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

The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 527 posts

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#141

Post by Calavar »

Alupis wrote: post #72
stackskipton wrote: post #47

As someone who has some familiarity with this process, just like safety regulations are written in blood, Federal Acquisition rules are written in misuse of money, sometimes criminally. Yes, we have swung too much towards the bureaucrats but I'm not sure throwing out everything is solution to the issue. Move fast works great when it's B2B software and failures means stock price does not go up. It's not so great when…

The F-35 was Lockheed's entry in the Joint Strike Fighter program. The JSF has roots going back to 1996. The X-35 first flew in 2000. The F-35 first flew in 2006, and didn't enter service until 2015(!!). That's nearly 20 years to develop a single airframe. Yes, it's the most sophisticated airframe to date, but 20 years is not trivial. The F-35 had many issues during trials and early deployment - some are excusable fo…

> Something is very wrong if it takes 20+ years to field new military technologies.

Is it? By what criteria? IMHO the point is to get new tech out quickly enough that you aren't falling behind other major powers in the international arms race. The F35 seems to be ahead of the competition because countries around the world are lining up to buy it over much cheaper alternatives from Russia (Su57) and China (J35).

Not to mention that the Su57 also had about a 20 year development cycle. Maybe that's just how long takes to develop a new stealth fighter?

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#142

Post by soulofmischief »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #76
felixgallo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nope: https://www.military.com/feature/2025/10/17/department-of-wa...

Nobody uses statutory titles for anything to be honest; when’s the last time you referred to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act instead of “Obamacare”? When’s the last time you referred to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program instead of “Social Security”? I’ve never heard anyone say Title XIX of the Social Security Act instead of “Medicaid,” or Title XVIII of the Social Security Act in…

I say ACA, Obamacare is politically charged. And the cases you've mentioned all shorten a long name into a colloquial name. This is not the case for Department of War/Defense.

That said, let's call it what it is... it's a war machine. Just as we should refer to Israeli Occupation Forces and not "Defense" forces, since genocidal occupation is just about the furthest thing from defense.

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#143

Post by p_l »

Retric wrote: post #94
Alupis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 was Lockheed's entry in the Joint Strike Fighter program. The JSF has roots going back to 1996. The X-35 first flew in 2000. The F-35 first flew in 2006, and didn't enter service until 2015(!!). That's nearly 20 years to develop a single airframe. Yes, it's the most sophisticated airframe to date, but 20 years is not trivial. The F-35 had many issues during trials and early deployment - some are excusable fo…

It didn’t take 20 years to make an airframe it took 20 years to do lots of research which eventually resulted in a wide range of systems and multiple very distinct airframes. Hell F-35B does vertical takeoff and still mostly uses the same systems as the other designs, that should tell you something.

F-35B was added to JSF to ensure Lockheed (who had been working on exactly that since 1980s even to the point of licensing designs from USSR) was the only company that could win the contract.

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#144

Post by Y-bar »

chiph wrote: post #41

> Design For Rapid Scale In a Crisis One of the things that I think Anduril (Palmer Luckey and other founders) is doing right is designing for manufacturability. The invasion of Ukraine has shown that future conflicts will use up weapons at a very high pace. And that the US capability to build them at the rate needed to sustain conflict isn't there anymore. But that one thing that could help is making them easier to…

What’s up with Maga people using LotR names for their military/panopticon companies?

Anduril, Palantir, Lembas have I seen so far.

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#145

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #95
Terr_ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when’s the last time you referred to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act instead of “Obamacare” I refer to it as "the ACA", which is short and avoids an unofficial moniker first introduced as an insult. It's not just a personal preference, it's civically important : There are still morons out there who have spent the last 15 years simultaneously gushing about how the ACA is awesome while demonizing "Obam…

ACA is still technically incorrect; as it’s actually statutorily the PPACA. Accuracy, am I right?

You're kind of proving their point: People seem to use common names (ACA, Obamacare, DoD) regardless of whether they abide by statute (PPACA) or executive meme-forcing (DoW).

