The Pentagon’s $52k trash can • Hacker News Board

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#111

Post by sidewndr46 » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:18 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #86

bombcar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often you can't get the original part, so you have to hire someone to take standard rubber and mold it into what you need, which can be more or less expensive depending on the use.

And now imagine that the person doing that work has to be certified according to aerospace standards... And believe me, that happens all the time...

Yeah from what I understand the Pentagon was going to retire the A-10 at some point due to airframe hours. Instead they just paid another company to build new wings for it. Although they obviously had to be similar to the original ones, the new wings were basically a totally separate R&D effort followed by a manufacturing contract for them.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#112

Post by lesuorac » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:20 PM UTC

misiti3780 wrote: post #23

You can understand why any taxpayer of the US, after reading this, might question why an increase in the federal income tax is justified.

You might not be aware of this, but the USG separately decides how much to spend and how much to tax.

The difference commonly comes up every now and then when the Gov threatens to shutdown because congress decided to spend more than they decided to tax and eventually that difference catches up to them as that already approved spending is dispersed but there wasn't money to pay for it.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#113

Post by smallerfish » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:20 PM UTC

giaour wrote: post #96

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain then how Boeing managed to stay afloat when it was forced to charge "only" $300 per trash can.

$300 probably represents the amortized proportional cost of the original design, certification, and manufacturing run. $50K for a crash can is absurd, but $200K to spin up a production facility and get the output certified to whatever aviation safety standards apply to trash cans sounds about right.

They don't need to spin up a production facility for a run of four trash cans. I guarantee there are ad hoc metal shops aplenty. Cut some sheet metal on the CNC, run it through a folder-thingy, rivet/weld it up, add some hinge hardware. You're talking one guy and 2-4 days, including the CAD work.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#114

Post by kcatskcolbdi » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:20 PM UTC

kylecazar wrote: post #13

There was an interesting article going around explaining accounting artifacts in the DoD from the late '90s. See 'the myth of the $600 hammer': https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...

>The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall-they simply treated every item the same. So the hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and development overhead-$420-as each of the highly technical components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)

"we didn't ACTUALLY spend that much on a hammer, we just averaged it out across a bulk purchase! See, we aren't terrible with money."

Framing something as 'the myth of the $600 hammer' is implicitly pointing to external sources (congress, journalists) and messaging that they 'invented a myth' that the military spent $600 on a hammer. They didn't invent anything. They worked with the information that was provided to them by the military.

If you wanted to discuss the same issue, but under a framing that wasn't disingenuous, you could title it something like 'the reality of abysmal and misleading accounting throughout the military and their contractors'.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#115

Post by NickC25 » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:20 PM UTC

What people tend to miss is that the likes of Lockheed, Raytheon, and Boeing do this shit on purpose because they are public companies with few customers, and effectively zero accountability. They are literally forced by public markets to continually grow profits, and I'd wager Lockheed spends a gargantuan amount of money on black projects and research that they can't really turn a profit on (let alone disclose much less sell off), so they have to resort to making a profit by bilking the Pentagon in any way they can.

Since the Pentagon doesn't give a damn about passing an audit, and the revolving door between defense companies, industry lobbyists, and the Pentagon is so huge, they can just get away with it.

Spare me the bullshit about jobs and readiness, it's not good for the economy to continually employ people to utilize 30 year old tech to prepare for a battle that will never happen. Look at Abrams tanks - some senator couldn't face the prospect of not being re-elected, so they continually pushed for Abrams to receive billions to continually produce tanks, which went out of style after Desert Storm....which was in 1993. The Pentagon didn't want more tanks, and said as much many times, yet nothing happened. Those tanks were produced for years and had no use and sat in a massive warehouse. All so that senator could enjoy their cushy benefits, nice lobbying kickbacks, and not having to actually run a competitive re-election campaign, much less do the hard work of saying "look folks, your jobs are irrelevant now, here's some money to go re-train in a different industry".

Now, is spending on military tech inherently bad, even on unprofitable or pie-in-the-sky ideas? No. Is it a bad thing to invest in the engineering sectors? No. Should it be done? Yes. Is it good to invest in technology and in education? Yes. Should companies that are completely reliant on Pentagon funding be allowed to be "private" entities who need to adhere to the whims of wall street bankers above all else? Absolutely not. Should they be allowed to lobby? No. Should they be allowed to hire tons of former military officials to effectively just be "relationship" people so the money keeps coming in? Absolutely not.

The root cause here is that there's a revolving door between the Pentagon and private industry, and we're turning a blind eye to it.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#116

Post by zweifuss » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:21 PM UTC

moffkalast wrote: post #66

InTheArena wrote: post #30

Part of the problem here is that the mechanism designed to protect tax-payers (the incredibly complex framework around government procurement) shield players from competition (Aka, the same effect as healthcare market in the USA. This is why modern USA subs use Xbox controllers for joysticks. You can walk out and expense them. The same, if subject to the program, would be a $1k unit cost based on the twin reasoning o…

I'm starting to suspect that Microsoft may have had a hand in sinking that Titanic sub as a promotional move, because people have been dragging the damn xbox controller into every possible discussion since.

The Logitech F710 wireless gamepad used in the Titan was similar to a PlayStation 4 controller and not at all similar to a MS-Xbox-Wireless-Controller. I don't think it was the point of failure.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#117

Post by Symmetry » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:21 PM UTC

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #8

While defense spending is the most egregious, governmental budgets are inflated across the board in the US. For instance, the US spends far more per capita on infrastructure and education than other industrialized countries, for at best comparable (and often worse) results. I wonder how much of this is due to the US’s unique ability to essentially endlessly deficit spend. If the supply of governmental funding is effe…

A few reasons. The US was very corrupt back before the Progressive Era and to clean that up in a hurry we got a bunch of very prescriptive rules around procurement that prevent the use of common sense and make bidding for government contracts a hard to master skill that reduces competition.

We have a federal structure and use a common law framework so the interaction of law, precedent, and agency rules create a confusing thicket of regulation that's hard to deal with.

Finally, outsourcing of planning to consultants means frequent shifts in direction and makes it harder to exercise control over costs.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#118

Post by lesuorac » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:21 PM UTC

einpoklum wrote: post #36

The problem is not the Pentagon's $52,000 trash can, but the US' $858,000,000,000 trash heap which is the defense budget: other than massive corruption and unaccountable-for assets - the actual delivery of this budget is military intervention, occupation and war-mongering all over the world. Not to mention the danger of nuclear holocaust. And - almost all members of the congress vote for these monstrosities. Here are…

US Military is one of the largest (the largest?) Jobs Creator in the US.

Cities can literally be made or break by the Military (and other Gov functions) moving there or leaving.

A vote against the military is a vote for more unemployment in your district.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#119

Post by sofixa » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:22 PM UTC

Asdrubalini wrote: post #102

cushychicken wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's still on the plane. If nobody tested it at the pressure a plane is at, and it turns out it explodes and injures the crew, that's not great.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#120

Post by mda » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 1:23 PM UTC

dale_glass wrote: post #73

kossTKR wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this comment a joke?

Why would it be? Making even consumer products is much harder than it seems. Just look at the myriad failed Kickstarter projects that tried to make consumer stuff. Even getting something normal made in China can be serious work. And far more if you actually want to do a good job of it. Linus Tech Tips put a surprising amount of work into making a screwdriver. Then consider that the military probably has a bunch of re…

IMO, the claimed price is never to cover these so called "testing for requirements", It is a random / maximum amount they can charge basically. Sure they could give you a nice explanation that looks nice on paper, but it is rarely true. It is always the smoke and mirrors bullshit that happens for government contracts.