[flagged]
the US government never dropped an atomic bomb on civilians
The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
21–30 of 387 posts
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#22Earlier 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?
They go into airplanes, not the Pentagon, which is right at the beginning of TFA.
So they are probably weirdly shaped.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#23You can understand why any taxpayer of the US, after reading this, might question why an increase in the federal income tax is justified.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#24This 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's economic investment in people and skills, not necessarily just the finished product.
The reason you can buy an OXO trash can for $30 on Amazon are the scale and volume at which they're produced. Development costs for that can are probably not dissimilar from those in this example, as far as paying for human time and effort to make the thing reality.
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.
It's a pretty interesting tradeoff. Should we pay outrageous amounts of money for stuff like this? It keeps people employed, which generates other positive economic effects, like buying houses and groceries. It also creates handy design and manufacturing know how, which is a useful thing to have if our current cold war with China ever heats up in the South China Sea. It's a lot harder to buy war materiel from your adversary when lead is flying.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#25Earlier 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?
If it goes on a plane, not as cargo but as part of the equipment: yes. Inflameable, certification paper work, corresponding risk for the supplier, obligations to provide said waste bin for, sometimes, 50 years after last serial delivery... That stuff adds up very quickly. Throw in low quantities, and the high NRC ammortized per unit, and that explains a bunch of said prices.
Plus obligatory surcharge for being aerospace, plus obligatory surcharge for being military.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#26Earlier 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?
Filing government levels of paperwork, especially for the defense sector is incredibly expensive. All that is reflect into the price of equipment.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#27This 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 mean seriously, you really believe this?
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#28Earlier 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?
It is for a specific airplane, not a generic trash can sitting by someone's desk. It has to be a specific size, shape, weight, fire resistance, and probably other factors I can't think of.
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm, no. A 17,000% increase in price for a TRASH CAN is not justified under any circumstance. That is straight up robbery that Boeing knows they can get away with.
Blame Boeing or the government willing to pay it?
Why not both?
Boeing shouldn't be exploiting the system and the government shouldn't be buying at those prices.
But alas, here we are with an inflated military budget that has leeches and mismanagement at every corner. Just to make number go up in bank account...
Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
#30Part 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 of adherence cost, and more importantly contractors charging what the market is willing to pay (when the market is incredibly inefficient).