The Pentagon’s $52k trash can(responsiblestatecraft.org)
responsiblestatecraft.org
The Pentagon’s $52k trash can
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/20/the-pentagons-52000-trash-can/
386 comments
So I worked for a company that had loads of process for even the smallest changes. It was frustrating, but what I came to realize was that the company was not interested in fixing bugs or building features - they were primarily interested in not breaking things/keeping the status quo. This was an established business that was concerned with keeping the business running, not chasing the latest and greatest. Perhaps a lot of it was just CYA, but also means it was pretty hard to "move fast and break things".
That kind of slow and steady approach actually sounds pretty reasonable for some cases. Sure it won't win the market for a trendy new consumer app, but a lot of software is basically feature complete and should prioritize stability over whatever's currently cool and exciting.
I have an old account with a bank that has hardly changed its website design in well over a decade. It's great! The information is clearly laid out in tables and everything loads super fast. Every other financial web app I'm familiar with has a much more "modern" design and is categorically worse to use. One site literally takes over a dozen clicks to get to basic information and evey single page load is slooooow.
I have an old account with a bank that has hardly changed its website design in well over a decade. It's great! The information is clearly laid out in tables and everything loads super fast. Every other financial web app I'm familiar with has a much more "modern" design and is categorically worse to use. One site literally takes over a dozen clicks to get to basic information and evey single page load is slooooow.
Bank webpages don't need to be more than HTML tables, with perhaps a bit of JS thrown in to ease element collapsing, etc.
[deleted]
I too worked for Google once.
That sort of business sounds like what we want in milsec and government suppliers, no?
Reliable even down to the bug behaviors...
Reliable even down to the bug behaviors...
The reliable bug behavior is an underappreciated point and can be hard to understand. I work on software that gets deployed on-prem by customers and had very powerful capabilities for deploying your own code to it etc. There have been a few discussions about some bug fixes and in particular security fixes being appropriate in a patch release when following SemVer. Something might be unintentional or insecure, but customers might be building on the broken behavior and now deploying a patch breaks their apps. The line can become quite blurry.
This sounds like more a deployment/release process problem than anything else. If the customers are essentially deploying untested code straight to production, they're doing something wrong. It might not be their fault, maybe they don't know they should have a staging environment first, or maybe your pricing model makes it prohibitively expensive. It's not as simple as "your customers are doing it wrong," but if you upgrading a package breaks their production environment, someone somewhere is - or more likely, many people are - definitely doing something wrong.
It is not necessarily about breaking the production system, just breaking the system because it depends on some bug or contains workarounds that break if the bug is gone. Even if it breaks before production it is still broken and might - depending on how old or central the bug was and how much code was build on top or around it - require substantial effort to fix.
100% agree it just sounded like in this instance the first time they'd hear about it breaking a customer's workflow[0] would be in that customer's production environment. I've been on both ends of solutions where customers are either technically or financially incapable of having robust test environments for even critical software, especially if they're relying on someone else to write it.
[0] https://xkcd.com/1172/
[0] https://xkcd.com/1172/
Yes this happens all the time, I’ve seen it everywhere I’ve every been an engineer. Bug fix roll back due to causing an outage because it broke the defacto API being depended on.
I have had this concern raised, and I'm unclear how, if you adhere to that model of compatibility, that you don't effectively dispense with semver altogether and make every release a major version bump, as every change is breaking if you relied on broken or insecure behavior in earlier versions.
IMO it makes more sense to communicate the expected impact of the changes, so that downstream can read a patch bump as unlikely to cause issues.
IMO it makes more sense to communicate the expected impact of the changes, so that downstream can read a patch bump as unlikely to cause issues.
Yeah, it gets fuzzy and loses clear meaning. Unfortunately, major releases are expensive in that support contacts are typically guarantee support durations for major or minor releases. Having dozens of versions that all require separate patches quickly can absorb much of your orgs productivity.
I imagine it depends on the specifics. Closest I got[0] to the defence industry was all the anecdotes my dad had about Plessey and GEC Marconi.
I'm sure it's important to have a stable technology to train on in the military; at the same time, I remember one of their open-days they were showing off a civilian in-flight entertainment system that was so clearly overpriced for what it was that I knew even as I saw it that I could've done better for lower unit-cost. This isn't to show off, even despite my having not yet finished secondary school at the time — my solution would've been little more than "glue laptop to chair/wall in front", as tablets weren't something people discussed much around me in the 90s — it's just that the business solution was really unimpressive.
I assume there's secret military equivalents to that public project.
[0] if you exclude the job interview at Lockheed Martin for the year in industry paid work experience part of my degree, which didn't go further than an interview
I'm sure it's important to have a stable technology to train on in the military; at the same time, I remember one of their open-days they were showing off a civilian in-flight entertainment system that was so clearly overpriced for what it was that I knew even as I saw it that I could've done better for lower unit-cost. This isn't to show off, even despite my having not yet finished secondary school at the time — my solution would've been little more than "glue laptop to chair/wall in front", as tablets weren't something people discussed much around me in the 90s — it's just that the business solution was really unimpressive.
I assume there's secret military equivalents to that public project.
[0] if you exclude the job interview at Lockheed Martin for the year in industry paid work experience part of my degree, which didn't go further than an interview
If they just buy whatever is most cost affordable then the risk factor for trojans goes sky high. Even with major brands this would be a significant issue (see HDD manufacturers bs with drives shipping with malware in the firmware).
Theres a reason there's so many steps to accept hardware.
Theres a reason there's so many steps to accept hardware.
Not only. Also some software for financial sector, for suppliers, for maintenance too.
Basically, anything that do not crash a system could be a feature.
And sometime even have logical and good reason to exists.
No, of course not, if your military doesn’t develop tech faster than the competition then you lose.
I worked on a radar system that could see precipitation- think doppler radar map view. The ability to do this was in the contract but there was no way to view it. We had Matlab scripts so we the devs could view it and the weather people wanted them. We weren't allowed to hand them over without a contract. They'd pop in multiple times a day to view our doppler.
The adversarial nature that defense companies treat our military is appalling. I'm convinced that refactoring a lot of this BS could get us way more with less $
The adversarial nature that defense companies treat our military is appalling. I'm convinced that refactoring a lot of this BS could get us way more with less $
If the viewing software was provided, the support would be included and that will cost money in the long term. That is something that the company didn't agree to provide nor the government to pay for. In this case, the adversary wasn't the contractor, it was the users in the government and the government employees holding the purse strings. No contractor will turn down the chance to extend the contract.
A lot of this adversarial nature comes down to how projects are awarded. Government employees have very little discretion to choose projects, so they always go with the cheapest bid. But no large software project ever has had 0 change orders.
So the only profitable way to win these contracts is offer the cheapest bid by delivering as little as possible while being in spec, and then pillaging on the change orders.
So the only profitable way to win these contracts is offer the cheapest bid by delivering as little as possible while being in spec, and then pillaging on the change orders.
What about the "new defense" companies, who use VC money to build demos? Surely they eventually want to build moats and sell razor blades, but for now what they're doing seems different?
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 months of planning and budgeting that follow.
> That being said, I don't see a need for the Kafkaesque months of planning and budgeting that follow.
It's a method for transferring billions of dollars from public tax revenues to private companies which are cozy with the state. It has nothing to do with safety or reliability.
All other methods of stealing tax money are illegal.
It's a method for transferring billions of dollars from public tax revenues to private companies which are cozy with the state. It has nothing to do with safety or reliability.
All other methods of stealing tax money are illegal.
Would be nice if we spent some time cracking down on that kind of tax theft rather than wasting time on drag shows and the 3 dozen teens in the whole country on puberty blockers
you got it mon ami. that's the whole point of making a kerfuffle about drag shows. or gay marriage. or even abortion.
ain't no one talking about tax cuts, or getting after the rich, cuz of that.
ain't no one talking about tax cuts, or getting after the rich, cuz of that.
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…
My experience has been that you can use open source software, but security considers that to have a high risk and you need to make a business case for it.
What isn’t a security risk? A closed source vendor supplied application that has its headquarters in the US.
You can sometimes find pockets of innovation in the defense sector, but it’s mostly filled with bureaucrats with engineer in their title.
What isn’t a security risk? A closed source vendor supplied application that has its headquarters in the US.
You can sometimes find pockets of innovation in the defense sector, but it’s mostly filled with bureaucrats with engineer in their title.
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.
you can say that again
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.
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.
Part of this stems from government accountability issues. If you fix that bug, and you don't go through the process, no you didn't. At any time the government can ask for a contract performance review, and doing things the easy way means lots of things that should be tracked don't get tracked... which means they never make it into the contract performance review.
They mean well, and I understand how hard it can be for government agents to hold massive contractors accountable, but the purpose of a system is what it does... so we wind up with entrenched bureaucracy, and the players who don't subscribe to these approaches wind up getting outcompeted because their on-paper performance doesn't measure up. Even if they're in fact a million times easier to work with and do a great job.
They mean well, and I understand how hard it can be for government agents to hold massive contractors accountable, but the purpose of a system is what it does... so we wind up with entrenched bureaucracy, and the players who don't subscribe to these approaches wind up getting outcompeted because their on-paper performance doesn't measure up. Even if they're in fact a million times easier to work with and do a great job.
But you'd be just as upset as his employer if you'd come across a binary release built from one commit ahead the GitHub repo. The absurdity is in the amount of overhead, not the fact that there are overheads at all.
> A couple of weeks later he comes back, and reverses the bug. He had told his manager about the bug fix, and was berated for fixing in. In order to fix that bug, it had to be reported correctly, go through software update meetings, go through budgets, and the whole nine yards.
What do you mean you went and just fixed it!?
We need all of middle management to charge for the fix!
What do you mean you went and just fixed it!?
We need all of middle management to charge for the fix!
s/defense/regulated industry/ I found a bug in my company’s software product once. The code was using the user’s display name in a lookup rather than the username. I grabbed a QA engineer, he agreed it was a bug, and he put the wheels in motion. I don’t think that fix ever made it into a release.
Our software was part of the stack that our regulated customers were using to document their compliance. Every year or two, they would audit our development process to insure that untoward code wasn’t slipping into the release. Getting the fix into a release would have required that the bug be prioritized, fixed and qa’ed. Never became important enough. It burned me at first, but I’m not sure it was the wrong outcome.
Our software was part of the stack that our regulated customers were using to document their compliance. Every year or two, they would audit our development process to insure that untoward code wasn’t slipping into the release. Getting the fix into a release would have required that the bug be prioritized, fixed and qa’ed. Never became important enough. It burned me at first, but I’m not sure it was the wrong outcome.
Do you have an opinion whether this kafkaesk bureaucratism is especially well established in the domain of software or is it a broader pattern? Where does this come from?
Remember: Regulations are written in blood.
[deleted]
This 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.
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.
>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 tools to make it from scratch" price. There is no "economic investment" needed here to keep the tech of making trash cans alive.
> 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's keeping people employed" is terrible excuse to spend tax dollars. Any other kind of social service is far more positive to the society than throwing more money at military contractor
> 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.
Or just make government-funded stuff the property of the government. Government paid for development, government should get detailed plans and all of the documentation of it, and any inventions made along the way should be put into public domain, as the public paid for it.
And if government then turn to other company "hey, can you make these at reasonable price", well, that's just glorious free market at work.
>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 tools to make it from scratch" price. There is no "economic investment" needed here to keep the tech of making trash cans alive.
> 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's keeping people employed" is terrible excuse to spend tax dollars. Any other kind of social service is far more positive to the society than throwing more money at military contractor
> 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.
Or just make government-funded stuff the property of the government. Government paid for development, government should get detailed plans and all of the documentation of it, and any inventions made along the way should be put into public domain, as the public paid for it.
And if government then turn to other company "hey, can you make these at reasonable price", well, that's just glorious free market at work.
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 that list must be specified, routinely tested (eg: certain amount each batch), and then manufactured. As time goes on, the screw is used in less things that are in production so the batch sizes for production are reduced, which inflates the overhead test cost. A lot of products have pretty interesting test standards; for instance we had a truck that after every significant change had to be blown up a minimum of four times. The base truck was $400k and then the equipment inside - which was the actual configuration that was being tested - cost millions per vehicle.
I think the military could benefit from part standardization and longer lifetimes on component production.
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 that list must be specified, routinely tested (eg: certain amount each batch), and then manufactured. As time goes on, the screw is used in less things that are in production so the batch sizes for production are reduced, which inflates the overhead test cost. A lot of products have pretty interesting test standards; for instance we had a truck that after every significant change had to be blown up a minimum of four times. The base truck was $400k and then the equipment inside - which was the actual configuration that was being tested - cost millions per vehicle.
I think the military could benefit from part standardization and longer lifetimes on component production.
> 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?
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?
> 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.
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.
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!"
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!"
gets some bunch of machinists in a room full of lathes and starts cranking
now all of them make silicon valley money off their skills just because of how bloated military contracting is*
now all of them make silicon valley money off their skills just because of how bloated military contracting is*
Why should Silicon Valley people be the only ones to make Silicon Valley money off their skills?
There's nothing inherent or ontological about tech that demands the money it does. It's needed, and the money is available, so that happens. If you know how to work a lathe, and the money is available, you deserve to be able to get it.
