Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

#21

Post by vonmoltke »

rtkwe wrote: post #11
noahmbarr wrote: post #2

In addition to right to repair, couldn’t the military contract based durability / SLA standards?

It talks about the exact transition that caused them to go towards not doing that a few paragraphs in... Corporate consolidation and an move away from developing their own equipment meant the DoD had to become a better customer and accept terms from a corporate supplier. > In alignment with this new paradigm, policymakers simplified the Federal Acquisition Regulation in 1994 and 1995, exempting “commercial items” fro…

Known in government circles as Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS). It's the military's attempt to avoid redesigning the wheel when they need something that the civilian market also needs.

I know from my interactions with the DOD supply chain that few, if any, people think about the warranty implications of COTS hardware beyond making sure there is support from the manufacturer. This isn't too bad when the COTS hardware is a smallish component of a larger system that a unit can replace from spares if there is a failure (which is where the COTS movement started). It's a much bigger deal when the entire larger system is itself a COTS bundle, as is the case in this article.

Re: One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

#22

Post by Spooky23 »

I think that it made sense to do make the contract changes back in the 90s, as technology was moving super-fast on the hardware side.

It's time to reconsider. Fundamental technology advancement has slowed down considerably, and most vendors are transitioning to rent-seeking models as their ability to get revenue through organic replacement is gone.

Re: One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

#24

Post by frosted-flakes »

bitlax wrote: post #3

What is the workaround for the New York Times paywall?

As soon as you see the text load, hit the "stop loading" button (usually takes the place of the refresh button). JavaScript doesn't load, so the paywall is never put in place.

Works pretty reliably across the board, unless maybe you have lightning fast Internet. Maybe there's a plugin to selectively disable JS that would make this easier.

Re: One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

#25

Post by rb808 »

lostgame wrote: post #6
ProAm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying for content you want to read. Good journalism isn't cheap, this is one of those things you shouldnt pirate.

If I could pay somehow on a per-article basis, for the articles I stumbled upon - I would. I don’t regularly read NYT and would have no use for a monthly subscription as HN is the only place I see (unfortunately) regularly posting from NYT. What we need is some kind of universal pass for articles that you pay a monthly fee for, and then as you read the articles from the sites it supports, it pays that publisher. Addi…

If you create an account you get 5 free articles a month so that should suit you fine.

Re: One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

#26

Post by rtkwe »

vonmoltke wrote: post #21
rtkwe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It talks about the exact transition that caused them to go towards not doing that a few paragraphs in... Corporate consolidation and an move away from developing their own equipment meant the DoD had to become a better customer and accept terms from a corporate supplier. > In alignment with this new paradigm, policymakers simplified the Federal Acquisition Regulation in 1994 and 1995, exempting “commercial items” fro…

Known in government circles as Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS). It's the military's attempt to avoid redesigning the wheel when they need something that the civilian market also needs. I know from my interactions with the DOD supply chain that few, if any, people think about the warranty implications of COTS hardware beyond making sure there is support from the manufacturer. This isn't too bad when the COTS hardware…

What I'm a little afraid of is the congress will just carve out a warranty exception for the military as a bandaid to fix this specific issue without addressing right to repair on the whole. I could easily see them passing a law that basically says 'warranties shall not be considered void due to repairs made as part of a military mission' or something similar (wrapped in way more legalese) and leaving it at that or giving the full right to repair, ie: suppliers must provide CAD, board schematics, and make available replacement parts, but only for the military.

Re: One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

#27

Post by ISL »

rb808 wrote: post #25
lostgame wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I could pay somehow on a per-article basis, for the articles I stumbled upon - I would. I don’t regularly read NYT and would have no use for a monthly subscription as HN is the only place I see (unfortunately) regularly posting from NYT. What we need is some kind of universal pass for articles that you pay a monthly fee for, and then as you read the articles from the sites it supports, it pays that publisher. Addi…

If you create an account you get 5 free articles a month so that should suit you fine.

I'd do it (and indeed have done it, but don't use the account), if I didn't have to be tracked in order to read....

Re: One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

#28

Post by mothsonasloth »

The British military have the same problems.

It's disgusting how a prestigious military force has been reduced to a pitiful size reliant on contractors to install airconditioning units, weekend warriors who fly in and out on short tours and vehicles that have had "extended life" programs instead of making new ones.

Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese have been building next generation ground, air and sea units. The UK have two aircraft carriers which were designed in the early 2000s.

Sure we have our own innovative equipment but as the article says, they are operated and maintained by civilian technicians.

Are the technicians going to fly in to a warzone or if push comes to shove pickup a M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas and fight when the Russians come rolling through the Fulda gap.

Re: One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

#29

Post by varjag »

mothsonasloth wrote: post #28

The British military have the same problems. It's disgusting how a prestigious military force has been reduced to a pitiful size reliant on contractors to install airconditioning units, weekend warriors who fly in and out on short tours and vehicles that have had "extended life" programs instead of making new ones. Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese have been building next generation ground, air and sea units. The UK…

> The UK have two aircraft carriers which were designed in the early 2000s.

That's sparkling new for an aircraft carrier tho, and it's two more seaworthy carriers than Russia has.

Post reply on HN