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

311–320 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#311

Post by giantrobot »

abeppu wrote: post #281
kodah wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> I'm not sure if that's true, or how difficult part standardization is in complex modern equipment.

Part standardization isn't just bolts and major assemblies but also things like test stands, jigs, and everything else needed to repair something.

Every repair bay needs for example a shop crane. Every division will have X number of shop cranes all their maintenance units. If there's a particular model shop crane that works with every engine for every vehicle in the division that's awesome. They just need X shop cranes.

But then they get assigned a new type of truck. Its engine is bigger and better than the old model. Unfortunately the existing shop cranes are too small to handle lifting this new engine. Now the division needs a mix of shop cranes and enough where every motor pool has every shop crane necessary to fix any vehicle that comes in.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#312

Post by hef19898 »

jtbayly wrote: post #286
hef19898 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It as, since the initial spare part contract ran out, and thus the old price of 300 bucks no longer applied.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#314

Post by jollyllama »

crote wrote: post #305
jollyllama wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surprising to see people carrying water for the MIC in this way. Boeing already has the machines to make these kinds of things. It's just going to be sheet metal and plastic molds. Even assuming a one-off custom-fab job, $52k is obscene.

The plane was introduced nearly 70 years ago. Why would they keep around obsolete machines for which the last plane left the factory literally decades ago ?

That's my point, you don't need specialty machines to make trash cans; it's going to be the same types of sheet metal benders that are used for other simple fixtures.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#315

Post by Jochim »

cushychicken wrote: post #58
goodoldneon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Military spending is good for the economy” is basically the same as the broken window fallacy. There’s a massive opportunity cost

There's also massive benefits which are hard to directly measure. Doing advanced, completely unprofitable basic research, for one thing. These are the sorts of projects that spawned GPS, the Internet, and IC manufacturing. Wasn't super profitable at the time of conception, but the military doesn't care. They need capability, irrespective of price. All of these technologies are now keystones of numerous gigantic Ameri…

I think the point is that you could fund all those things without putting it directly into the pockets of defence contractors, or physically/psychologically traumatising the people who feel the need to sign up.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#317

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

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-…

Modern defense contracting has become, first and foremost, a process to transfer government funds to private hands. The fact that any useful products or services happen is purely incidental.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#318

Post by ceejayoz »

Jochim wrote: post #310
ceejayoz wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a trash can that must contain a waste fire so it doesn't burn through the wall of the plane or suffocate the crew. It is a trash can that must not fly around the E-3's cabin if they're making evasive maneuvers. It is a trash can that must fit in a specific spot in a plane first made in 1957 and ended production in the 1970s. It must have been confirmed via a vigorous process to fulfill all these requirements an…

> You can not buy one of these at Target. They are not putting little plastic bins by the workstations in an AWACS plane. Apparently you could buy one for $300 though. I own a bin that isn't far off that price, and I'm sure many people on the site have much fancier ones.

> Apparently you could buy one for $300 though.

Yes, when they were being commercially manufactured for many users.

Now that 707s are no longer in service outside the military, they're not running production lines for parts except when needed; that $200k includes all the paperwork to win the contract, the lawyers who review it, un-mothballing whatever tooling they use, etc.; the fixed costs far outweigh the costs to make each individual trash can. For similar reasons, I can buy a part for my Corolla much cheaper than I can for a Model T.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#319

Post by ceejayoz »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #304
ceejayoz wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a trash can that must contain a waste fire so it doesn't burn through the wall of the plane or suffocate the crew. It is a trash can that must not fly around the E-3's cabin if they're making evasive maneuvers. It is a trash can that must fit in a specific spot in a plane first made in 1957 and ended production in the 1970s. It must have been confirmed via a vigorous process to fulfill all these requirements an…

> You can not buy one of these at Target. They are not putting little plastic bins by the workstations in an AWACS plane. You do realize there are multiple trash cans available, right? Some that are metal. Of many different sizes. It would take less time to go store to store across the country and source 4 trash cans than it would to do this ludicrous process.

> You do realize there are multiple trash cans available, right?

Certified for use on 707s? Again, this is not the sort of trash can you have in your office. It'll be rated for fire, it'll be in a special cart that fits into a special locking spot in the plane, it will have been tested to stay in that special locking spot if the plane crashes, etc.

It's like trying to buy Commodore 64 parts at Best Buy. Not going to happen.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#320

Post by ceejayoz »

pphysch wrote: post #306
crazygringo wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define properly itemized. How do you allocate the e.g. design and testing and molding one-time costs when you have no idea if you'll ultimately manufacture 5 for a prototype or 5,000 if Congress places a big order?

The government paid a lump sum for a bunch of stuff. They should be able to verify that the items received represent the lump sum. To do that, they need to itemize the purchases. 1 trash can costs $300, etc. There are many obvious reasons for this. For example, avoiding fraud and record-keeping (we need 4 more trash cans; how much did we pay last time?). If we paid $300/can last year, and now Boeing wants $52000/can,…

> To do that, they need to itemize the purchases.

It'll be something like:

Paperwork / contract negotiation: $50k

Legal review of paperwork: $20k

Project management: $50k

Activating mothballed production line: $39,400

Trash cans (4): $1200

Mothballing production line: $39,400

Post reply on HN