There's nothing inherent or ontological about tech that demands the money it does. It's needed, and the money is available, so that happens. If you know how to work a lathe, and the money is available, you deserve to be able to get it.
Maybe given the history of things the concept of “Silicon Valley money,” in terms of margin, was set by very generous terms from the Cold War era military procurement.
The first initial public offering from Silicon Valley was in 1956 for a company called Varian, that sold microwave tubes for military applications.
https://diginomica.com/who-are-we-kidding-silicon-valley-was...
The first initial public offering from Silicon Valley was in 1956 for a company called Varian, that sold microwave tubes for military applications.
https://diginomica.com/who-are-we-kidding-silicon-valley-was...
Aye, SV was a hub of Navy research and activity since before WWI. Moffett Field, the early version of NASA, and Stanford all made it a thing long before some 90s dotcom asplosion.
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..
What happened with Winston Churchill politically after WW2?
Did his war economy footing translate well to peace time?
This shows very little hands on knowledge of how the US government actually works, how it pays for the contracts it writes, or the costs of making physical goods.
For example: as other more level headed folks with actual knowledge of contract fulfillment have mentioned, this might have been a T&M or cost plus procurement. In which case, there's very little opportunity for the profiteering that most of my replies have stridently claimed is obviously occurring - with zero evidence beyond "There's NO WAY it could be that expensive!!"
I get that I'm trying to argue with the emotions of a bunch of people with a lot of antipathy towards the US government, and that's ultimately a losing battle.
End of the day, you can be mad about this if you want, but this is the way it is, and it evolved that way for reasons, and some of those reasons are to encourage second order effects - beyond merely procuring plane trash cans.
For example: as other more level headed folks with actual knowledge of contract fulfillment have mentioned, this might have been a T&M or cost plus procurement. In which case, there's very little opportunity for the profiteering that most of my replies have stridently claimed is obviously occurring - with zero evidence beyond "There's NO WAY it could be that expensive!!"
I get that I'm trying to argue with the emotions of a bunch of people with a lot of antipathy towards the US government, and that's ultimately a losing battle.
End of the day, you can be mad about this if you want, but this is the way it is, and it evolved that way for reasons, and some of those reasons are to encourage second order effects - beyond merely procuring plane trash cans.
I don't think the antipathy is against the government, i think it is against the obscenely rich people who own these companies, and to a degree the companies themselves.
I also think the excuses made here are dishonest. It doesn't keep people employed, it doesn't fund innovation. It goes into some billionaire's bank account, gets invested in whatever and pushes them up some list of top 100 richest people in the US.
The profits don't go to employees, they don't cause more hires. They don't create jobs. The trash cans are already designed, they're probably already manufactured as well. They're not going to hire anyone for this, they're just jacking up the price because they can so why the hell wouldn't they? Just like they jacked up the price of insulin not to mention general healthcare and medicine and everything else recently.
The rich have one objective, it is to get richer. They will hide research that goes against that interest. Oil companies knew CO2 was bad nearly 100 years ago. Teflon producers knew teflon was bad decades ago. Until someone makes them stop, they will not stop. Because money.
Corporations literally do not give a single ounce of fuck about anything except money. If they do something that seems selfless it's because seeming selfless is in their interest (money). Like how Patagonia made record sales of their "Don't buy this jacket".
If you ever fins yourself thinking a corporation is giving a shit about something that doesn't make them more money it's because you're not seeing their angle.
I also think the excuses made here are dishonest. It doesn't keep people employed, it doesn't fund innovation. It goes into some billionaire's bank account, gets invested in whatever and pushes them up some list of top 100 richest people in the US.
The profits don't go to employees, they don't cause more hires. They don't create jobs. The trash cans are already designed, they're probably already manufactured as well. They're not going to hire anyone for this, they're just jacking up the price because they can so why the hell wouldn't they? Just like they jacked up the price of insulin not to mention general healthcare and medicine and everything else recently.
The rich have one objective, it is to get richer. They will hide research that goes against that interest. Oil companies knew CO2 was bad nearly 100 years ago. Teflon producers knew teflon was bad decades ago. Until someone makes them stop, they will not stop. Because money.
Corporations literally do not give a single ounce of fuck about anything except money. If they do something that seems selfless it's because seeming selfless is in their interest (money). Like how Patagonia made record sales of their "Don't buy this jacket".
If you ever fins yourself thinking a corporation is giving a shit about something that doesn't make them more money it's because you're not seeing their angle.
For sure, let us understand Chesterton’s fence before we demolish it. A full appreciation for the problem is not the same as making excuses or justifications for it. At a minimum if the reason for something is a second order effect of said thing, then just take Vienna—make your intention a first order effect.
https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Napoleon-say-If-you-want-to-ta...
https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Napoleon-say-If-you-want-to-ta...
The crucial part is that it is a trash can for a Boeing 707. The first one flew in 1954, and the last one rolled out of the factory in 1994.
So they are either paying for someone to keep it in a warehouse for at least thirty years, paying to keep a trashcan factory around for seventy years, or paying someone to essentially reinvent the wheel and hand-build the damn thing. One-off items are expensive, and one-off aviation items doubly so.
So they are either paying for someone to keep it in a warehouse for at least thirty years, paying to keep a trashcan factory around for seventy years, or paying someone to essentially reinvent the wheel and hand-build the damn thing. One-off items are expensive, and one-off aviation items doubly so.
> it was already done and paid for. It's a trashcan, it doesn't require specialized tooling
The government doesn't spec "a trashcan." They create size specs, water-tightness ratings, material durability, etc. The exact spec they provide may be met in 90% of areas by an existing trash can, but that won't do. If there are requirements for some level of waterproofing, you can't just seal it or even mold it from a single piece of material, you have to PROOVE it. It has to be tested and usually adhere to an existing standard so you're going to design several trash can, submit them for approval and use the best one that passes.
It's mind-numbingly tedious to build anything for the government.
The government doesn't spec "a trashcan." They create size specs, water-tightness ratings, material durability, etc. The exact spec they provide may be met in 90% of areas by an existing trash can, but that won't do. If there are requirements for some level of waterproofing, you can't just seal it or even mold it from a single piece of material, you have to PROOVE it. It has to be tested and usually adhere to an existing standard so you're going to design several trash can, submit them for approval and use the best one that passes.
It's mind-numbingly tedious to build anything for the government.
Boeing pays at least on business I know to essentially have a complete label printing line with staff available to run it. Each label must be hellaciously expensive when they need one but my understanding was that some(all?) are part of the certification for airworthiness. So a missing or damaged label can ground the plane, which is far more expensive than the label.
> 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 tools to make it from scratch" price. There is no "economic investment" needed here to keep the tech of making trash cans alive.
To understand this you have to appreciate a few things. First, these are military-grade trashcans. That sounds ridiculous, but there are a whole range of MILSPEC standards that must be followed to deliver anything to the military. Certain materials cannot be used, certain vendors can't be.
Second, there's always design maintenance. C'mon, this is a site of programmers. People here understand the reason you'd maintain software: redoing your old, working C code in Rust; upgrading applications designed for XP to run on Windows 10, etc. TFA quotes the E-3 Sentry, a design based on the 707 from late 1960's. The trashcan design needs to be updated! Certainly material sizes and quality are substantially different, rivet part numbers have changed, coatings have changed. Dealing with changes means substantial time qualifying the new parts.
Third is the issue of scale. If you're making a million cell phones you can sell them at the low price of $1k each; but if you make just one it might cost $1B. Here, we're talking trashcans. If you build a thousand, you hire an engineer to oversee the design requirements and master machinist, and then a small army of machinists and assemblers to make the parts, and a quality guy to inspect them, and some other guy to do the documentation. How many of those guys do you need if you make just one or two? Well, not as many, just the most expensive ones.
Hand waving here: we're going to make 10 trashcans. I'll bid 40 hours of engineering time, 80 hours of machinist, and 40 hours of quality/paperwork guy time. Assuming realistic numbers for those guys, you're talking about maybe $30k (don't forget to include overhead costs, which are more than you think they are). I'd guess a couple $k of parts, but just realized I forgot machine time, paint shop time, incoming material quality inspection, etc., etc. Amazingly, though, if you only bought one trashcan, the price doesn't change all that much. Most of that machinist time is setting up.
So, gosh, I mean, there's a lot here. And Boeing is more expensive than I am, and has more processes and procedures. And they know how to make these trashcans in a way that fits the aircraft.
These aren't COTS parts, and they'll never be, because in general, COTS parts have short lifetimes. The B-52, for example, has been flying since forever and it's still being upgraded. There aren't a lot of mainstream items with service lives like that. You know where the military gets great prices? Where there's a substantial dual-use application: guns, bullets, computers, office desks, building HVAC units, etc. They can buy from the mass market. As long as they don't want excessive service lives out of them, they'll pay the same price as you. It's when they want something special that costs extra, same as you or me.
To understand this you have to appreciate a few things. First, these are military-grade trashcans. That sounds ridiculous, but there are a whole range of MILSPEC standards that must be followed to deliver anything to the military. Certain materials cannot be used, certain vendors can't be.
Second, there's always design maintenance. C'mon, this is a site of programmers. People here understand the reason you'd maintain software: redoing your old, working C code in Rust; upgrading applications designed for XP to run on Windows 10, etc. TFA quotes the E-3 Sentry, a design based on the 707 from late 1960's. The trashcan design needs to be updated! Certainly material sizes and quality are substantially different, rivet part numbers have changed, coatings have changed. Dealing with changes means substantial time qualifying the new parts.
Third is the issue of scale. If you're making a million cell phones you can sell them at the low price of $1k each; but if you make just one it might cost $1B. Here, we're talking trashcans. If you build a thousand, you hire an engineer to oversee the design requirements and master machinist, and then a small army of machinists and assemblers to make the parts, and a quality guy to inspect them, and some other guy to do the documentation. How many of those guys do you need if you make just one or two? Well, not as many, just the most expensive ones.
Hand waving here: we're going to make 10 trashcans. I'll bid 40 hours of engineering time, 80 hours of machinist, and 40 hours of quality/paperwork guy time. Assuming realistic numbers for those guys, you're talking about maybe $30k (don't forget to include overhead costs, which are more than you think they are). I'd guess a couple $k of parts, but just realized I forgot machine time, paint shop time, incoming material quality inspection, etc., etc. Amazingly, though, if you only bought one trashcan, the price doesn't change all that much. Most of that machinist time is setting up.
So, gosh, I mean, there's a lot here. And Boeing is more expensive than I am, and has more processes and procedures. And they know how to make these trashcans in a way that fits the aircraft.
These aren't COTS parts, and they'll never be, because in general, COTS parts have short lifetimes. The B-52, for example, has been flying since forever and it's still being upgraded. There aren't a lot of mainstream items with service lives like that. You know where the military gets great prices? Where there's a substantial dual-use application: guns, bullets, computers, office desks, building HVAC units, etc. They can buy from the mass market. As long as they don't want excessive service lives out of them, they'll pay the same price as you. It's when they want something special that costs extra, same as you or me.
Only thing I'll mention is that tools wear out. Not that it justifies the price.
So the design may not need to be maintained, but if the company supplying the material goes out of business, someone needs to confirm the new material specs will work on the tool.
So the design may not need to be maintained, but if the company supplying the material goes out of business, someone needs to confirm the new material specs will work on the tool.
>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 the article that you apparently didn't read.
That's the 2nd paragraph of the article that you apparently didn't read.
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.
Looks like we both read it, but not all of us understood the implications of it.
Some price increase after that would be completely fair and reasonable, because it is harder and more expensive to produce. But 165×? Colour me skeptical on that. At $50k you can hire a craftsman to custom fit something (at a $500k income a year they'd have about a month for it).
There's also some foresight involved here. I used to work for a company that delivered computers for industrial applications such as ASML and FEI (lithography machines and electron microscopes). They had very precise requirements: "we want Intel Xeon 5119 Rev 3 CPUs for the next 4 years, not Rev 2, not Rev 4, the revision shall be 3 and 3 shall be the number of the revision. Revision 5 is right out". The same applied with mainboards, memory, etc. There was also an entire testing procedure involved for many of these things and not all components passed.
So, we charged them more for this then $random_person buying a component, obviously, but we also talked to them beforehand and knew roughly how many units they expected to sell, overbought components in bulk beforehand before they were EOL, and sold the rest afterwards fairly cheaply (because by then they were pretty old components). The volumes for these kind of machines is low (on the order of dozens or hundreds a year) so this was all practical. We made a fair but far from exuberant profit from this.
I see no reason why this couldn't have happened here: "oh, your trash cans are going EOL; we expect to need 40 of them in the next 30 years, please produce them before you EOL them".
I don't know which party failed on this part, but someone did. Possibly both. Even ordering two new-price trash cans leaves you with 250 of them at the old price. Storage isn't free either so let's assume 150 of them.
There's also some foresight involved here. I used to work for a company that delivered computers for industrial applications such as ASML and FEI (lithography machines and electron microscopes). They had very precise requirements: "we want Intel Xeon 5119 Rev 3 CPUs for the next 4 years, not Rev 2, not Rev 4, the revision shall be 3 and 3 shall be the number of the revision. Revision 5 is right out". The same applied with mainboards, memory, etc. There was also an entire testing procedure involved for many of these things and not all components passed.
