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

281–290 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#281

Post by abeppu »

kodah wrote: post #179
ilyt wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Sure there is. Anyone who has served an had to fill out an Equipment Repair Order (ERO) has seen the every day screw or bolt that costs over $150. I was really annoyed by this at my shop and asked S-4 (supply) why this was. What it comes down to is that when military vendors sell a plane, radio, tank, etc to the military they aren't selling one product. They're selling a product list (called an SL-3). Each product on…

> I think the military could benefit from part standardization and longer lifetimes on component production.

Years ago in a history class it was asserted that in WWII, because the US had a greater degree of part standardization (I think they were talking about stuff that could be used across multiple tanks and truck models) than the Germans, the US supply lines for keeping everything running could be more effective. A German vehicle was more likely to be out of commission for want of a part.

I'm not sure if that's true, or how difficult part standardization is in complex modern equipment. But when the Russians are possibly harvesting chips from home appliances, and when we're all acutely aware of how tangled global supply chains are, I wonder if there will be a push for greater standardization from a strategic motivation rather than a cost one?

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#282

Post by AndrewKemendo »

TrackerFF wrote: post #124

I had the pleasure of being involved in a software project where the contractor was one of the usual suspects (Raytheon, Lockheed, etc.). Prior to this, I had no idea why defense projects were so expensive and slow. You have to understand, there are so many levels of negotiation, over the smallest changes imaginable. There's no such thing as "open source code" in these projects, everything is either modified off-the-…

It’s a broken system for sure…

HOWEVER when your acquisition system is designed to ensure that a nuclear detonator and a LAMP application go through the same process, these kinds of “overkill” or “nonsense” requirement responses happen.

We’re long overdue for fixing the FAR and federal acquisition process, which is the root problem. The legal system and processes built over the last 50 years, and as a result the people inside it, doesn’t allow for simple and efficient differentiation between projects legally so you end up with the same hammer meets mail approach.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#283

Post by jtbayly »

cushychicken wrote: post #243
jtbayly wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that paying people to do nothing in order to take home more profit as a corporation, and charging both the worthless employee time and the extra profit for the corp that allows to the taxpayers is the definition of corruption, right?

Paying people to learn how to make plane parts - even trash cans - is not corrupt. It's investing in manufacturing skills and knowhow. I'd wager most of the money spent on this venture went to the people designing and making the trashcan, not executive bonuses or admin fees.

> Paying people to learn how to make plane parts

Is the opposite of this:

> being bored not doing anything productive

I'm not sure why you claimed to agree with the latter being how government contracts work.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#284

Post by jtbayly »

hef19898 wrote: post #252
jtbayly wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only one buyer for these parts. "Paying the market price" means that Boeing charges whatever they want, and that's the market price, take it or leave it.

The upside of being a single source supplier.

Ah. So the system is corrupt. Got it.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#285

Post by asylteltine »

TrackerFF wrote: post #124

I had the pleasure of being involved in a software project where the contractor was one of the usual suspects (Raytheon, Lockheed, etc.). Prior to this, I had no idea why defense projects were so expensive and slow. You have to understand, there are so many levels of negotiation, over the smallest changes imaginable. There's no such thing as "open source code" in these projects, everything is either modified off-the-…

[dead]

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#286

Post by jtbayly »

hef19898 wrote: post #240
jtbayly wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"obligations to provide said waste bin for, sometimes, 50 years after last serial delivery" This is obviously not a problem since you can charge literally whatever you want after the initial purchase.

It obviously is a serious problem. Because all money in the world doesn't miraculiously materialize the needed production facilities over night.

Do realize that you are a justifying these late-in-the-contractual obligation parts being expensive because they might have to provide the parts for a long time?

If the fact that they will have to provide them for a long time is the reason for a high cost, then that is why they charged $300 per trash can back in the day. That cannot also be the justification for $56k per trash can today. It's a circular argument.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#287

Post by shlubbert »

hef19898 wrote: post #164
aeyes wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just don't put it on an aircraft then. Funny, HN was up in arms over Titan's use of a logitech controller just a few days ago. But somehow using something from best buy on a freaking expensive plane like an E-3 is a good idea. Well, folks, that way of thinking actually sank the Titan and cost five lives.

A trash can is slightly less essential to a vessel's operation than its control surface.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#288

Post by mhoad »

Would you believe that this topic is actually more complicated and nuanced than it seems based on this clickbait headline?

If anyone wants to see a proper non bullshit breakdown explanation of this topic from professionals I would highly recommend this video:

How Procurement Destroys Armies - Requirements, Risks & Development gone wrong https://youtu.be/bBQVR4epfBQ

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#290

Post by lesuorac »

thallium205 wrote: post #258
lesuorac wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah yes the ole Broken Window Fallacy rears its ugly head once again.

Broken windows are indeed great business for window repairmen.

If your district has a bunch of window factories; it's probably in your best interest to keep crime high.

Post reply on HN