Live data from Hacker News

The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

foreignpolicy.com

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#31
post #2

> "An upfront question with any program now is: How many congressional districts is it in?" said Thomas Christie, a former senior Pentagon acquisitions official. The military-industrial complex runs deep...and it goes to show how little we can rely on politicians to confront it. If you were a Representative from the few regions that still has an industrial base, it would be easy to justify just another "Yes" vote, fo…

The problem with this type of spending, whether or not it does create jobs, is that it is inherently wasteful. If it were a good plane, and not a political show pony, I'd let it off the hook. But billions are being poured into this fancy paperweight, when that money could more readily benefit programs like NASA (I am a fan of private space enterprise, but if we are going to go nuts with the political budget, might as…

This sort of boondoggle happens in all corners of our society though. I mean... you like NASA... so I'll use them as an example.

The Challenger blew up because of O-Ring failures. Devices that were needed to seal the different cylindrical sections of an SRB together. Why not simply make the SRB from one big cylinder ? Because it wouldn't fit on a semi truck for shipment to KSC. Why do we need to ship these cylinders, can't we just build them right next to the pad ? Because we needed the jobs in the state they were manufactured in. Sound familiar ?

This really is just how things work. It shouldn't be. And this project gets all the attention because of the spectacular nature of the failure... but it really does happen everywhere. It is the kind of public spending folly to be expected from a democratic republic where each region has its own representatives.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veterans, yes. But how about all the people who lost their jobs in the US over the last 20 years because of the obvious incompetence of the government to budget in any way that makes sense. Priorities. If you have a ton of starving and jobless people in your country, you do not spend a quarter of a TRILLION dollars on killing more people. I'm sorry, you just don't.

Getting people to work means more people paid, more jobs. How does a large govt project reduce available jobs? Not following.

By reducing consumer spending and investment through the taxation necessary for funding said project?

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#36
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this type of spending, whether or not it does create jobs, is that it is inherently wasteful. If it were a good plane, and not a political show pony, I'd let it off the hook. But billions are being poured into this fancy paperweight, when that money could more readily benefit programs like NASA (I am a fan of private space enterprise, but if we are going to go nuts with the political budget, might as…

This sort of boondoggle happens in all corners of our society though. I mean... you like NASA... so I'll use them as an example. The Challenger blew up because of O-Ring failures. Devices that were needed to seal the different cylindrical sections of an SRB together. Why not simply make the SRB from one big cylinder ? Because it wouldn't fit on a semi truck for shipment to KSC. Why do we need to ship these cylinders,…

You will find many companies that work in dangerous industries, public or private, have had their share of disasters due to institutional problems.

If you want the result of private companies' work, see: coal mining, oil drilling.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#37
I recently called my senators and congressman about this issue. None of the staffers were able to provide me with their public opinions on the project. Two mentioned that they haven't received any calls on the matter. If you care about this issue, and are a US citizen, call (http://www.contactingthecongress.org/) your elected officials.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#38
post #9

Pierre Sprey (F-16's designer) on the F-35 "The F-35 was born of an exceptionally dumb piece of airforce PR spin" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

He's right about so many things. Especially what is the F-35 good at: "spending money". The whole idea of multi service multi mission fighters is laughable, like saying you only need one programming language to write everything imaginable. Having worked on the F-16 I still think it's an amazing plane with a great track record of doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#39
post #9

Pierre Sprey (F-16's designer) on the F-35 "The F-35 was born of an exceptionally dumb piece of airforce PR spin" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

Good interview. Problems he's mentioning is basically true for any complex engineering problem: - stakeholders with different agendas building a common product does not work well - one size does not fit all Same is true for software, etc.

Also known as "design by committee".

Re: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veterans, yes. But how about all the people who lost their jobs in the US over the last 20 years because of the obvious incompetence of the government to budget in any way that makes sense. Priorities. If you have a ton of starving and jobless people in your country, you do not spend a quarter of a TRILLION dollars on killing more people. I'm sorry, you just don't.

Actually government jobs programs kind of directly affect joblessness and hunger. The question is whether this is the right kind of jobs program. Fixing infrastructure would create more jobs with a greater multiplier (construction workers are lower paid and spend more of their income) and produce lasting value. Edit: weird typo.

You are exactly right.

These huge military projects (which for the most part are utterly unnecessary) are nothing more than jobs programs cloaked as national security. There is certainly a huge element of rent extraction by defense contractor executives, as well as small business owners who utilize specialized direct award "set asides" designed for minorities, women, service disabled veterans (the vast majority of these are people who were never in combat, and have minor injuries at best such as back-pain), etc. Of course, the large defense contractors simply sub-contract to these small businesses and then do all the work, while the 3 people who constitute the small business pocket money for doing nothing other than existing.

But beyond the rent-extraction, you have a nation with a hugely oversized, overstaffed military. We take people, the vast majority of whom have an average high school record and zero college experience, and then put them into an immensely bloated, 1950's era organization. A small percentage of them will learn how to perform combat operations. The majority of them will learn to perform the logistics functions (supply, maintenance, repair, administration) that are the backbone of any military.

While some of these skills learned (electronics, software, etc) are in demand in the private sector, the vast, vast majority are not. In fact, a huge percentage of the administrative functions in the military have long been automated in the private sector. It is a truly overstaffed, bloated beyond belief organization.

So where do you go when you get out of active duty? If you are like many folks, you are truly fed up with being in a large government institution, and you want nothing more to do with the military. You go to school, aggressively learn some trade/skill that is in demand in the private sector, and you leave it.

The majority of people I've encountered don't do this. Instead, they take the only jobs they are qualified for: "quals" (somebody with military experience in some obscure area of logistics for an organization that is required on paper for a contractor to have employed upon award of a contract) for a defense contractor, or a civil service civilian job in the Department of Defense or other segments of the Federal gov't.

Both are, to some degree, do nothing jobs. A "Qual" might provide lots of advice to a defense contractor they are employed by, but typically they are just there because the contract demands that they are. They are mostly figure-heads. The joke in the industry is that many are hired and hang out in darkened offices playing video games, separated from the software developers and managers who were never in the military.

The civil service jobs in the Federal gov't are like working in any large bureaucracy. Mediocrity isn't just tolerated, but is the norm. People come in at 9 and leave at 3. If you care about your job, you work hard and end up carrying the weight of several of your coworkers who do nothing but watch the clock. Promotions are based on paper qualifications and certifications, are decided by people who have never met you, and are frequently awarded to people who dedicated their time to gaming the paper system instead of performing their job function.

What I am saying sounds anecdotal, but organizational experts who have studied failures at places such as the V.A. have all summed these findings up in a scientific way.

In Arlington, VA, there is a neighborhood called Crystal City. In Crystal City, there is a large, brand-new environmentally sustainable building which houses a huge number of EPA employees. The EPA has a valuable, important mission. For someone like me, it is beyond depressing seeing the employees milling about on 2 hour lunch breaks. The vast majority of them drive to work, despite the building being walking distance from a subway station. There is a mass exodus at 3PM as they all leave for suburbia.

Just like the rest of the Federal gov't, the EPA and the DOD are nothing more than giant employment programs. The difference is that the EPA gets its budget hammered by one political party that hates it, while the DOD is universally praised and worshipped by people who don't understand that the percentage of members who will ever see combat is in the single digits.

Post reply on HN