Live data from Hacker News

The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

thedrive.com

161–170 of 265 posts

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#161

I can't be certain, but I suspect the real problem was that the original contract was signed without requiring the technical data rights and/or delivery of the technical data. This is a common mistake made by the DoD, and can lead to extraordinarily high costs later. Just look at the notice: "The deliverables will include all technical data related to the heat exchanger disassembly, all technical data related to the…

Why is it legal to do this? I don’t pay taxes so a bunch of morons can waste it on a consulting company trick

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#162

I can't be certain, but I suspect the real problem was that the original contract was signed without requiring the technical data rights and/or delivery of the technical data. This is a common mistake made by the DoD, and can lead to extraordinarily high costs later. Just look at the notice: "The deliverables will include all technical data related to the heat exchanger disassembly, all technical data related to the…

> The government program manager (PM) is under a lot of pressure to "get it cheaper" And let me guess, the 'pressure' comes from government decision makers that live in a perpetual revolving door with industry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

While the revolving door is always a potential issue, and I'm sure it happens, I don't think that's a key problem for the DoD. When government officials leave office they're required to not do work, for a period of time, on things they controlled, and the penalties can be steep. That reduces incentives for the worst of abuses. Also: a US government employee who retires after 20+ years has a guaranteed pension; it's nice to get more on top, but not by risking it.

No, I think the pressure primarily comes from the DoD procurement process itself. First, you have to develop the requirements. The Air Force wants a plane, the Navy wants a plane, the Army wants a plane. If you say "yes" to one & "no" the others you get a political battle. A bright person says, "I know, we'll make a plane for everyone, and the volume purchase will make it cheaper!" "Great!" everyone says. They each bring in their laundry lists of what they want the plane to do... if you say "no", then they probably won't fund it, so you have this HUGE list of requirements. Now the plane (or whatever) has to do everything.

Then it goes out for bid. Only the lowest bid will win, so contractors will do their best to make it a low price for a massive number of requirements. They're under great pressure to underbid the real costs, and when you do new things it's usually more expensive than you imagine. Yet those costs will still look eye-wateringly big (because it's trying to do everything). Contractors will then say "don't require that 'bunch of useless technical data and those technical data rights... it'll be cheaper!". In addition, every time you learn something, you'll need to make a change, and that will result in a change request with a remarkably high price tag. That's partly because the contractors are motivated by profit, but to be fair, they were often pressured into unrealistically low starting costs by the process.

Many of the DoD's problems aren't from "evil government officials" or "evil contractors". Many really are trying to do good things. Sometimes the problem is that the DoD procurement process has some perverse incentives that sometimes results in very strange outcomes.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#163
If I were a reporter, I'd have 3 questions for DoD:

Aren't they spending tens of MIC billions on new bombers soon anyhow?

Why aren't they cannibalizing other airframes and just making do?

Why didn't they have a spares support contract for the entire lifecycle of the airframe?

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#164

Sort of related: in UK an entire skyscraper went up in flames, and it was obvious there were multiple breaches of fire safety. Over 100 people died. The inquery was told that the plans for the building were lost, and it was the intern's fault that he deleted them off his pc. https://www.itv.com/news/london/2020-09-14/grenfell-files-lo...

I remember that. Shitty builders, developers, and inspectors.

Are these both then "their dogs ate their homework" defenses?

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#165
post #122

I can't be certain, but I suspect the real problem was that the original contract was signed without requiring the technical data rights and/or delivery of the technical data. This is a common mistake made by the DoD, and can lead to extraordinarily high costs later. Just look at the notice: "The deliverables will include all technical data related to the heat exchanger disassembly, all technical data related to the…

This reminds me of the following: “In my view, shared by many blue-suiters, this marvelous airplane should still be operational but, alas, that was not to be. One of the most depressing moments in the history of the Skunk Works occurred on February 5, 1970, when we received a telegram from the Pentagon ordering us to destroy all the tooling for the Blackbird. All the molds, jigs, and forty thousand detail tools were…

The same was done the Canadian Avro Arrow plane, and the British Black Knight rocket. What happens once you join government, they take away your brains?

