Can only imagine what complex parts of the aircraft cost. If an empty metal/plastic box is 50k, what does it cost to replace a hydraulic pump or an electronic board in the avionics?
The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
141–150 of 387 posts
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#142This 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 government isn't just paying for the trash can. >They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design. It's economic investment in people and skills, not necessarily just the finished product. I call bullshit on that. There is no "maintenance" on that design, it was already done and paid for. It's a trashcan, it doesn't require specialized tooling to the cost of $50k. That's far above "make the to…
War is messy when it comes to free market...
Pentagon: "Oh hey, I need special bolt X"
FreeMarket: "Sorry, was too expensive to make that here so we're making special bolt X in China"
Pentagon: "Um, but we are shooting China right now"
FreeMarket: "Don't worry I can get a production line setup in 3 months for 100 million dollars"
Pentagon: "But I need special bolt X TODAY!"
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#143This 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…
Also means that there are way fewer airframes to spread development costs across.
Looks like we both read it, but not all of us understood the implications of it.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
...in China. Which is where we don't want our manufacturing dollars or skill base to go.
Every single trashcan shipped from China for military purpose in US would have to be pulled apart, inspected down to nanolevel and then put back together. That would not be just a few dollars... Edit: Yes obviously they are concerned about targeted attacks. And where do you live that hardware store sells trashcans that verifiably comply with all requirements to be put on a custom military Boeing 707 and not f things…
The point actually is, if we are shooting at China for one reason or another we would be getting zero trash cans from them.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#145The 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.
Or the government can pay people to build better infrastructure instead.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#146Aren't these kind of odd prices usually just laundering money for black projects?
No. My understanding is that if its something the agency is buying from an external contractor that's too easy to get flagged in an audit and they use other sorts of expenses for shifting money to black projects. At least that's what I get form reading descriptions of the practice in books like Blind Man's Bluff.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#147This 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…
> They're paying for people to design, tool, and maintain that design. It's economic investment in people and skills, not necessarily just the finished product.
Wrong - almost all of the profits go to the shareholders of those contractors. The people who are actually doing thew work do not get paid more.
Shit like this is the tip of the iceberg. [1]
[1] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/22/why-cant-the-do...
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
...in China. Which is where we don't want our manufacturing dollars or skill base to go.
Every single trashcan shipped from China for military purpose in US would have to be pulled apart, inspected down to nanolevel and then put back together. That would not be just a few dollars... Edit: Yes obviously they are concerned about targeted attacks. And where do you live that hardware store sells trashcans that verifiably comply with all requirements to be put on a custom military Boeing 707 and not f things…
You can't be serious. Buy a plastic trashcan, use a generic metal scanner and an X-Ray and you are done.
If you are concerned about targeted attacks, head down to your local hardware store and buy one of the thousands they have in stock.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 profi…
This commenter understands how contracts work.
I'll direct all the righteously indignant folks claiming "corruption" to you from now on. XD
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So borrow a vaccuum chamber, throw it there and certify new company doing trash cans. It won't cost 50k
No, including profit it costs peopably somewhere around 200k for a run of 5 trash cans.