So, we charged them more for this then $random_person buying a component, obviously, but we also talked to them beforehand and knew roughly how many units they expected to sell, overbought components in bulk beforehand before they were EOL, and sold the rest afterwards fairly cheaply (because by then they were pretty old components). The volumes for these kind of machines is low (on the order of dozens or hundreds a year) so this was all practical. We made a fair but far from exuberant profit from this.
I see no reason why this couldn't have happened here: "oh, your trash cans are going EOL; we expect to need 40 of them in the next 30 years, please produce them before you EOL them".
I don't know which party failed on this part, but someone did. Possibly both. Even ordering two new-price trash cans leaves you with 250 of them at the old price. Storage isn't free either so let's assume 150 of them.
> I see no reason why this couldn't have happened here: "oh, your trash cans are going EOL; we expect to need 40 of them in the next 30 years, please produce them before you EOL them".
Congress. The big stink would go from "we bought four $52k trash cans" to "we bought hundreds of trash cans we won't need for a decade, if ever!"
Examples:
Rand Paul complaining about things like $8M in unused solar panels: https://www.paul.senate.gov/news-sen-rand-paul-highlights-18...
Bobby Jindal saying "Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.": https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/bobby-jindal-...
Congress. The big stink would go from "we bought four $52k trash cans" to "we bought hundreds of trash cans we won't need for a decade, if ever!"
Examples:
Rand Paul complaining about things like $8M in unused solar panels: https://www.paul.senate.gov/news-sen-rand-paul-highlights-18...
Bobby Jindal saying "Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.": https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/bobby-jindal-...
> Congress. The big stink would go from "we bought four $52k trash cans" to "we bought hundreds of trash cans we won't need for a decade, if ever!"
Unfortunately, both of those things frequently happen simultaneously.
Unfortunately, both of those things frequently happen simultaneously.
Hyperbole. Orders of magnitude different.
4 extra =/= hundreds extra
---
And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels? I could have gotten 26,000+ trash cans at $300 each!
4 extra =/= hundreds extra
---
And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels? I could have gotten 26,000+ trash cans at $300 each!
The article says they needed another 11 the next year. Buying a couple hundred seems sensible if (as I suspect it is) most of the cost is at the project level rather than the unit level.
> And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels?
Spares? A lower than expected defect rate? Who knows? Paul doesn't provide useful specifics, just the politically sexy top-level numbers.
In an organization with a multi-trillion dollar annual budget, $8M in unused solar panels is a bit like you throwing away a ream of paper that got some water damage.
> And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels?
Spares? A lower than expected defect rate? Who knows? Paul doesn't provide useful specifics, just the politically sexy top-level numbers.
In an organization with a multi-trillion dollar annual budget, $8M in unused solar panels is a bit like you throwing away a ream of paper that got some water damage.
Presumably that would be for the Dept of VA to clarify.
> In an organization with a multi-trillion dollar annual budget, $8M in unused solar panels is a bit like you throwing away a ream of paper that got some water damage.
And yet a fraction of that amount is front page HN.
Clearly a lot of other people believe differently.
> In an organization with a multi-trillion dollar annual budget, $8M in unused solar panels is a bit like you throwing away a ream of paper that got some water damage.
And yet a fraction of that amount is front page HN.
Clearly a lot of other people believe differently.
> And yet a fraction of that amount is front page HN. Clearly a lot of other people believe differently.
A lot of people believe incorrect things about stuff they don't understand, yes. HN most certainly isn't immune.
Outrage bait is hardly a new phenomenon. The unit cost looks insane because it's a side effect of the fact that a defense contractor won't get out of bed without a minimum of a couple hundred grand in the contract to cover the program.
A lot of people believe incorrect things about stuff they don't understand, yes. HN most certainly isn't immune.
Outrage bait is hardly a new phenomenon. The unit cost looks insane because it's a side effect of the fact that a defense contractor won't get out of bed without a minimum of a couple hundred grand in the contract to cover the program.
You don't know in advance that you need 4 extra. Maybe the planes get replaced quickly and you're left with a hundred trash cans, maybe they keep using them for a century and you need a thousand more.
Development costs of what? The trashcan? What could possibly have cost them 50,000xplane frames to develop it in the first place?
The reading of the article implies the contract set prices for commercial items and Boeing simply started charging the army whatever as soon as it technically wasn't 'commercial'.
The reading of the article implies the contract set prices for commercial items and Boeing simply started charging the army whatever as soon as it technically wasn't 'commercial'.
Hey, you must retain the rare talent capable of developing military-grade trash cans at all costs.
Which is exactly how it works. And one of the main reasons why airplanes get more expensive to operate with age. Because it is not just trash cans, but also engine parts, electronics, structural parts...
I see you're moving on to a different argument now. Before it was about R&D, but now that it's been established that we're talking about trash cans for a plane that's been built since the 1950s, the argument is now about economies of scale. For trash cans that each cost roughly the median income of a US full-time worker.
> a plane that's been built since the 1950s, the argument is now about economies of scale
There used to be economies of scale. It's a 707; they stopped being made in 1979. If you want 707 parts now, there's a good chance they're gonna be produced on a very small scale custom job for you.
(It's also a very special 707, inside and out. Cabin designs can vary significantly from airline to airline, let alone civilian to military.)
There used to be economies of scale. It's a 707; they stopped being made in 1979. If you want 707 parts now, there's a good chance they're gonna be produced on a very small scale custom job for you.
(It's also a very special 707, inside and out. Cabin designs can vary significantly from airline to airline, let alone civilian to military.)
Yes, that's essentially their argument about economies of scale.
Ok, well just a few more paragraphs down is:
> 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.
The US ramped UP how many stinger missiles it bought so how could your explanation lead to an increase in price? Especially one so dramatic?
> 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.
The US ramped UP how many stinger missiles it bought so how could your explanation lead to an increase in price? Especially one so dramatic?
They had already developed it. How much do you think it costs to design a bin..
How much do you think it costs to restart the production line for a component of an aircraft last made in 1979?
It’s. A. Trash. Can.
This isn’t some specialized part that the plane requires to fly. It’s just a trash can.
Hell, just go to Target and buy one that’s similarly sized. It would be cheaper to fly across the country to find one at this point.
This isn’t some specialized part that the plane requires to fly. It’s just a trash can.
Hell, just go to Target and buy one that’s similarly sized. It would be cheaper to fly across the country to find one at this point.
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 and approved for aviation use.
You can not buy one of these at Target. They are not putting little plastic bins by the workstations in an AWACS plane.
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 and approved for aviation use.
You can not buy one of these at Target. They are not putting little plastic bins by the workstations in an AWACS plane.
> 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. 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.
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.
> You can not buy one of these at Target
This is a site apparently populated by fairly bright people. I'm struggling to understand why no one seems to get this.
This is a site apparently populated by fairly bright people. I'm struggling to understand why no one seems to get this.
This is a site populated by a group of people that society massively overestimates the intelligence and competence of, and it very often goes to their head. The amount of software developers that actually have any real idea of what rigorous engineering actually is is vanishingly small and those that do usually only "get it" because they worked adjacent to disciplines that take it more seriously.
Not to say the average user here is an idiot, but it's pretty clear that cribbing together code in extremely low-risk environments doesn't impart any understanding of how designing, manufacturing, and supporting critical products over a 5+ decade lifespan is actually done.
Not to say the average user here is an idiot, but it's pretty clear that cribbing together code in extremely low-risk environments doesn't impart any understanding of how designing, manufacturing, and supporting critical products over a 5+ decade lifespan is actually done.
I bet they’d recoil in horror when they hear that critical systems still use Ada, too. So archaic, so hard to make changes! Why can’t we write the nuclear weapons code in JavaScript or Rust instead?
> 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? 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.
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.
You will not find a trash can in a store that meets the specifications document that defines an acceptable 707 trash can. There aren’t any being made by anyone that fit the precise military specification, so they must be manufactured at very low volumes, which spreads the overhead across far fewer units, resulting in eye-popping unit prices.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Stuff for old models, like the E-3, is even more expensive. Obsolescence, tooling no longer available... A similar sotuation happens with spares for classic cars. Try getting rubber and plastic parts some old car models, same story: Lost tooling, low demand. For aircraft you have to recertify production and parts. All of that is actually quite expensive.
Edit: Since the article mentions circuits and such: The alternative to paying through the nose for spares for obsolete systems and parts is a new development. In which case price, and lead times, increase even more. And now contractors are obviously abusong that situation, but parts of those high prices can be explained by the fact that a lot of current, top notch, military hear is running on old, commercially sometimes even obsolete tech.
Edit: Since the article mentions circuits and such: The alternative to paying through the nose for spares for obsolete systems and parts is a new development. In which case price, and lead times, increase even more. And now contractors are obviously abusong that situation, but parts of those high prices can be explained by the fact that a lot of current, top notch, military hear is running on old, commercially sometimes even obsolete tech.
Played that game before myself. It's really, really hard! And it costs a lot of human effort and time to do right.
Often you can't get the original part, so you have to hire someone to take standard rubber and mold it into what you need, which can be more or less expensive depending on the use.
And now imagine that the person doing that work has to be certified according to aerospace standards... And believe me, that happens all the time...
Yeah from what I understand the Pentagon was going to retire the A-10 at some point due to airframe hours. Instead they just paid another company to build new wings for it. Although they obviously had to be similar to the original ones, the new wings were basically a totally separate R&D effort followed by a manufacturing contract for them.
“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 American companies with billion dollar plus valuations.
Building up US based scientific and manufacturing know-how, for another. Plenty of people take the skills they learn at Raytheon or an FFRDC and use them to start profitable small businesses, which in turn employ more people and generate more tax revenue.
Not that I expect many people reading this to care about that. "Military spending bad" is too easy and convenient a slogan.
It doesn't solve every problem - there are a shitload of people in America receiving inadequate education, nutrition, and healthcare, for example. But it certainly helps keep a lot of Americans employed and paying their mortgages, which is a non-trivial benefit.
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 American companies with billion dollar plus valuations.
Building up US based scientific and manufacturing know-how, for another. Plenty of people take the skills they learn at Raytheon or an FFRDC and use them to start profitable small businesses, which in turn employ more people and generate more tax revenue.
Not that I expect many people reading this to care about that. "Military spending bad" is too easy and convenient a slogan.
It doesn't solve every problem - there are a shitload of people in America receiving inadequate education, nutrition, and healthcare, for example. But it certainly helps keep a lot of Americans employed and paying their mortgages, which is a non-trivial benefit.
It can be good! That said, as someone who has spent time in the five sided puzzle palace I would argue the time has long passed for a harder look at how the dollars are spent and how procurements are happening so we improve the process, open to more domestic competition and open ourselves up less to single points of failure for our key defense elements (see F35 program).
“Do more with less” during the Obama administration / Afghan war was a test of this and the things that got cut were the innovative programs while inefficient tent poles remained.
We should reform now while we have the budget so we get more good public innovation and can actually cut effectively and have that muscle memory in leaner years.
“Do more with less” during the Obama administration / Afghan war was a test of this and the things that got cut were the innovative programs while inefficient tent poles remained.
We should reform now while we have the budget so we get more good public innovation and can actually cut effectively and have that muscle memory in leaner years.
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.
I am sorry but this is a ridiculous argument.
What is hard to measure is what could have been done with the money to make the US military stronger but was wasted instead.
The worst part is all these inefficiencies are going to add up over the coming decades when we have to keep up with the PLA/China.
A PLA colonel makes less than a private first class marine and manufacturing anything is an order of magnitude difference.
What is hard to measure is what could have been done with the money to make the US military stronger but was wasted instead.
The worst part is all these inefficiencies are going to add up over the coming decades when we have to keep up with the PLA/China.
A PLA colonel makes less than a private first class marine and manufacturing anything is an order of magnitude difference.
The US is at risk of being out-competed by nominal communists and practical authoritarians. They've already been knocked down to 2nd biggest economy adjusted for PPP and US government spending appears to be in a death-debt spiral where it pays for itself with donations from foreigners. The real burden of that is probably going to land on the middle class sometime soon and cause political hiccups that go beyond mere Trumpism.
Spending $50k on a trash can is unlikely to lead to the sort of benefits that are required. Better than unemployment benefits for nothing, maybe. The opportunity costs and time wasted on bureaucracy put even that optimistic spin in doubt. Basic research doesn't need 3% of GDP spent on overinflated contracts. It can't be helping the situation.
Spending $50k on a trash can is unlikely to lead to the sort of benefits that are required. Better than unemployment benefits for nothing, maybe. The opportunity costs and time wasted on bureaucracy put even that optimistic spin in doubt. Basic research doesn't need 3% of GDP spent on overinflated contracts. It can't be helping the situation.
>death-debt spiral where it pays for itself with donations from foreigners.
That's not how it works. As long as the trade deficit exists, and the reserve currency is the dollar, there will be huge demand for treasuries.
That's not how it works. As long as the trade deficit exists, and the reserve currency is the dollar, there will be huge demand for treasuries.
Just think what the private sector could have accomplished if the military didn't waste its time developing ARPANET and early internet standards. Lot of good those ever did us.
The US spends $800 billion per year on their military. The fact that some high value tech has come out of the military doesn’t justify it. Should we never question the spending?