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government program manager (PM) is under a lot of pressure to "get it cheaper" And let me guess, the 'pressure' comes from government decision makers that live in a perpetual revolving door with industry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

While the revolving door is always a potential issue, and I'm sure it happens, I don't think that's a key problem for the DoD. When government officials leave office they're required to not do work, for a period of time, on things they controlled, and the penalties can be steep. That reduces incentives for the worst of abuses. Also: a US government employee who retires after 20+ years has a guaranteed pension; it's n…

Seems like if the US govt. can have a policy that disrupts the revolving door, they could also institute a policy that all tenders require the perpetual rights to technical data? Especially if this is a problem that even outsiders are aware of. So I wonder what's stopping such obvious and sensible policy from being enacted?

Edit:

I'll answer my own rhetorical question: because budget forecast time periods are aligned with election cycles.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also possible it was "Hey! The foam injection machine isn't working, I've tried everything", "There's this string trick I used once, try that", "Great, that fixed it, we should document that", "Sure, once we get all parts made that have backed up" Or, maybe I'm reading bad practices in my industry to everywhere else.

It is genuinely impossible to document every lityle nuance that makes everything work. Every time i am dealing in new hires, i realise how much we just take for granted

No, the problem is that while you are writing documentation you are not making money for the company. I remember when I and Dave as the senior tech told our boss that we should put the most common repairs into a database so new hires would not have to ask us questions all the time.

He asked how long the job would take, and we answered about a week for all the common stuff. And his answer was, "That is a week you will not be making the company any money.".

We tried to explain the long term savings, but he was not interested.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As some siblings have commented, it's probably the failure to get back and document it. But the desire for job protection is not uncommon. I saw it when I worked on testing satellite power converters at a large aerospace company. There were procedures and paperwork for everything, but the test procedure for one series of power converters did not work. Only one technician knew how to actually test them. He led me thro…

So many problems could be solved by giving every adult $1,000,000 in a one-time, tax-free, no strings attached, lump sum. The technician refused to document the procedure because he was afraid of becoming replaceable. He was afraid of becoming replaceable because he was afraid of losing his job. He was afraid of losing his job because he would lose his sole source of income. Let's just give people free money already.

Sorry, very often it is ego. Even is the job is secure, the worker thinks he is special because s/he knows something the others do not.

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it seem to be that we always assume that our own government is incompetent and unable of forward thinking, but all other governments (China, etc.) are?

China doesn't have to deal with a lot of the "complications" that the Western governments have to deal with, like human rights, etc. This gives those in power the potential to achieve their goals more efficiently. Not saying this is how it actually ends up, but they certainly are prepared to use a lot of leverage tools that are not available to more free countries.

“...[The Russians] have an immense advantage. I think it’s a dangerous advantage and a temporary advantage. Twelve men decide what to do. They don’t sit here like I do and have twelve others question me on why I’m doin’ it... In the end they destroy themselves.” —General George Marshall https://youtu.be/Y7eVaVUESCo

Re: The Air Force is having to reverse engineer parts of its own stealth bomber

#170
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think we need the tinfoil hat. This sort of thing happens sometimes. Like the time we forgot how to may part of our thermonuclear weapons and had to reverse engineer that [0]. The really interesting thing about that is one of the main things they had to reverse-engineer was an impurity in one of the ingredients that the original designers didn't even know they were depending on.

Reminds me of how NASA had to design completely new rocket engines for SLS because while they still had the plans for the Saturn-V rocket engines, back then plans weren't followed to such high accuracy as nowadays a 3D model would be followed. Each engine was custom tailored with small modifications here and there. The knowledge to custom tailor them was lost, so they went with designing new engines from scratch inst…

It reminds you of a thing that never happened? That's a neat trick. The SLS uses the RS-25 engines, the Space Shuttle Main Engines which are in no way an engine "designed from scratch".

Additionally the F-1 engines were redesigned using more modern techniques around 2012 with the F-1B [0].

The SLS went with the RS-25s for a number of reasons. While the F-1s provide high thrust they're not as efficient. The RS-25s can burn longer and with the SRBs providing massive amounts of thrust to get the stack off the ground the RS-25s can provide more delta-v to the upper stages. An F-1 reboot would have required a lot of extra work to add in modern computer controls which already exist in the RS-25. They have also flown in the past few decades and are well understood.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi...

Post reply on HN