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

Post by kop316 » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #34

close04 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition, while there are fines stipulated in any such contract for breach of SLA, in reality it's almost always cheaper to pay the fine than actually meet the SLA. One would ask "why not increase the fine?". The answer is nobody would sign a contract with you without guaranteed profit. So if the risk outweighs the reward there's no deal.

Couldn't you do something like make (via legislation) any item on commercial sale subject to a minimum 10 year warranty on workmanship [for military purchasers] for repair or replacement, up to a value of X% of company revenue. When you made a lemon, surely it's then cheaper to replace with a current product than it is to go to court; and being a military supplier would be a high status indication so don't companies…

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

Ididntdothis wrote: post #36

I always wonder what they will do if there is a big war (maybe one that affects the homeland which is something the US is not used to) and the contractors decide fighting in this war is not good for business or they just want more money? Are they going to suspend IP laws and other contracts? It seems really weird that to have a military that’s dependent on other parties they can’t control. This structure works ok if…

Post by captainredbeard » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #33

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 fundamental problem is that it's not actually required to work because it's not a defensive war, it's an overseas adventure. If you want to see the most amazing military innovation on zero budget, it's being done in Syrian garages or on the streets of Hong Kong. If they fail, the innovators themselves are in physical danger. The lesson of the Iraq war was that it's possible to throw a trillion dollars into an ove…

Post by mothsonasloth » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

onepointsixC wrote: post #42

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…

Your comment doesn't seem very grounded. Those two British aircraft carriers were designed in the 2000s and are substantially more powerful than the brand new Chinese one which is a copy of the Russian one that was designed in the 80's. They operate F35's on them which are more modern and advanced than anything in the Russian or Chinese inventories. The closest Russian equivalent, the SU-57 was rejected by the Indian…

Post by dfsegoat » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

dsalzman wrote: post #44

I worked on a predictive maintenance project on the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle in a previous job. It was eye opening to say the least.