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

The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

responsiblestatecraft.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#101

Post by ceejayoz »

junon wrote: post #15
hef19898 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes, but not always. People tend to underestimate how much costs are coming from certification, testing and corresponding warranties. The F-117 so did canabalize quite some "spares" bought for the F-16 and F-15 fleets.

A trash can needs to be tested and certified for use in the Pentagon? ... holding a small collection of waste is that intense eh?

> ... holding a small collection of waste is that intense eh?

If it catches fire on the $330M plane it's made for, potentially.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash involved a ~$80M (adjusting for inflation) lost B-52, another $80M in cleanup costs, and a still missing 1.1 megaton nuclear weapon, over a couple pillows that caught fire.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#102

Post by Asdrubalini »

cushychicken wrote: post #74
lobochrome wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Alas, there is an aspect of over regulation. Does the trash can need to be certified to an extreme level of depth or can some solider in the machine shop quickly throw something together? I think in many societies we’ve lost the wiggle room that allows for pragmatic solutions in the name of safety. Maybe the risk reduction was worth it? Maybe not. But arguments for risk averse behavior tend to win more than 5…

As a timely counterexample: someone is dropping five wreaths off a boat in the North Atlantic today because of an under regulated experimental transportation craft that failed catastrophically. I'd much rather fly on a plane that's regulated and certified out the nose than one that's not. I'd rather live in a country that invests in people's skills and knowledge than one th t doesn't.

This is a trash can, not an aircraft's engine

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#103

Post by mda »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

Or, a simpler explanation: "corruption".

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#104

Post by mda »

kossTKR wrote: post #35
cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

Is this comment a joke?

I think it was an attempt of a joke.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#105

Post by Symmetry »

batch12 wrote: post #32
cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

I think I can deliver a trashcan that matches specs for a mere 40k.

If you're not already in the business then hiring the talent to submit a conforming bid for the contract to deliver the trashcan will run you more than $40k.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#106

Post by giaour »

t0suj4 wrote: post #68
cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

> The problematic element of it is when companies charge these sorts of absurd fees for a design that was produced decades ago (the E-3 is not a new aircraft by any means) and not adding meaningful value on top of it. I think the problem is that they're so disconnected from the value of money that they are willing to pay that much.

Planes get grounded when they have missing or nonfunctional parts. E.g., commercial jets can't fly if the toilets don't work, even though the toilet is not critical to aviation safety.

Imagine you have four multimillion dollar aircraft that can't fly because some small part that is out of production broke. You need those planes to fly missions. How much would you pay to put them back into service?

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#107

Post by Spooky23 »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

That explanation doesn’t hold water.

The issue in government contracting is very simple. You need competitive procurement to ensure reasonableness of price. Period. In the 90s, we allowed major defense contractors to consolidate at the prime level and diversify at the subcontractor level.

So Lockheed Martin has some component of every system in 300 congressional districts - some little company is fabricating magical bolts to get congressional support.

So now these giant companies are all sole source vendors. Guess what happened to price?

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#108

Post by bluedino »

niffydroid wrote: post #4

If its going on an aircraft and it's no longer made or stocked, then yes there will be extra cost as it has to go through certification, testing, flammability, tooling and various other things. So while the top line price may be high for the bin, but a breakdown of costs would indicate where the money is going. Overcharging? perhaps and possible, but more info needed.

You also have requirements that are very different than other industries. Make a part for Boeing? All the plans, production records, testing and certifications, need to be kept for 50 years

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#109

Post by Symmetry »

scotty79 wrote: post #50
cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

> It keeps people employed, ... What fraction of that $50k landed in the hands of the workers, do you think?

Most of it, probably. These sort of contracts operate on a cost plus basis where the profit margin that Boeing takes home is fixed ahead of time. I hear from people doing software for defense contractors that they spend a lot of time being bored not doing anything productive, but by collecting their salaries they increase the cost of the software, which is the only way for the defense contractor to increase its profit.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#110

Post by mcdonje »

cushychicken wrote: post #24

This is a reducto ad absurdum example of how the US government is paying out the nose to keep a bunch of manufacturing and development work on-shore in the USA. Yeah, sure, it's a trash can, there's no reason it should cost $50k. We're all agreed that's an absurd amount to pay for a trash container. The government isn't just paying for the trash can. They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design…

>Until 2010, Boeing charged an average of $300 for a trash container used in the E-3 Sentry, a surveillance and radar plane based on the 707 civilian airliner. When the 707 fell out of use in the United States, the trash can was no longer a “commercial” item, meaning that Boeing was not obligated to keep its price at previous levels, according to a weapons industry source who spoke to RS.

That's the 2nd paragraph of the article that you apparently didn't read.

Post reply on HN