Sure, the spending should be subject to question, but even a seemingly staggering sum like $800 billion is only a few percentage points of GDP. I don’t want to call it a rounding error, because it isn’t, but it’s a pretty small burden on the US economy.
I mean seriously, you really believe this?
They’re buying four trash cans at a time via a process that can take months of paperwork by the contractor. It’s simply not designed for such low volume scenarios.
It’s a bit like doing a custom PCB design and fabrication run for personal reasons. It’ll be $10 worth of components, but a half dozen might cost you $1k if you want someone else to set up a run on their machines to make ‘em.
The Stinger missile example further down seems more egregious. edit: Maybe less egregious than I thought; its original microprocessor is now obselete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Replacement
It’s a bit like doing a custom PCB design and fabrication run for personal reasons. It’ll be $10 worth of components, but a half dozen might cost you $1k if you want someone else to set up a run on their machines to make ‘em.
The Stinger missile example further down seems more egregious. edit: Maybe less egregious than I thought; its original microprocessor is now obselete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Replacement
Bad example, JLCPCB will do PCBA for just a few dollars.
...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 up in some costly way? By definition any such trashcan is ripe for targeted attack because no one except US defence would have a use for it.
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 up in some costly way? By definition any such trashcan is ripe for targeted attack because no one except US defence would have a use for it.
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.
If you are concerned about targeted attacks, head down to your local hardware store and buy one of the thousands they have in stock.
> Buy a plastic trashcan... head down to your local hardware store...
It's for a highly specialized 707 airliner. It'll be metal, rated for fire resistance if someone sneaks a smouldering cigarette into it, wheeled for servicing, lock into place during flight, etc. You can't buy it at Home Depot, and intelligence agencies are constantly making smaller and harder to detect devices for bugging items.
It's for a highly specialized 707 airliner. It'll be metal, rated for fire resistance if someone sneaks a smouldering cigarette into it, wheeled for servicing, lock into place during flight, etc. You can't buy it at Home Depot, and intelligence agencies are constantly making smaller and harder to detect devices for bugging items.
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.
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.
I don't think the controller would have gotten such a strong reaction if it was an X-Box 360 or X-Box One controller. Those are reliable, sturdy, and used as controllers in industry and military. But instead it was some $30 Logitech controller, something you would consider the budget choice in the context of somebody playing Call of Duty.
I guess the equivalent is putting the flimsy $1.25 trash can from Dollar Store in your spacecraft, instead of a $8 trash can.
I guess the equivalent is putting the flimsy $1.25 trash can from Dollar Store in your spacecraft, instead of a $8 trash can.
A trash can is slightly less essential to a vessel's operation than its control surface.
Not if it catches fire.
Good example with pillows causing a (still!) missing nuclear weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
Are pillows essential to the plane's operation? No, but them not catching fire is.
Good example with pillows causing a (still!) missing nuclear weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
Are pillows essential to the plane's operation? No, but them not catching fire is.
The point actually is, if we are shooting at China for one reason or another we would be getting zero trash cans from them.
The choose some other manufacturer. E.g. Aisler will do assembly for 10 Boards for around 200€ in Germany, more than JLCPCB (this is probably in part due to the scale and automation with which JLCPCB operates), but much less than 1k.
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.
What specifically do you find to be untrue?
[deleted]
I'd welcome your contrary explanation if you have one handy.
An alternate explanation would be that their accountants used the average cost method, and the trash can got averaged with a bunch of actual E-3 Sentry planes, or expensive component systems, or something.
This was the reason behind the $600 Hammer.
https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...
https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...
Corruption?
If you analyze how much the product and all associated processes can actually cost and then find a discrepancy (or find some pointless regulation that drives up the cost so much and explain how it was designed for profit and not purpose) then you can claim corruption. But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive.
If US gov bought cheap plastic stuff from another country instead there can well still be corruption expressed in their choice of suppliers etc.
If US gov bought cheap plastic stuff from another country instead there can well still be corruption expressed in their choice of suppliers etc.
"But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive."
Naive or not, this turns out to be true surprisingly frequently.
Naive or not, this turns out to be true surprisingly frequently.
This is the money quote you can use to argue this is actually corruption:
> 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
So now one can look why it cost "mere" $300 before, unless Boeing losing money back then the price hike may be shady behavior and then someone should change supplier asap.
> 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
So now one can look why it cost "mere" $300 before, unless Boeing losing money back then the price hike may be shady behavior and then someone should change supplier asap.
Single source supplier tend to have incresible bargaining power. And 50k per E-3 propably isn't even worth mentioning for everyone involved. Peanuts, actually.
"The sum is low enough so it's not corruption" is also naive. Another side of the same coin
No they don't... they are playing the devil's advocate I think or being sarcastic. This is just plain corruption and fraud but it's legal because defense sector...
How about you ask me what I think instead of telling me what I think.
Because what I think is not what you claim.
Because what I think is not what you claim.
I was being sarcastic, I thought it was obvious. I'm not sarcastic on the fact that it is plain corruption though, it is.
You defending corruption and fraud is just so far fetched it's hard to take your OP seriously.
You defending corruption and fraud is just so far fetched it's hard to take your OP seriously.
Having worked on projects sponsored by "three letter agencies", I also suspect that the cost of the trash cans is potentially recovery for unbudgeted and uncompensated requirement changes.
If the navigation station on the plane had to be shrunk by 1/4 inch due to some 3rd party not being able to meet their required tolerances after manufacturing had begun how does that get paid for?
The award is fixed but now the requirements have changed. The TLA is not going back to Congress to get $200k in additional design funding. That phase of the project is done. However, the TLA potentially has a large budget for maintenance and replacement of parts.
The navigation station gets an emergency redesign and it is paid for by no-bid 50K trash cans. There is no corruption here just the realities of working with fixed bid contracts, hundreds of third parties from every state in the nation and a political appropriations process.
If the navigation station on the plane had to be shrunk by 1/4 inch due to some 3rd party not being able to meet their required tolerances after manufacturing had begun how does that get paid for?
The award is fixed but now the requirements have changed. The TLA is not going back to Congress to get $200k in additional design funding. That phase of the project is done. However, the TLA potentially has a large budget for maintenance and replacement of parts.
The navigation station gets an emergency redesign and it is paid for by no-bid 50K trash cans. There is no corruption here just the realities of working with fixed bid contracts, hundreds of third parties from every state in the nation and a political appropriations process.
Rephrasing your argument slightly: "of course the government can't pay only $30. They need to pay $30 for the trash can, and $49,970 for unaccountable value destruction!"
Keeping people employed for no positive economic benefit is literally tantamount to lightning money on fire. You are paying people who would otherwise be creating value elsewhere _not_ to create that value and instead play a useless role intermediating in garbage can manufacture. They would still be buying groceries and burning gas in that productive job, but the difference is that they would also be creating something useful for society.
Keeping people employed for no positive economic benefit is literally tantamount to lightning money on fire. You are paying people who would otherwise be creating value elsewhere _not_ to create that value and instead play a useless role intermediating in garbage can manufacture. They would still be buying groceries and burning gas in that productive job, but the difference is that they would also be creating something useful for society.
>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's certainly true that much of the US military industrial complex is a publicly funded jobs program, and that tightening the purse strings would cause widespread economic distress. But that isn't better than a UBI - in fact, a modest UBI plus a market that needs a better trash can would probably lead to much better trash cans than a contract of this nature.
But I think it doesn't really stop at being a jobs program - US military spending also seems like an important part of how the sausage is made at the congressional level. Arbitrary sums can be assigned to different districts, which makes it a convenient method to broker deals between high ranking politicians. I suspect that's the real reason it can't be reformed.
It's certainly true that much of the US military industrial complex is a publicly funded jobs program, and that tightening the purse strings would cause widespread economic distress. But that isn't better than a UBI - in fact, a modest UBI plus a market that needs a better trash can would probably lead to much better trash cans than a contract of this nature.
But I think it doesn't really stop at being a jobs program - US military spending also seems like an important part of how the sausage is made at the congressional level. Arbitrary sums can be assigned to different districts, which makes it a convenient method to broker deals between high ranking politicians. I suspect that's the real reason it can't be reformed.
> 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...
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...
[deleted]
Agreed. Alas, there is an aspect of over regulation. Does the trash can need to be certified to an extreme level of depth or can some solider in the machine shop quickly throw something together?
I think in many societies we’ve lost the wiggle room that allows for pragmatic solutions in the name of safety.
Maybe the risk reduction was worth it? Maybe not. But arguments for risk averse behavior tend to win more than 50% of the time in democratic societies which accumulates a kind of “risk-avoidance-debt”.
I think in many societies we’ve lost the wiggle room that allows for pragmatic solutions in the name of safety.
Maybe the risk reduction was worth it? Maybe not. But arguments for risk averse behavior tend to win more than 50% of the time in democratic societies which accumulates a kind of “risk-avoidance-debt”.
As a timely counterexample: someone is dropping five wreaths off a boat in the North Atlantic today because of an under regulated experimental transportation craft that failed catastrophically.
I'd much rather fly on a plane that's regulated and certified out the nose than one that's not.
I'd rather live in a country that invests in people's skills and knowledge than one th t doesn't.
I'd much rather fly on a plane that's regulated and certified out the nose than one that's not.
I'd rather live in a country that invests in people's skills and knowledge than one th t doesn't.
This is a trash can, not an aircraft's engine
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.
It's just a piece of metal, how can it explode?
If it is the wrong metal, or wrong enough alloy, merely by touching the things it is in contact with can cause a galvanic reaction. Several airplanes have crashed due to damage caused by galvanic corrosion. The FAA is frequently called a "tombstone agency" because they tend to only take action after a bunch of people die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion
Mercury versus aluminum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrdYueB9pY4
In an earlier life, I shipped items requiring this particular hazmat label on packaging: https://www.safetyemporium.com/12332
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion
Mercury versus aluminum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrdYueB9pY4
In an earlier life, I shipped items requiring this particular hazmat label on packaging: https://www.safetyemporium.com/12332
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.
It has been tested. It has been sold and used commercially and by the government for $300 before. This is not an example of actual costs being $50k. It is an example of massive incentives on the seller’s side to rip off the one who pays (the US pop), and no incentives on the buyer’s side to care about it.
The article goes on in the next paragraph to say that they were being charged $300 for the same trash cans only a few years ago.
Presumably all the sunk costs were already sunk
Presumably all the sunk costs were already sunk
> It keeps people employed, which generates other positive economic effects, like buying houses and groceries.
Let's be honest here. With that $50,000 trashcan we're paying mid-level managers $30, downstream suppliers $1, and $49,967 in stock buybacks that drive income inequality just so we can pay a factory worker $2 of that $50k. We are literally just shoveling tax dollars into the pockets of the already wealthy.
Let's be honest here. With that $50,000 trashcan we're paying mid-level managers $30, downstream suppliers $1, and $49,967 in stock buybacks that drive income inequality just so we can pay a factory worker $2 of that $50k. We are literally just shoveling tax dollars into the pockets of the already wealthy.
I think I can deliver a trashcan that matches specs for a mere 40k.
I encourage you to submit a coubterproposal! I'm sure you'd learn a ton about plane based trash cans.
This is the buried lede in the article.
"As the Government Accountability Office recently reported, nearly 20,000 small businesses have bowed out of military contracting in the past decade, creating further opportunities for price hikes."
Why did 43% of the small businesses that used to do business with the government stop? And what has happened since 2020?
I know multiple small manufacturing businesses that would never consider accepting a government contract. One of the many reasons is the way the government force its contractors all the way down to the lowest levels (contractors of contractors of the big 5 gov contractors) to follow a million nonsense Covid rules. I suspect the number of small businesses willing to work for the government has dropped even more in the last three years.
"As the Government Accountability Office recently reported, nearly 20,000 small businesses have bowed out of military contracting in the past decade, creating further opportunities for price hikes."
Why did 43% of the small businesses that used to do business with the government stop? And what has happened since 2020?
I know multiple small manufacturing businesses that would never consider accepting a government contract. One of the many reasons is the way the government force its contractors all the way down to the lowest levels (contractors of contractors of the big 5 gov contractors) to follow a million nonsense Covid rules. I suspect the number of small businesses willing to work for the government has dropped even more in the last three years.
And about how fake all the documentation is and about mob-like web of people involved in all of this.
If you're not already in the business then hiring the talent to submit a conforming bid for the contract to deliver the trashcan will run you more than $40k.
"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."
Nonsense. You fell into the Broken Window Fallacy.
Nonsense. You fell into the Broken Window Fallacy.
That explanation doesn’t hold water.
The issue in government contracting is very simple. You need competitive procurement to ensure reasonableness of price. Period. In the 90s, we allowed major defense contractors to consolidate at the prime level and diversify at the subcontractor level.
So Lockheed Martin has some component of every system in 300 congressional districts - some little company is fabricating magical bolts to get congressional support.
So now these giant companies are all sole source vendors. Guess what happened to price?
The issue in government contracting is very simple. You need competitive procurement to ensure reasonableness of price. Period. In the 90s, we allowed major defense contractors to consolidate at the prime level and diversify at the subcontractor level.
So Lockheed Martin has some component of every system in 300 congressional districts - some little company is fabricating magical bolts to get congressional support.
So now these giant companies are all sole source vendors. Guess what happened to price?
