a permanent human presence onboard.

Now the Coast Guard has to post a watch, just like they did before, but they also have the honor of paying for a redundant system. Yay for Lockheed Martin and the Coast Guard brass, eh?

[edit on 16-9-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Great philosophy. I'll remind you of this the next time I fix your car and give it back to you with one wheel and no engine. After all, I had to cut corners and provide you with less than you paid for, because of my own inability to do a good job. Would you be a happy customer?

Of course not. The difference between private citizens and the government is huge, because private citizens have no problems taking their business elsewhere. If I mangled your car, you wouldn't come to me for service again. The government continually patronizes these companies, despite the huge problems we've had in the past, and continue to have, because of the influence of the revolving door.

This situation destroys the single greatest argument for capitalism, and makes one wish for simpler days when corporations were chartered by the government, tasked with specific duties, granted only limited power, and answerable to taxpayers.

Listen, and listen good. When you get a car fixed, you don't give someone all the money you can afford, and ask him to do what he can with it. It doesn't work like that. Instead, you get your complete estimate of the total cost of the parts needed, and an estimate of the labor cost, and tax. If you are on a budget, obviously you are not going to buy ALL the parts needed, nor are you going to buy ALL the 'top of the line' stuff. You will do with what you got. You pick the parts you can afford, and you have them installed, and you pay when the car is complete.

With the government, its different. They don't calculate the parts needed and labor and other tax's ahead of time. There is really no point when you have a reserved budget. With a reserved budget, all the money is going to be spent no matter what because that's what it was reserved for, but you can't go over budget. With the government, they tell the contractors what they wish to have, and in all cases their wishes are usually more advanced and costly than their budget. Of course they want more for less, but it doesn't ever turn out that way. So the project manager has this government wish list, and he needs to figure out how to best reach these wishes with the money they have. Unfortunately, in order to do every ship, they would have to down grade on some parts, and cut corners where they CAN be cut. Its not a hard concept to understand... to put it in layman's terms so your little head can grasp it, i will put it easily...

They Don't: Calculate costs, and then pay.

They Do: Pay, and hope the project manager can juggle the money the best he can.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

It's encouraging to see that you don't know what you're talking about - it makes me feel even better about holding the opinion that I do.

If you had taken the time to watch the video, and read the related material, you would know that the cameras are not necessary when the ship is underway, because of the presence of the crew. The cameras were pitched and paid for as a way of reducing overhead when the ship is docked.

They are in place to prevent tampering with the ship during times when the crew is not present. Usually a watch would be stationed to prevent tampering/theft, but these cameras were offered as a way of reducing the costs associated with having a permanent human presence on board.

Now the Coast Guard has to post a watch, just like they did before, but they also have the honor of paying for a redundant system. Yay for Lockheed Martin and the Coast Guard brass, eh?

First off, I am in the United States Navy and have had the honor to work with the Coast Guard in many different cases. Second, you can't tell someone they don't know what they are talking about, when YOU don't know they are talking about.

A few things you didn't understand;
1: They will never leave a boat unattended, they will always have at least 1 or more guards in the area. They will never rely on cameras only, to do their job's. Cameras don't stop people, they just catch them in the act. They will always need a guard to prevent any wrong doing, with physical action.

2: If some felon is going to try to vandalize or rob or steal a USCG ship, it would be near impossible to not be seen by the cameras, even with the blind spots. The felon would need to know exactly the perfect angle's of attack, even then, it would be impossible to board the ship at these angles. If the felon was trying to take the ship, he would need to walk in the camera's view's just to untie the tie straps off of the horn's on the docks, so he can float away. I can keep going on this subject with details, but its far much easier to say, even with these blinds spots the coverage is GOOD ENOUGH to do the job that needs to be done.

3: Even when the ship is docked, it still bobs and weaves on the water in 3 dimensions, probably giving the cameras a bit more angles of view.