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#146

Post by nradov »

astrange wrote: post #123
koolba wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …and they're about to ban windowless bedrooms which will make office-to-housing conversions impossible. Where is this not banned? And it’s not like offices don’t have windows or you can’t cut them. The ban on windowless bedrooms is supposed to prevent renting out a utility closet as a “rustic studio”.

No, the ban is because an architect thinks they're icky, sent in a request to ban it, and the building code people take any suggestion to ban anything that anyone sends them. Safety regulations are written in blood, you know! https://bsky.app/profile/stephenjacobsmith.com/post/3m3xpe3n...

The ban on windowless bedroom is at least partly about fire safety. A window provides an escape route for low floors, or a means for firefighters to rescue the occupants.

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#147

Post by aerostable_slug »

yesco wrote: post #137
amluto wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US currently produces between 30,000-40,000 155mm artillery shells a month, but Ukraine (at peak) expended 10,000 per day[1]. Wars are incredibly expensive, and the US should not be producing weapons, in peacetime, at the rate they would be expended during an active war. What we should have the ability to rapidly scale production.

Weapons need to be replaced, even ones never used. To be capable of scaling production you need at least some degree of production constantly simmering in the background. Yet even then, there is a limit to how much you can scale up on demand. The best and cheapest weapons are the ones never used, but making no weapons at all is the most expensive choice in the end.

The problem is you have these hugely expensive facilities like the tank plant in Lima that's pretty much only good for making tanks. Transitioning manufacturing to production lines that can be economically kept online because they make non-tank products when we're not fighting anyone is the way to go.

There's a ton of work going on in this area, and has been for a while (check out DARPA's AVM project for some of it).

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#148

Post by jfengel »

tomrod wrote: post #124
Loughla wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ada.gov website has a banner that reads, "Democrats have shut down the government. Department of Justice websites are not currently regularly updated." Trump is the king. Edit: To be clear, I think it's complete and utter garbage. I'm assuming people think I think it's a good thing? It's not a good thing. At all.

No, Trump has a minor fiefdom district and some authority for services the states and their representatives agreed to let the federal government execute. He is not king.

He is routinely violating laws, so quickly that there isn't enough room in the courts for all of them.

"King" is inaccurate, but correctly implies the degree to which the law does not apply to him.

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#149

Post by Retric »

thereisnospork wrote: post #132
Retric wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn’t take 20 years to make an airframe it took 20 years to do lots of research which eventually resulted in a wide range of systems and multiple very distinct airframes. Hell F-35B does vertical takeoff and still mostly uses the same systems as the other designs, that should tell you something.

It doesn't take 20 years to do that, it takes 20 years to do that and wade through the bureaucratic morass. The SR-71 went from initiation to deployment in under a decade, more than half a century ago. With the myriad of advancements in everything from engineering, computation, to business development/management practices, building new cutting edge planes is the sort of thing we should be getting better and quicker a…

The SR-71 had a strait forward mission well suited to a specialized airframe, and again you’re focusing on the airframe.

Just the software for the helmet alone provides a huge technical advantage that has little to do with how the aircraft is manufactured other than having the appropriate sensors, communication systems, and computing power. Yet through all that bureaucracy what would normally be 3 different airframes all get to leverage the same systems without the need for retrofits etc. It’s inherently a two step process to figure out what you need before you can finalize the design.

By comparison vs the F-35, the B-2 spirit was vastly more expensive and far more limited. The F-35 also costs less than the more specialized F-22, but that versatility takes time.

Re: The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

#150

Post by nradov »

chiph wrote: post #41

> Design For Rapid Scale In a Crisis One of the things that I think Anduril (Palmer Luckey and other founders) is doing right is designing for manufacturability. The invasion of Ukraine has shown that future conflicts will use up weapons at a very high pace. And that the US capability to build them at the rate needed to sustain conflict isn't there anymore. But that one thing that could help is making them easier to…

In particular Anduril is designing its weapons such that they could be manufactured in many other existing civilian factories using common tools and equipment. This should allow for rapidly scaling production in a crisis.
Post reply on HN