Explain then how Boeing managed to stay afloat when it was forced to charge "only" $300 per trash can.
$300 probably represents the amortized proportional cost of the original design, certification, and manufacturing run.
$50K for a crash can is absurd, but $200K to spin up a production facility and get the output certified to whatever aviation safety standards apply to trash cans sounds about right.
$50K for a crash can is absurd, but $200K to spin up a production facility and get the output certified to whatever aviation safety standards apply to trash cans sounds about right.
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:
Anyway, good luck with your metal shop business and running parts through the folder-thingy. Please bear in mind that the link I provided is just a small look at the regulations that govern Civil Aircraft and that Mil-Spec is an entirely different beast, but I am sure you know that already!
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 customer’s requirements? Note that this extends to more than just PN, QTY and ship-to. Failure to read and heed those pesky T&Cs (the Terms and Conditions on a typical PO or RO) is a frequent NCR.
Who signed your C of C/Material Cert? Are they authorized to do so (cross checked to the Roster)?
Where was the part obtained from? Are they on the Approved Suppliers List?
Did you send the part to a repair station/AMO? Are they on the Approved Suppliers List?
Whomever you claim to have trace to, is the chain of custody acceptably documented?
Are part numbers, serial numbers, and condition in harmony?
If there were any deviations from what the customer required, was there reasonable documentation in the record showing the customer’s acceptance of the deviation?
Anyway, good luck with your metal shop business and running parts through the folder-thingy. Please bear in mind that the link I provided is just a small look at the regulations that govern Civil Aircraft and that Mil-Spec is an entirely different beast, but I am sure you know that already!
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.
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.
> You think Boeing didn't already have all those processes and shops in place?
For parts likely not manufactured in decades? No. They likely didn't have current paperwork for that. Boeing wasn't sitting around just waiting to replace some trash cans just in case the Pentagon was going to order some.
Trash cans for a plane whose commercial counterpart has been out of service for decades is literally not an economy of scale. An order for replacement trash cans at this point is a specialty boutique order.
For parts likely not manufactured in decades? No. They likely didn't have current paperwork for that. Boeing wasn't sitting around just waiting to replace some trash cans just in case the Pentagon was going to order some.
Trash cans for a plane whose commercial counterpart has been out of service for decades is literally not an economy of scale. An order for replacement trash cans at this point is a specialty boutique order.
You are not certifying a process. You are certifying a process for that part.
If the process changes, you have to go back and re-certify. If the technology changes, you have to go back and re-certify. In some places, if you change the machine the part is run on, you have to go back and re-certify.
So if you take a part that was stick welded, move it to a tig welder and then move it to an automated spot welder, you have to certify 3 times.
Not to mention, a tig weld may behave differently under stress than a stick weld so make sure that you do a part analysis too!
Last but not least, the regulations have changed from the last time this aircraft was produced. Are your parts governed by the new regulations or the old?
This is what got Boeing in so much trouble with the MAX, they didn't want to re-certify the aircraft so they kept making changes to the design. Do you think they are getting more or less scrutiny now when they say "It's an old design, everything is cool!"
The FAA got beat up, badly, justifiably so over their handling of that. Congress mandated them to regulate more strictly: https://www.reuters.com/article/boeing-737max-congress-idAFL...
Up-thread, comment was to farm it our to a local machine shop with one guy. Here is the FAA on Counterfeit parts: >Counterfeit Parts: These are unapproved parts manufactured and sold without FAA >approval. You should report them to the FAA as a SUP. There may be obvious, or >not so obvious, visual clues to help you spot these parts. The FAA aggressively >investigates these cases and works closely with the Office of Inspector General >(OIG) and law enforcement officials to ensure proper adjudication. There are >cases of this nature that have resulted in significant civil penalties and/or >jail time for those involved. https://iflyamerica.org/safety_suspected_unapproved_parts.as...
Adding: I have found an older(2022) AMCOM Spares SAR Guidance Document. This will show you what you need to do in order to apply to manufacture parts for American Military Aircraft. https://www.avmc.army.mil/Portals/51/Documents/SAR%20Guidanc...
If the process changes, you have to go back and re-certify. If the technology changes, you have to go back and re-certify. In some places, if you change the machine the part is run on, you have to go back and re-certify.
So if you take a part that was stick welded, move it to a tig welder and then move it to an automated spot welder, you have to certify 3 times.
Not to mention, a tig weld may behave differently under stress than a stick weld so make sure that you do a part analysis too!
Last but not least, the regulations have changed from the last time this aircraft was produced. Are your parts governed by the new regulations or the old?
This is what got Boeing in so much trouble with the MAX, they didn't want to re-certify the aircraft so they kept making changes to the design. Do you think they are getting more or less scrutiny now when they say "It's an old design, everything is cool!"
The FAA got beat up, badly, justifiably so over their handling of that. Congress mandated them to regulate more strictly: https://www.reuters.com/article/boeing-737max-congress-idAFL...
Up-thread, comment was to farm it our to a local machine shop with one guy. Here is the FAA on Counterfeit parts: >Counterfeit Parts: These are unapproved parts manufactured and sold without FAA >approval. You should report them to the FAA as a SUP. There may be obvious, or >not so obvious, visual clues to help you spot these parts. The FAA aggressively >investigates these cases and works closely with the Office of Inspector General >(OIG) and law enforcement officials to ensure proper adjudication. There are >cases of this nature that have resulted in significant civil penalties and/or >jail time for those involved. https://iflyamerica.org/safety_suspected_unapproved_parts.as...
Adding: I have found an older(2022) AMCOM Spares SAR Guidance Document. This will show you what you need to do in order to apply to manufacture parts for American Military Aircraft. https://www.avmc.army.mil/Portals/51/Documents/SAR%20Guidanc...
Having been through this process with "some pieces of sheet metal" and "a design" $200k sounds reasonable if you want something produced to an actual specification. It costs a lot of money to pay "a guy in a metal shop" to build tooling to reproduce a design to a specification. I could probably get it done for a 5-figure NRE in certain quantities but the per-unit price goes up as the NRE goes down.
You should probably consider that these cans have to be tested to some minimal standard to make sure parts don't shear off under the stresses they encounter during their service life. These stresses are probably more significant for parts inside of a military aircraft, as it may be required to take evasive action or perform higher-stress maneuvers even though this is basically a 707 fitted with expensive electronics. It sounds dumb in isolation because it's a trash can, but if you want predictability and low failure rates you really do have to test everything.
I personally lack the imagination to consider all the failure modes of the can but that lack of imagination doesn't mean that the failure modes aren't real risks.
You should probably consider that these cans have to be tested to some minimal standard to make sure parts don't shear off under the stresses they encounter during their service life. These stresses are probably more significant for parts inside of a military aircraft, as it may be required to take evasive action or perform higher-stress maneuvers even though this is basically a 707 fitted with expensive electronics. It sounds dumb in isolation because it's a trash can, but if you want predictability and low failure rates you really do have to test everything.
I personally lack the imagination to consider all the failure modes of the can but that lack of imagination doesn't mean that the failure modes aren't real risks.
> It sounds dumb in isolation because it's a trash can, but if you want predictability and low failure rates you really do have to test everything.
It would really suck to lose an air crew because a trash can of all things made by some rando in their garage flew out of its mount in a wing over maneuver on a training exercise.
It would really suck to lose an air crew because a trash can of all things made by some rando in their garage flew out of its mount in a wing over maneuver on a training exercise.
Sure. And all of this needs to be peoperly certified, to whatever standard the E-3 was certified against, in order to be mounted on the plane. Your comment tells me you were never involved in any of this.
Alternative: Those trash cans set in stock somewhere, the 300 buck price guarantee ran out, and the alternative was to not fly or develop new cans. Well, that wpupd also justify 50k per can if said E-3s are actually needed right now.
Alternative: Those trash cans set in stock somewhere, the 300 buck price guarantee ran out, and the alternative was to not fly or develop new cans. Well, that wpupd also justify 50k per can if said E-3s are actually needed right now.
And your comment tells me you're too deep into the system to realize how ridiculous this is. Your guy in a metal shop can do this for $5k with plenty of padding. Hire your certification consultant for $15k, and so on. If being efficient with taxpayer money was a priority, you could do one-off jobs a hell of a lot more efficiently than this was handled.
There's a reason the Navy runs their own service and repair shops for submarines, and it's exactly to produce custom parts and tooling for overhauls and repairs.
I never said it wasn't somewhat ridiciulous, did I? I just try to explain the status quo, and some reasons why it is not as easy as buying some trash can from AliExpress or wherever.
But keep in mind, those same rules apply to safety critical parts, e.g. engines and wings. And overall, it is easier to just apply the same high standards to everything.
But keep in mind, those same rules apply to safety critical parts, e.g. engines and wings. And overall, it is easier to just apply the same high standards to everything.
Assuming your numbers are accurate, that's still $5K per trashcan. Aviation is stupidly expensive.
Maybe contacting to a custom shop was an option but would take an extra week, and they needed those E3s in the air ASAP. I don't know what specific circumstances were at play, and neither does anyone in this thread.
Maybe contacting to a custom shop was an option but would take an extra week, and they needed those E3s in the air ASAP. I don't know what specific circumstances were at play, and neither does anyone in this thread.
They had to diversify into non-trash cans.
Or, a simpler explanation: "corruption".
> It keeps people employed, ...
What fraction of that $50k landed in the hands of the workers, do you think?
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 profit.
it's still a net negative to society due to the inefficiency, having presumably skilled people sitting around doing nothing due to bureaucracy instead of producing things of value. The opportunity cost is massive and the result is DC area codes being some of the richest in the nation off the backs of tax payers
Oh, yes. In terms of societal impact its far worse to pay people with valuable talents to not be productive than it would have been for the defense contractor to just pocket the money and pay it out as bonuses and dividends. But the system has its own logic and inertia.
This commenter understands how contracts work.
I'll direct all the righteously indignant folks claiming "corruption" to you from now on. XD
I'll direct all the righteously indignant folks claiming "corruption" to you from now on. XD
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.
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.
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.
See my first reply to the topic for more details, but over a decade ago I worked for Group 33 at Lincoln Labs and we considered trying to keep Boeing from overcharging the government too much to be an unwritten part of our mission. But the problem is that the problem is genuinely complicated. It's a situation worth some outrage but outrage without understanding won't accomplish anything useful.
Love the Lincoln Labs folks.
Smart cookies working on tough problems.
Also probably the best radar designers in the whole goddamn world.
I am proud to be even tangentially associated with them.
Smart cookies working on tough problems.
Also probably the best radar designers in the whole goddamn world.
I am proud to be even tangentially associated with them.
charging the government to have employees do nothing(to the extent they complain about not having any work to do) is corrupt. It's the type of stuff you see in African countries with government funds being handed out for work that never happens
especially considering the comment was referring to Boeing, a company notorious for their lobbying to get contracts they don't deserve
especially considering the comment was referring to Boeing, a company notorious for their lobbying to get contracts they don't deserve
Are we counting tips for the masseuse when the CEO goes to the spa?
cushychicken(1)
> 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.
I think the problem is that they're so disconnected from the value of money that they are willing to pay that much.
I think the problem is that they're so disconnected from the value of money that they are willing to pay that much.
Planes get grounded when they have missing or nonfunctional parts. E.g., commercial jets can't fly if the toilets don't work, even though the toilet is not critical to aviation safety.
Imagine you have four multimillion dollar aircraft that can't fly because some small part that is out of production broke. You need those planes to fly missions. How much would you pay to put them back into service?
Imagine you have four multimillion dollar aircraft that can't fly because some small part that is out of production broke. You need those planes to fly missions. How much would you pay to put them back into service?
If this were true, then other countries’ militaries would also be paying $50k for a trash can, since none of what you wrote is unique to the US. Given other countries’ military budgets are a fraction of the US’s, I highly doubt that they’re spending anywhere near that.
That's why comparing defence budgets as a measure of a country's military capabilities is so problematic.
Yeah, Russia has a defence budget 12 times smaller compared to the US, but that means that Russia can now afford to only pay ~$4100 dollars for a trashcan and still be America's equal in terms of "PPP" defence expenses.
Yeah, Russia has a defence budget 12 times smaller compared to the US, but that means that Russia can now afford to only pay ~$4100 dollars for a trashcan and still be America's equal in terms of "PPP" defence expenses.
For aircraft parts? Yes, they absolutely do. Up to the point where investing a couple of billions for a new fleet is cheaper than keeping the old ones airworthy.
Even if what you're saying is true, then the cost of maintaining the production line should be billed separately from the trash can itself.
As a German, it always suprises me how pedantic americans can be when it comes to Letter of the Law vs Spirit of the Law situation. Yes, for Warplane Parts this whole Idea of keeping it inside america and enable local companies to continuously produce parts is reasonable. Having to receive bids for contracts as a public entity is also reasonable. But is there no one in government that can see that a 50k trashcan is just pointless? Is it really impossible to apply some level of basic human reason and common sense to such situations?
Usually the real answer is that it isn't actually $50k for a trash can. In something like an airplane, there's a whole bunch of costs that are overhead on the plane itself without being attached to any particular part (delivery, integrated testing, R&D, whatever). The accounting convention is that the overhead gets spread out amongst the individual items. The side effect of this convention is that if you view a line item without context, you get something utterly nonsensical.
