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

321–330 of 387 posts

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#321

Post by rootusrootus »

Ha, I'm not surprised. Boeing basically owns everything about the E-3, including the software. I guess technically the 4Pi is an IBM creation, but still, it's mostly a Boeing thing.

Fun fact: An E-3 takes around 3 times as long to get off the ground as a typical modern airliner. It's a bit disconcerting the first time you experience it. The 707 is really, really old. And as I recall, it's somewhat normal for an E-3 to be loaded to over max takeoff weight during normal operation. But my experience is 25 years out of date, so maybe that's changed.

Isn't the USAF just about the only organization still operating 707 in any capacity? KC-135 (sorta), E-3, what else? I think the KC-135 at least got re-engined, that probably helps a bunch.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#322

Post by pastacacioepepe »

themaninthedark wrote: post #255
smallerfish wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is your metal you are using NIST certified and traceable? How about your welds? One guy, so yours saying he inspected his own work and no sign-off?! You gonna retain those records? ASA-100, Distributor Quality System Standard, paragraph 12: “The distributor shall maintain documentation of traceability for at least 7 years… Here is a small non-exhaustive list I found of what you need: Did your shipment meet all the cu…

You think Boeing didn't already have all those processes and shops in place?

If it still costed them tens of thousands to produce a trash can, I'd argue they're doing their job really inefficiently. Not really what you'd call an economy of scale.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#323

Post by ceejayoz »

kcatskcolbdi wrote: post #309
xxpor wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a story of people getting mad about something they don't understand.

If someone shoots me in the foot I don't need to understand the mechanics of a gun to get upset about it.

If someone has a good reason to shoot you in the foot, your being upset about it doesn't necessarily make it the wrong choice.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#324

Post by ceejayoz »

culi wrote: post #278
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...

A quick look at an example of the big-ticket items immediately shows that's not what's going on here. From the article: > The investigation also revealed that Raytheon Technologies had raised the price of Stinger missiles from $25,000 to more than $400,000 per unit. “Even accounting for inflation and some improvements, that’s a seven-fold increase,” Shay Assad, a former Pentagon acquisitions official, told 60 Minutes…

In the case of the Stinger, it's also because they have to reengineer it a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Replacement

> The original Stinger's reprogrammable microprocessor has become obsolete in 2023, and a service life extension will keep the Block I in service until 2030... Raytheon Chief Executive Greg Hayes said on 26 April: "Some of the components are no longer commercially available, and so we’re going to have to go out and redesign some of the electronics in the missile of the seeker head. That’s going to take us a little bit of time".

(I'd imagine that process comes with a whole big round of destructive testing, certifications, tooling changes, acceptance testing, etc.)

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#325

Post by pphysch »

ceejayoz wrote: post #320
pphysch wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This does not make the picture better.

Here are two models of production:

1. You mostly make the thing yourself and pay the R&D + production costs in-house (i.e. public sector). There is little to no profit-waste. You need the thing, and so you created the thing. In this case, you are aware of the personnel, R&D, production costs. AFAIK this was mostly the state of play during WW2, or at least a lot more common.

2. You notify the market that you want a thing, and pay a profit-seeking vendor for the finished thing. You need the thing, so you bought it. The price breakdown beyond the product itself is opaque. You should not need to be aware of the personnel, R&D, production costs of BigContractor Inc. Does it actually cost $40K to produce a trash can? Fine, then that+profit will be the lowest bid.

You are describing a corrupted third model, where you essentially manage the entire production process, but also give extra money (profit) to a third-party. To say nothing of the massive waste of involving unnecessary middlemen.

This third model may or may not be how the government actually procures stuff, but again, it does not improve the picture of enormous government waste here.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#326

Post by syntheticcorp »

jliptzin wrote: post #222
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-…

I have encountered a situation a few times where a bug that went unnoticed for a while was actually keeping another, more serious bug from surfacing. So when the first bug was fixed, it caused more serious problems elsewhere in the system. I could see where they're coming from where any kind of "fix" needs to trigger a careful reevaluation of the whole system. That being said, I don't see a need for the Kafkaesque mo…

I’ve also encountered that a few times where a fairly anodyne bug in a codepath prevents a serious security bug from being reachable. With my attacker hat on it is very tempting to just report the first one…

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#327

Post by afterburner »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #56
afterburner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US’s unique ability to essentially endlessly deficit spend This is not unique to the US, nor even unique to countries. Almost all countries deficit spend endlessly, which is fine as long as it's offset by economic growth. And that deficit spending can speed up that economic growth. The US's uniqueness is being massively wealthy, so its deficits are bigger.

The US has the fourth highest debt:GDP ratio amongst OECD countries; only Japan, Greece, and Italy are higher, whose high debts are mainly due to severe economic problems, and are not offset by growth. The US is unique in that (thus far) its massive deficit spending has been offset by growth, although it remains to be seen how long that’s sustainable.

> The US is unique in that (thus far) its massive deficit spending has been offset by growth

That's not unique either. The UK had massive debts in its history but outgrew them. Or were you not considering history?

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#328

Post by ceejayoz »

pphysch wrote: post #325
ceejayoz wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

This does not make the picture better. Here are two models of production: 1. You mostly make the thing yourself and pay the R&D + production costs in-house (i.e. public sector). There is little to no profit-waste. You need the thing, and so you created the thing. In this case, you are aware of the personnel, R&D, production costs. AFAIK this was mostly the state of play during WW2, or at least a lot more common. 2. Y…

> 1. You mostly make the thing yourself and pay the R&D + production costs in-house (i.e. public sector).

I would love to see the US return to this in a variety of realms, but I doubt that's coming anytime soon. It would still involve paperwork, lawyers, production lines, etc.; making four very specialized trash cans every few years will always be costly.

> 2. You notify the market that you want a thing, and pay a profit-seeking vendor for the finished thing.

They will need to charge you for all the same things, and they don't have a mothballed production line to start with, either.

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#329

Post by hayd »

Joker_vD wrote: post #167
pixl97 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

During the first World War, the French and the English found out that building (and then operating) new state-run munition factories was faster and cheaper than buying munitions from the privately-owned firms, and the production quality was also better, too. Something to do with competence transfer or something.

Presumably the draft also helped. Outside of war-time, I'm extremely sceptical state-run factories can compete with the free market..

Re: The Pentagon’s $52k trash can

#330

Post by ceejayoz »

kvnnews wrote: post #141

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?

Aviation parts are always expensive, but if you're flying a plane designed in 1950s and now only used by a handful of militaries, it's gonna be more.

Boeing is mass producing parts for 737s. They are no longer doing so for 707s.

Post reply on HN