4: Maybe the next time the USCG gets enough money for another upgrade, they can just add a wide angle lense to the camera in the back, to fill the gaps... They most likely will just screw on. A 180 degree wide angle (fish eye) would work just fine.

5: The guy in your video should be arrested for being a threat to national security. Giving away vulnerabilities in government ships is not good. Normally, the camera's and blind spots would work just fine because people wouldn't be able to visually see the blind spots. But since this guy is giving the info out for free, they now have a better chance at avoiding them. I say send him to jail.


[edit on 17-9-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Listen, and listen good.

I'm all ears.

Its not a hard concept to understand... to put it in layman's terms so your little head can grasp it, i will put it easily...

They Don't: Calculate costs, and then pay.

They Do: Pay, and hope the project manager can juggle the money the best he can.

That's ludicrous. In order to even get a program in the door for budgetary consideration, the contractor has to outline the costs/benefits of the program, the technology hurdles, the upfront expenses, the long-term associated costs, and the estimated time of delivery - and all this in competition with other contractors who are constantly trying to one-up the other, and get the contract by promising more for less.

The government doesn't ship a sack of money to Raytheon or Lockheed Martin and say 'make our stuff better' - and that seems to be what you're saying.

The project manager is responsible for making the budget stretch to cover the needs outlined in the proposal request put out by the government. If he decides it's wise to rip out a bunch of serviceable shielded cable and install new unshielded cables at additional cost, you're saying that's all part of a working system?

Seriously, that's ludicrous...

First off, I am in the United States Navy and have had the honor to work with the Coast Guard in many different cases.

I'm well aware of your background.

A few things you didn't understand;
1: They will never leave a boat unattended by at least 1 or more guards. They will never rely on cameras only, to do their job's. Cameras don't stop people, they just catch them in the act. They will always need a guard to prevent any wrong doing.

So you're saying the proposal that pitched cameras as a cost-saving measure was lying? Help me understand why the cameras are needed to replace the men on board if the men on board weren't going anywhere?

2: If some felon is going to try to vandalize or rob or steal a USCG ship, it would be near impossible to not be seen by the cameras, even with the blind spots. The felon would need to know exactly the perfect angle's of attack, even then, it would be impossible to board the ship at these angles. If the felon was trying to take the ship, he would need to walk in the camera's view's just to untie the tie straps off of the horn's on the docks, so he can float away. I can keep going on this subject with details, but its far much easier to say, even with these blinds spots the coverage is GOOD ENOUGH to do the job that needs to be done.

A man would have to be mad to steal a coast guard vessel. Sabotage is what I would be more concerned about.

3: Even when the ship is docked, it still bobs and weaves on the water in 3 dimensions, probably giving the cameras a bit more angles of view.

The amount of movement in a docked vessel is minimal. Most harbors are shielded by jetties, are no-wake areas, and have minimal wave action to toss the ships around. More than anything they move up and down with the waves, since back and forth and side to side are restricted by the mooring lines. Do you disagree?

4: Maybe the next time the USCG gets enough money for another upgrade, they can just add a wide angle lense to the camera in the back, to fill the gaps... They most likely will just screw on. A 180 degree wide angle (fish eye) would work just fine.

Good thinking.

5: The guy in your video should be arrested for being a threat to national security. Giving away vulnerabilities in government ships is not good. Normally, the camera's and blind spots would work just fine because people wouldn't be able to visually see the blind spots. But since this guy is giving the info out for free, they now have a better chance at avoiding them. I say send him to jail.

Not good thinking.

The man is doing a service to his country, trying to protect the men and women who serve on the ships in question. I think you might feel differently if you were on one of those vessels, and your FLIR froze up and stopped working in a bad blow. In those circumstances, I think you'd want Lockheed locked up, not the guy screaming into the wind, trying to get the problems remedied.

You want to lock him up for telling the truth and trying to get some justice, and that says quite a lot about your priorities. He's not the one endangering national security, that's been handled already, by Lockheed, and elements of the Coast Guard who don't have to serve on board the ships in question. Think about that...