It's absolutely possible to apply some level of basic human reason and common sense to such situations. A different accounting convention is probably in order.
It's absolutely possible to apply some level of basic human reason and common sense to such situations. A different accounting convention is probably in order.
What's the alternative? If a trashcan of that specification is needed to allow the airplane's mission to begin, then it's grounded until the trashcan is in place.
The alternative is to find a less costly supplier that can meet that specification. Now you've (a) held up the missions and (b) more than likely used up any cost savings in your procurement & supplier evaluation process.
At some point, the intelligent thing to do is shrug, grumble under your breath, and write the check so you can get on with life.
The alternative is to find a less costly supplier that can meet that specification. Now you've (a) held up the missions and (b) more than likely used up any cost savings in your procurement & supplier evaluation process.
At some point, the intelligent thing to do is shrug, grumble under your breath, and write the check so you can get on with life.
They see that it's stupid and they have all the same reason and common sense as anyone else. They just worry that if they don't follow the rules they'll go to jail.
If that's right, why don't they clarify it and call the excess spend a 'grant'?
At least it's then clear and people can decide on whether that grant is value for money or not.
The thing appears ludicrous.
At least it's then clear and people can decide on whether that grant is value for money or not.
The thing appears ludicrous.
> The reason you can buy an OXO trash can for $30 on Amazon are the scale and volume at which they're produced.
I could make 1 plastic trashcan at home for less than $50,000. And probably less than $30.
I could make 1 plastic trashcan at home for less than $50,000. And probably less than $30.
I have a 3D printer, and I made a desk trash can.
I even gave it a fancy pattern.
I used FreeCAD.
It took 5 minutes to make the trashcan, and 2 nights to learn the pattern tool.
Total cost was 1.50 for my fancy color changing filament.
I even gave it a fancy pattern.
I used FreeCAD.
It took 5 minutes to make the trashcan, and 2 nights to learn the pattern tool.
Total cost was 1.50 for my fancy color changing filament.
And you did, at least, go through full ISO 9100 certification, as the minimum to make the long list of suppliers for flying parts.
It is becoming so frustrating to read all those tech bro comments, believing that doing some messy 3D printing is the same thing as manufacturing. Ignoring that the whole field of mechanical engineering exists.
Thinking like that, a bunch of millions, get you the Titan and five dead people. Add some billions and it gets you FSD and a bunch of dead people.
Oh, and accounting and cost calculation seems to be a black art as well...
It is becoming so frustrating to read all those tech bro comments, believing that doing some messy 3D printing is the same thing as manufacturing. Ignoring that the whole field of mechanical engineering exists.
Thinking like that, a bunch of millions, get you the Titan and five dead people. Add some billions and it gets you FSD and a bunch of dead people.
Oh, and accounting and cost calculation seems to be a black art as well...
I'm talking about a desk trashcan though, at $100 an hour, it cost $400 to design.
By the way I'm a (real) engineer and I did design mechanical engineering for 5 years and electrical design engineering for 3 years. (and other fields of engineering for 4 years total as well)
Yes, you get your specs and you design to them.
I got real engineering parts certified and I believe the total cost, including tooling was under 600k. Heck, back when I made airbags, I don't think we spent anywhere close to 1 million dollars between design, tooling, testing, and manufacturing.
By the way I'm a (real) engineer and I did design mechanical engineering for 5 years and electrical design engineering for 3 years. (and other fields of engineering for 4 years total as well)
Yes, you get your specs and you design to them.
I got real engineering parts certified and I believe the total cost, including tooling was under 600k. Heck, back when I made airbags, I don't think we spent anywhere close to 1 million dollars between design, tooling, testing, and manufacturing.
All nice and dandy. And now imagine doing all that according to some obscure military aviation certification standards from the 50s. For a handful of parts. When you are the only reasonably available supplier.
Aerospace is different from automotive, just how different is only apparent by actually suffering through it. And as I said elsewhere, 200k to keep four highly specialized military planes in the air is, as stupid as it sounds, almost a no brainer.
Aerospace is different from automotive, just how different is only apparent by actually suffering through it. And as I said elsewhere, 200k to keep four highly specialized military planes in the air is, as stupid as it sounds, almost a no brainer.
All roads lead to "the situation is completely fucked up." The more immovable the reasons are for the $50,000 trashcan, the more evidence we have that something is systemically wrong. The best case scenario is that this was fraud and without it the trashcan would cost a reasonable price. But if it just "has to be this way" then it's clear that the existing processes are terrible.
The existing processes made modern aerospace and aviation the only Six Sigma save industry in existence. Processes are just fine as they are, things like 50k trash cans are the edge cases of said very safe environment.
>200k to keep four highly specialized military planes in the air is, as stupid as it sounds, almost a no brainer.
That implies that the trashcan designed for less would cause failures.
Also the cost of the program was 1.3M or something.
That implies that the trashcan designed for less would cause failures.
Also the cost of the program was 1.3M or something.
That actually depends on how you define failure.
Now we come to a peculiarity of aerospace, so excuse the tangent. All aircraft have to be airworthy to be allowed to fly. Those airworthiness criteria are set during initial Type Certification, and more or less set in stone. Changing them requires various amounts of testing, re-certification and abton of paper work nobody in their right minds does voluntarily. One reason one does it is obsolescence of parts or technology.
One of things I insist on, for that very reason, is in being smart in defining begnin things like BoMs and maintenance plans. Because deviating from those grounds a plane.
So, if (I have no idea of the E-3 specifics as those arw most likely classified to a certain degree) said trash bins are part of the airworthiness requirements, not having them (and them being up to spec) grounds the plane. Because the absence of said trash bin is a defect in itself.
Whether or not the trash bins are a signigicant safety problem is, decades after the E-3 got certified, no longer relevant.
Aerospace is fun sometimes.
Now we come to a peculiarity of aerospace, so excuse the tangent. All aircraft have to be airworthy to be allowed to fly. Those airworthiness criteria are set during initial Type Certification, and more or less set in stone. Changing them requires various amounts of testing, re-certification and abton of paper work nobody in their right minds does voluntarily. One reason one does it is obsolescence of parts or technology.
One of things I insist on, for that very reason, is in being smart in defining begnin things like BoMs and maintenance plans. Because deviating from those grounds a plane.
So, if (I have no idea of the E-3 specifics as those arw most likely classified to a certain degree) said trash bins are part of the airworthiness requirements, not having them (and them being up to spec) grounds the plane. Because the absence of said trash bin is a defect in itself.
Whether or not the trash bins are a signigicant safety problem is, decades after the E-3 got certified, no longer relevant.
Aerospace is fun sometimes.
My background is medical devices (21CFR), not aerospace. The "story" I like to tell about how much procedures matter is the stack of $1,200 single board computers I was offered because when they arrived on the loading dock, the person from Receiving didn't follow the proper procedure, so they couldn't be sent to Manufacturing to be assembled into the $700,000 instrument we sold but were instead heading for the dumpster.
$12,000 in perfectly working hardware that had to be scrapped because someone didn't fill out the proper paperwork. Luckily, we (software dev) intercepted them and found other uses for them.
$12,000 in perfectly working hardware that had to be scrapped because someone didn't fill out the proper paperwork. Luckily, we (software dev) intercepted them and found other uses for them.
Lately I saw quite some mobility from aerospace to the medical world, since basic processes are similar enough. The message behind your example was driven home to me almost on day one by grizzeled, old ops procurment collegue of mine: parts without proper documentation are basically worthless.
Lucky for you so being able to reuse that hardware!
Lucky for you so being able to reuse that hardware!
> And you did, at least, go through full ISO 9100 certification
That's not what he said was making it expensive though, was it? He said it was economies of scale. Furthermore, if an ISO 9100 certification is taking a $10 trashcan and making it $50,000 then we shouldn't insist on an ISO9100 certification.
That's not what he said was making it expensive though, was it? He said it was economies of scale. Furthermore, if an ISO 9100 certification is taking a $10 trashcan and making it $50,000 then we shouldn't insist on an ISO9100 certification.
Can you guarantee it's not going to move around and dump its contents or crush a crewmember when the military plane it's in does evasive maneuvers?
Can you guarantee a fire started in it won't spread to the rest of the aircraft and fill it with noxious fumes?
Can you guarantee a fire started in it won't spread to the rest of the aircraft and fill it with noxious fumes?
True! That said, the monopoly plays a role. I bet if you gave these specs to an open bid sheet metal fabricator somewhere in the US they’d replicate it for less than 52K shipped, no?
It's still not going to have a non-trivial cost after testing and certification. Even if it's not 52k it's not going end up a small fraction of that. Certifications can be expensive and can cover the entire process of manufacturing from materials to how it's packaged for shipment.
If the SF govt can spend $20k on a non-functioning trash can (that is actively defended), is $50k that crazy?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/22/san-francisc...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/22/san-francisc...
Beyond designing, tooling, and maintaining, there is an amazing time and cost savings to being able to continue to procure existing items.
The amount of paperwork/documentation that has to change, logistics and inventory tracking, plus the battery of tests to check that a new item maintains the same mil standard qualifications as the old.
The amount of paperwork/documentation that has to change, logistics and inventory tracking, plus the battery of tests to check that a new item maintains the same mil standard qualifications as the old.
[deleted]
It's interesting to contrast this with all the complaints about the Titan sub using off-the-shelf components.
They are red herrings. For the price of one of these trash cans the Titan could've had perhaps three complete independent control systems including Logitech gaming controllers.
I somehow thought it would be much more expensive than $50k to produce a small number of custom controllers, especially if you were to do the proper thing and have them pass certifications.
Reductio ad absurdum is a misnomer here. Apagogical argument is a completely valid mode of argumentation that’s used by philosophers and mathematicians throughout history. What you’re accusing this article of is cherry-picking.
There are benefits to the procurement rules. Little Giant ladders are used extensively in the military. That's the only reason why they haven't moved all production to Mexico.
If that's the case the floor should be much higher. I'm all for a $1m trash can.
The government can also buy the $30 trash cans.
I see a people riding their libertarian hobby horse of blaming the government for overspending, but only yesterday it turned out that a few devs managed to raise $50M for a glorified terminal emulator.
You forgot the "/s".
Is this comment a joke?
Why would it be? Making even consumer products is much harder than it seems.
Just look at the myriad failed Kickstarter projects that tried to make consumer stuff. Even getting something normal made in China can be serious work. And far more if you actually want to do a good job of it. Linus Tech Tips put a surprising amount of work into making a screwdriver.
Then consider that the military probably has a bunch of requirements like "this can't break into sharp shards" and "it can't emit toxic smoke if it burns", and they'll want that to be proven. Certifying all those things is a whole job on its own.
Just look at the myriad failed Kickstarter projects that tried to make consumer stuff. Even getting something normal made in China can be serious work. And far more if you actually want to do a good job of it. Linus Tech Tips put a surprising amount of work into making a screwdriver.
Then consider that the military probably has a bunch of requirements like "this can't break into sharp shards" and "it can't emit toxic smoke if it burns", and they'll want that to be proven. Certifying all those things is a whole job on its own.
Excellent corollary example.
Making real, physical goods is very, very challenging, and I don't think a lot of the denizens of this site (as SWEs) appreciate that.
Making real, physical goods is very, very challenging, and I don't think a lot of the denizens of this site (as SWEs) appreciate that.
IMO, the claimed price is never to cover these so called "testing for requirements", It is a random / maximum amount they can charge basically. Sure they could give you a nice explanation that looks nice on paper, but it is rarely true. It is always the smoke and mirrors bullshit that happens for government contracts.
> Just look at the myriad failed Kickstarter projects that tried to make consumer stuff. Even getting something normal made in China can be serious work.
....coz they are making 50k of a thing. Not four a year.
....coz they are making 50k of a thing. Not four a year.
50K is easier in this regard. Things like molds are expensive to make and are amortized over thousands of copies. So making 5 costs a lot per unit, making 50K is cheap per unit.
[deleted]
I think it was an attempt of a joke.
That's a big load of bs, man. I'm impressed. Are you gonna charge all of us for the time you spent writing this as well?
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...
https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...
>The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall-they simply treated every item the same. So the hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and development overhead-$420-as each of the highly technical components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)
"we didn't ACTUALLY spend that much on a hammer, we just averaged it out across a bulk purchase! See, we aren't terrible with money."
Framing something as 'the myth of the $600 hammer' is implicitly pointing to external sources (congress, journalists) and messaging that they 'invented a myth' that the military spent $600 on a hammer. They didn't invent anything. They worked with the information that was provided to them by the military.
If you wanted to discuss the same issue, but under a framing that wasn't disingenuous, you could title it something like 'the reality of abysmal and misleading accounting throughout the military and their contractors'.
"we didn't ACTUALLY spend that much on a hammer, we just averaged it out across a bulk purchase! See, we aren't terrible with money."
Framing something as 'the myth of the $600 hammer' is implicitly pointing to external sources (congress, journalists) and messaging that they 'invented a myth' that the military spent $600 on a hammer. They didn't invent anything. They worked with the information that was provided to them by the military.
If you wanted to discuss the same issue, but under a framing that wasn't disingenuous, you could title it something like 'the reality of abysmal and misleading accounting throughout the military and their contractors'.
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.
What's the good reason for this type of pro rata accounting?
Given "a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall", I'd propose "it saved time, which costs taxpayers money".
Given the hammer was actually $15, there's presumably a corresponding item that's also listed at $600 for ease of accounting that normally costs something like $1,200. "Pentagon gets 50% off computer monitor" is a less exciting headline, though.
Given the hammer was actually $15, there's presumably a corresponding item that's also listed at $600 for ease of accounting that normally costs something like $1,200. "Pentagon gets 50% off computer monitor" is a less exciting headline, though.
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.
See also,
> Experts say much of that contractor price gouging has worsened over the past few decades as the military sector has experienced dramatic consolidation. In the 1990s, there were more than 50 “prime” DoD contractors capable of competing for major contracts. Now, there are only five.
> 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.
See also,
> Experts say much of that contractor price gouging has worsened over the past few decades as the military sector has experienced dramatic consolidation. In the 1990s, there were more than 50 “prime” DoD contractors capable of competing for major contracts. Now, there are only five.
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.)
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.)
I don't understand why the article is titled "the myth [...]". It's exactly what it sounds like. The US "spent" (imo: handed out) $600 per hammer. It doesn't matter if it was one hammer or the average price of many hammers.
This is a repeating pattern. See also the $10k toilet seat:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-...
Even from this article we see a pattern:
> In 2020, the Pentagon paid Boeing over $200,000 for four of the trash cans, translating to roughly $51,606 per unit. In a 2021 contract, the company charged $36,640 each for 11 trash containers, resulting in a total cost of more than $400,000. The apparent overcharge cost taxpayers an extra $600,000 between the two contracts.
> In another case, Lockheed Martin hiked the price of an electrical conduit for the P-3 plane as much as 14 fold, costing the Pentagon an additional $133,000 between 2008 and 2015.
> Jamaica Bearings — a company that distributes parts manufactured by other firms — sold the Department of Defense 13 radio filters that had once cost $350 each for nearly $49,000 per unit in 2022. The apparent markup cost taxpayers more than $600,000 in extra fees.
This is a repeating pattern. See also the $10k toilet seat:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-...
Even from this article we see a pattern:
> In 2020, the Pentagon paid Boeing over $200,000 for four of the trash cans, translating to roughly $51,606 per unit. In a 2021 contract, the company charged $36,640 each for 11 trash containers, resulting in a total cost of more than $400,000. The apparent overcharge cost taxpayers an extra $600,000 between the two contracts.
> In another case, Lockheed Martin hiked the price of an electrical conduit for the P-3 plane as much as 14 fold, costing the Pentagon an additional $133,000 between 2008 and 2015.
> Jamaica Bearings — a company that distributes parts manufactured by other firms — sold the Department of Defense 13 radio filters that had once cost $350 each for nearly $49,000 per unit in 2022. The apparent markup cost taxpayers more than $600,000 in extra fees.
Thanks, that's what this article reminded me of.
While defense spending is the most egregious, governmental budgets are inflated across the board in the US. For instance, the US spends far more per capita on infrastructure and education than other industrialized countries, for at best comparable (and often worse) results.
I wonder how much of this is due to the US’s unique ability to essentially endlessly deficit spend. If the supply of governmental funding is effectively infinite, there is absolutely nothing controlling costs.
I wonder how much of this is due to the US’s unique ability to essentially endlessly deficit spend. If the supply of governmental funding is effectively infinite, there is absolutely nothing controlling costs.
A few reasons. The US was very corrupt back before the Progressive Era and to clean that up in a hurry we got a bunch of very prescriptive rules around procurement that prevent the use of common sense and make bidding for government contracts a hard to master skill that reduces competition.
We have a federal structure and use a common law framework so the interaction of law, precedent, and agency rules create a confusing thicket of regulation that's hard to deal with.
Finally, outsourcing of planning to consultants means frequent shifts in direction and makes it harder to exercise control over costs.
We have a federal structure and use a common law framework so the interaction of law, precedent, and agency rules create a confusing thicket of regulation that's hard to deal with.
Finally, outsourcing of planning to consultants means frequent shifts in direction and makes it harder to exercise control over costs.
> 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.
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, although it remains to be seen how long that’s sustainable.
Debt to GDP is a useless metric. The US has a uniquely low interest on its debt. Interest payments as a fraction of GDP are less than 2%, in the middle of the post-War range of 1.1 to 3.2% of GDP.
Where are you getting 2% ? I’m seeing much higher:
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/interest-payments-...
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/interest-payments-...
That's as a fraction of revenue which is distorted due to our fragmented federal system and relatively low national tax rates. Interest as a fraction of GDP is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
If you had gone to the primary source of the data in your link you would have seen the prominent limitation, to wit: "Because budgetary accounts may not include all central government units (such as social security funds), they usually provide an incomplete picture. In federal states the central government accounts provide an incomplete view of total public finance."
If you had gone to the primary source of the data in your link you would have seen the prominent limitation, to wit: "Because budgetary accounts may not include all central government units (such as social security funds), they usually provide an incomplete picture. In federal states the central government accounts provide an incomplete view of total public finance."
Ok, but then how can you compare that to other countries to say the US is higher/lower? I haven't been able to find a unified source of raw interest payments by country (not as a % of revenue).
> 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?
That's not unique either. The UK had massive debts in its history but outgrew them. Or were you not considering history?
What people tend to miss is that the likes of Lockheed, Raytheon, and Boeing do this shit on purpose because they are public companies with few customers, and effectively zero accountability. They are literally forced by public markets to continually grow profits, and I'd wager Lockheed spends a gargantuan amount of money on black projects and research that they can't really turn a profit on (let alone disclose much less sell off), so they have to resort to making a profit by bilking the Pentagon in any way they can.
Since the Pentagon doesn't give a damn about passing an audit, and the revolving door between defense companies, industry lobbyists, and the Pentagon is so huge, they can just get away with it.
Spare me the bullshit about jobs and readiness, it's not good for the economy to continually employ people to utilize 30 year old tech to prepare for a battle that will never happen. Look at Abrams tanks - some senator couldn't face the prospect of not being re-elected, so they continually pushed for Abrams to receive billions to continually produce tanks, which went out of style after Desert Storm....which was in 1993. The Pentagon didn't want more tanks, and said as much many times, yet nothing happened. Those tanks were produced for years and had no use and sat in a massive warehouse. All so that senator could enjoy their cushy benefits, nice lobbying kickbacks, and not having to actually run a competitive re-election campaign, much less do the hard work of saying "look folks, your jobs are irrelevant now, here's some money to go re-train in a different industry".
Now, is spending on military tech inherently bad, even on unprofitable or pie-in-the-sky ideas? No. Is it a bad thing to invest in the engineering sectors? No. Should it be done? Yes. Is it good to invest in technology and in education? Yes. Should companies that are completely reliant on Pentagon funding be allowed to be "private" entities who need to adhere to the whims of wall street bankers above all else? Absolutely not. Should they be allowed to lobby? No. Should they be allowed to hire tons of former military officials to effectively just be "relationship" people so the money keeps coming in? Absolutely not.
The root cause here is that there's a revolving door between the Pentagon and private industry, and we're turning a blind eye to it.
Since the Pentagon doesn't give a damn about passing an audit, and the revolving door between defense companies, industry lobbyists, and the Pentagon is so huge, they can just get away with it.
Spare me the bullshit about jobs and readiness, it's not good for the economy to continually employ people to utilize 30 year old tech to prepare for a battle that will never happen. Look at Abrams tanks - some senator couldn't face the prospect of not being re-elected, so they continually pushed for Abrams to receive billions to continually produce tanks, which went out of style after Desert Storm....which was in 1993. The Pentagon didn't want more tanks, and said as much many times, yet nothing happened. Those tanks were produced for years and had no use and sat in a massive warehouse. All so that senator could enjoy their cushy benefits, nice lobbying kickbacks, and not having to actually run a competitive re-election campaign, much less do the hard work of saying "look folks, your jobs are irrelevant now, here's some money to go re-train in a different industry".
Now, is spending on military tech inherently bad, even on unprofitable or pie-in-the-sky ideas? No. Is it a bad thing to invest in the engineering sectors? No. Should it be done? Yes. Is it good to invest in technology and in education? Yes. Should companies that are completely reliant on Pentagon funding be allowed to be "private" entities who need to adhere to the whims of wall street bankers above all else? Absolutely not. Should they be allowed to lobby? No. Should they be allowed to hire tons of former military officials to effectively just be "relationship" people so the money keeps coming in? Absolutely not.
The root cause here is that there's a revolving door between the Pentagon and private industry, and we're turning a blind eye to it.
I was studying to do military software at university, and the amount of deliberate inefficiency is insane. I worked on reducing software bugs and increasing quality, but the more bugs delivered the more money is made so such improvements were actively resisted. Plus pay at Raytheon and Lockheed was really really bad so I went to Silicon Valley instead.
I actually do sell software to the military now so I do know what it’s like. Part of it is the customers fault, they make it so expensive to do business with them that you lose money in overhead if you’re not ripping them off somewhere else. I wish I could put a line item that shows them just how expensive their stupid paperwork is. But part of the reason the customer is like that is because they’re routinely getting ripped off. Maybe if people in the military were smarter they could figure things out but in my experience it seems that McNamara’s Project 100K never ended and the military serves as an alternate welfare program for people who would be unable to get a job anywhere else. I’m not even sure I’m mad about it, the US still loves war too much despite how ruinously expensive it is. I worry if it was cheaper the US would do even more of it. Unfortunately it’s becoming cheaper anyway with all this drone warfare so we still have that dystopia to look forward to.
I actually do sell software to the military now so I do know what it’s like. Part of it is the customers fault, they make it so expensive to do business with them that you lose money in overhead if you’re not ripping them off somewhere else. I wish I could put a line item that shows them just how expensive their stupid paperwork is. But part of the reason the customer is like that is because they’re routinely getting ripped off. Maybe if people in the military were smarter they could figure things out but in my experience it seems that McNamara’s Project 100K never ended and the military serves as an alternate welfare program for people who would be unable to get a job anywhere else. I’m not even sure I’m mad about it, the US still loves war too much despite how ruinously expensive it is. I worry if it was cheaper the US would do even more of it. Unfortunately it’s becoming cheaper anyway with all this drone warfare so we still have that dystopia to look forward to.
Didn't we just recently run a story here about how these prices aren't real, but are rather an accounting artifact of a whole package of services being billed out pro rata across a bunch of line items? That's also reminiscent of how hospital pricing works: the line-item billing you see is shocking, but bears little relationship to the actual accounts payable process the insurers deal with.
So that's a different problem than a $50k trashcan, but it's still a huge problem, and the headline is just as enraging. The military-industrial complex is evil.
I don't disagree that there's a problem, but thinking about $50,000 trash cans isn't getting us any closer to solving it, because we're not actually buying $50,000 trash cans. If my understanding is accurate.
Whether or not that is true in this particular case, it is indefensible that the most consequential spending (PUBLIC funds for MILITARY & MEDICAL supplies) can't be properly itemized.
As another top comment describes, they can afford 9 months to fix a minor bug in military software but they can't afford spending a little more time with proper itemization? I don't buy it.
As another top comment describes, they can afford 9 months to fix a minor bug in military software but they can't afford spending a little more time with proper itemization? I don't buy it.
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?
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?
Just a pedantic note here: if my understanding is correct, the dollars on these trash cans might have nothing to do with design and testing of the trash can, or anything whatsoever to do with the trash can; they might instead just be a pro rata category that a larger procurement gets spread into, and the meaningful number is that larger procurement number. Like, the trash can could be an abstract pro rata line item for, I don't know, a stealth bomber.
Absolutely. I was sticking to a simpler example of there being no right answer to how to itemize costs for just a single type of item -- and then when you add in fixed costs that are shared among multiple types of items there's even less of a right answer.
If you have $100,000 of design costs for something made of three components, and each component is equally difficult to design but they're all designed together, and the manufacturing cost of each component is $500,000, $10,000, and $100... then how do you itemize the design costs?
If you have $100,000 of design costs for something made of three components, and each component is equally difficult to design but they're all designed together, and the manufacturing cost of each component is $500,000, $10,000, and $100... then how do you itemize the design costs?
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, we should say "no" and demand Boeing bring down their price or else we will entertain other bidders, to which we can provide exact specifications and retired examples of the required product.
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, we should say "no" and demand Boeing bring down their price or else we will entertain other bidders, to which we can provide exact specifications and retired examples of the required product.
> 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
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.
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.
The current cost-plus model actually worked pretty well for a time. When it was first introduced defense contractors hadn't figured out how to use the rules to their advantage and really it's pretty counter intuitive for a businessperson to try to maximize their costs.
But the big historical problem with (2) is that if you give people discretion they can just choose to award the contract to their cousin Joe and end up paying $600 for a $300 trash can.
What kept graft in check under the old system was fear of being found out and fear of being fired after embarrassing an elected official who might fear the voters getting angry.
In the current system everybody is following the letter of the rules. Boeing has really managed to structure their costs so that they can charge $52k. They really did win the bid according to the rules. The bureaucrats who awarded the contract to Boeing followed the rules. And while elected officials might bitch and moan there's nothing they can do to disrupt the careers of officials who follow the rules - by very intentional design.
But the big historical problem with (2) is that if you give people discretion they can just choose to award the contract to their cousin Joe and end up paying $600 for a $300 trash can.
What kept graft in check under the old system was fear of being found out and fear of being fired after embarrassing an elected official who might fear the voters getting angry.
In the current system everybody is following the letter of the rules. Boeing has really managed to structure their costs so that they can charge $52k. They really did win the bid according to the rules. The bureaucrats who awarded the contract to Boeing followed the rules. And while elected officials might bitch and moan there's nothing they can do to disrupt the careers of officials who follow the rules - by very intentional design.
> 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.
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.
If we continue to give the Defense department trillions of dollars without audits, they have no incentive to be smart with the money they spend. There is a huge amount of policy around contracting and expenditures but once you’re in the door via the approved contracting route there are not very many controls.
Further: if they have the budget allocated, they will spend it. It’s that simple. Doesn’t matter what it is on, and going over budget in this political climate is a plus because they can justify more money for next year’s program request.
In this article’s case, expensive items are often novel and have some weird context or specific change attached (Stinger missiles, for example could have a lot of reasons to be expensive now) and the trash can is probably a metal galley can that is not cheap to produce and deliver to site, but it makes a good argument about price gouging generally due to lack of controls across a number of products.
Like most things the answer is not that this is completely unreasonable but rather that it could be better if we did something about it.
Further: if they have the budget allocated, they will spend it. It’s that simple. Doesn’t matter what it is on, and going over budget in this political climate is a plus because they can justify more money for next year’s program request.
In this article’s case, expensive items are often novel and have some weird context or specific change attached (Stinger missiles, for example could have a lot of reasons to be expensive now) and the trash can is probably a metal galley can that is not cheap to produce and deliver to site, but it makes a good argument about price gouging generally due to lack of controls across a number of products.
Like most things the answer is not that this is completely unreasonable but rather that it could be better if we did something about it.
Part 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).
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).
Subs use Xbox controllers to control the periscope because they found that the controllers were far more intuitive to learn and operate.
And that's not surprising, considering the operators had been using them since they were children.
I'm starting to suspect that Microsoft may have had a hand in sinking that Titanic sub as a promotional move, because people have been dragging the damn xbox controller into every possible discussion since.
The Logitech F710 wireless gamepad used in the Titan was similar to a PlayStation 4 controller and not at all similar to a MS-Xbox-Wireless-Controller.
I don't think it was the point of failure.
San Francisco keeps the inefficient toilet spending crown with the $1.7m toilet:
https://slate.com/business/2022/10/san-francisco-toilet-mill...
https://slate.com/business/2022/10/san-francisco-toilet-mill...
Also has a $20k trash can as it so happens so we're competitive there too.
Aren't these kind of odd prices usually just laundering money for black projects?
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.
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?
... 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.
Plus obligatory surcharge for being aerospace, plus obligatory surcharge for being military.
There was a major incident with nuclear weapons caused by pillows on a B52 catching fire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
"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.
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.
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.
This doesn’t add up to 50k. Maybe 300. Probably not even
Well, you can take that from someone who does it for a living (not for Boeing or the Pentagon, bit still), or not. Your choice. Whether or not 50k is actually justified or not, no idea. But the price for a new, low volume, production of obsolete aircraft spares is orders of magnitude more expensive than the original high volume one. And even it if is old stock, as soon as the low contractual prices are running out, everyone is paying market prices. And those mean: either you pay, you don't fly or you certify an alternative.
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.
> This doesn’t add up to 50k.
It's a procurement project to purchase four very specific aviation trash cans for an aircraft that's no longer made.
The cans themselves aren't the cost. The project manager, the paperwork expert who does the thousands of pages of documents, etc. all cost before they even think about setting up a production line (for an hour's run!) to actually make the things. They're also factoring in the cost of keeping the 707 trash can making machinery sitting around for the next time they need a few more of them.
Four trash cans cost $52k. Forty probably would've cost $53k. The military should probably buy four hundred so they never have to buy another one for the remaining few years the E3 exists, but then Congress calls that wasteful spending too.
It's a procurement project to purchase four very specific aviation trash cans for an aircraft that's no longer made.
The cans themselves aren't the cost. The project manager, the paperwork expert who does the thousands of pages of documents, etc. all cost before they even think about setting up a production line (for an hour's run!) to actually make the things. They're also factoring in the cost of keeping the 707 trash can making machinery sitting around for the next time they need a few more of them.
Four trash cans cost $52k. Forty probably would've cost $53k. The military should probably buy four hundred so they never have to buy another one for the remaining few years the E3 exists, but then Congress calls that wasteful spending too.
Then they'd be spending thousands every year to store them at a secure facility :P
Last time I calculated storage costs, it was around 50 cents per day per cbm. Add in military security and so on, and your not far from it.
> ... holding a small collection of waste is that intense eh?
If it catches fire on the $330M plane it's made for, potentially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash involved a ~$80M (adjusting for inflation) lost B-52, another $80M in cleanup costs, and a still missing 1.1 megaton nuclear weapon, over a couple pillows that caught fire.
If it catches fire on the $330M plane it's made for, potentially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash involved a ~$80M (adjusting for inflation) lost B-52, another $80M in cleanup costs, and a still missing 1.1 megaton nuclear weapon, over a couple pillows that caught fire.
The traditional response is “over-specification” with a coffee pot on a commercial airliner needing to be certified against becoming a dangerous missile in the event of a plane crash (shatter, break, etc).
Yes, it may be that the trash can or plastic had to be certified against breaking in a weird way since it’s a military plane and you don’t want plastic shrapnel in your soldiers (or whatever).
It _could_ be that Boeing made 100 trash cans, threw away the mold, and had to re-make the mold in order to fulfill the order for 4 more trash cans.
If not Boeing, potentially _their_ trash can supplier threw away the mold and you end up with the same price.
So there MAY be a reasonable explanation, but it seems very egregious that the “before” and “after” prices are so dramatically different.
Yes, it may be that the trash can or plastic had to be certified against breaking in a weird way since it’s a military plane and you don’t want plastic shrapnel in your soldiers (or whatever).
It _could_ be that Boeing made 100 trash cans, threw away the mold, and had to re-make the mold in order to fulfill the order for 4 more trash cans.
If not Boeing, potentially _their_ trash can supplier threw away the mold and you end up with the same price.
So there MAY be a reasonable explanation, but it seems very egregious that the “before” and “after” prices are so dramatically different.
You should have a look at the prices for aircraft spares, even re-used ones, and how much the same item costs when sourced for production. And that is without adding another 50% to the price in orser to get lead times down from 15 weeks to 15 days, from 15 days to 15 hours.
They go into airplanes, not the Pentagon, which is right at the beginning of TFA.
So they are probably weirdly shaped.
So they are probably weirdly shaped.
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.
Filing government levels of paperwork, especially for the defense sector is incredibly expensive. All that is reflect into the price of equipment.
If by black projects you mean "Cayman bank accounts controlled by a shell company owned by a few Magnates and Government higher-ups", yes, sure they are.
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.
They would have to be making quite a bit of these to be able to get necessary funds. Mostly it’s just custom parts and the mfg is adding large margins but again on very low numbers of widgets.
black pocket ;)
In the early days of automated billing at the defense department there were a couple of ladies that figured out they could way over bill for small things like nuts and bolts. There’s an American Greed episode about it. They eventually got caught because they accidentally sent the same invoice twice and that flagged the system and triggered an investigation. Episode is from 2010
https://imdb.com/title/tt2378874/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_ov_pl
https://imdb.com/title/tt2378874/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_ov_pl
If its going on an aircraft and it's no longer made or stocked, then yes there will be extra cost as it has to go through certification, testing, flammability, tooling and various other things. So while the top line price may be high for the bin, but a breakdown of costs would indicate where the money is going. Overcharging? perhaps and possible, but more info needed.
All the certifications for all that were done well before. This price change only began in 2020. Boeing had been charging $300 for the trash can for at least a decade prior. The current change is just exploiting the system.
Moreover the 707, which is basically what these trash cans were made for, entered service in _1957_.
Sometimes a spade is just a spade, greed is just greed and you don't need to bend over backwards to find an excuse for bigcorp.
Moreover the 707, which is basically what these trash cans were made for, entered service in _1957_.
Sometimes a spade is just a spade, greed is just greed and you don't need to bend over backwards to find an excuse for bigcorp.
That’s all well and good, but as soon as the mass manufacturing of the item halts, it’s no time at all before the assembly machinery is dismantled, the people reskilled, software updated, supply chains cut, etc.
So when they’re approached to make some more, what are they going to do? The easy answer is turn down the request, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Then they’d have said something like “the person who made these retired three years ago, the machinery is now scrap metal, the software for that machinery is on a floppy disk in a recycling centre somewhere, I don’t even know how who sold us the materials, and whatever we can do to replicate it would be considered a new product that has to go through testing again. So if you want this it’d take a lot of resources, and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
To which the response would have been: “get it done.”
I’m sure there was some added on to sweeten the deal, mind, but that isn’t the outrageous thing, nor would it be as dramatic as it sounds. The outrageous thing is that Boeing would have specifically outlined the end of production of components years in advance, and that would have been opportunity to buy and stockpile while the price was reasonable. Of course, some middle manager would have said “lol no it’s just a bin, we will just get one from Walmart”, and the complications would have only been realised when it was too late.
So when they’re approached to make some more, what are they going to do? The easy answer is turn down the request, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Then they’d have said something like “the person who made these retired three years ago, the machinery is now scrap metal, the software for that machinery is on a floppy disk in a recycling centre somewhere, I don’t even know how who sold us the materials, and whatever we can do to replicate it would be considered a new product that has to go through testing again. So if you want this it’d take a lot of resources, and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
To which the response would have been: “get it done.”
I’m sure there was some added on to sweeten the deal, mind, but that isn’t the outrageous thing, nor would it be as dramatic as it sounds. The outrageous thing is that Boeing would have specifically outlined the end of production of components years in advance, and that would have been opportunity to buy and stockpile while the price was reasonable. Of course, some middle manager would have said “lol no it’s just a bin, we will just get one from Walmart”, and the complications would have only been realised when it was too late.
Short answer: obsolescence. The article hints at that, prices increased once the 707 was no longer considered a commercial product. I guess here, but the initial contract stipulated prize stability for a certain period after the last 707 delivery and them something about retirement of the 707 fleet.
Getting small quatities for obsolete aircraft parts, even in the civilian world, costs fortunes.
And yes, if it was (speculation) a new production run, all the manufacturing most likely needed re-certification: new production site, new production tech and so on. Maybe even certification to whatever standard was used for the original 707 / E-3, which might even be impossible (surface treatment that is now illegal due to EHS reasons, material norms being obsolete requiring new certification of the part using e.g. plastics with another norm...).
Plus the obligatory surcharge for the endless pockets of the litteral Pentagon.
Getting small quatities for obsolete aircraft parts, even in the civilian world, costs fortunes.
And yes, if it was (speculation) a new production run, all the manufacturing most likely needed re-certification: new production site, new production tech and so on. Maybe even certification to whatever standard was used for the original 707 / E-3, which might even be impossible (surface treatment that is now illegal due to EHS reasons, material norms being obsolete requiring new certification of the part using e.g. plastics with another norm...).
Plus the obligatory surcharge for the endless pockets of the litteral Pentagon.
Love that it’s always the three names I think of when I read these articles too.
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.
I'm guessing that what's happening here is that Boeing could be making more money doing something other than building trash cans, and so is sending an absurdly exorbitant quote to their customer to communicate "stop buying this".
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...
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...
I believe that Boeing is doing what any rational economic actor would do in this situation. To the extent that there is a problem here, I see it as a regulatory problem.
You also have requirements that are very different than other industries. Make a part for Boeing? All the plans, production records, testing and certifications, need to be kept for 50 years
Air force has been asking the congress to retire these 50+ year old planes, and replace them with more modern ones that Boeing has already been selling to other countries at $400 million each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C
Cricket cricket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C
Cricket cricket.
Ripping off the federal government has been an American tradition since the Civil War - https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20...
It was a tradition long before that.
People kept talking corruptions in Russian military. Remember they have only about 60B usd a year and able to hold off entire NATO offensive in Ukraine while USA got defeated by Talebans on near 10T usd budget. Who has more corruptions problem? Seriously why I get taxed by IRS while they get to spent corruptly and still keep telling me how bad Russians misused their 60B and had to fight with some kind of shovels? Look at those Generals and contractors living. A lot of them earning way more than those in senior position of sillicon tech. So many of American weapons fall flat in ME and Ukraine. If you guys know people working in military maintenance, the amount of fixing are just mind boggling for such expensive weaponry and yet still fail in real war.
What NATO offensive in Ukraine? There is no NATO offensive in Ukraine. It kept getting shot down by vatniks claiming it would start World War 3.
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.
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.
Same as Russian corruption, albeit on a smaller scale.
Why do they do it? Because they can escape retribution.
Recourse - possibly, after they fight and defeat warrior lobbyists(in mortal combat BTW, as they see an existential threat to their golf club membership at mar-a-largo)
i'm not convinced boeing is price-gouging here. how many customers are there for this trash can? in 2020 the pentagon bought four of them. if nobody else bought any, and boeing had to set up a production line just to make four of them, there's a real possibility that process actually costs something on the order of $200k once you factor in the time of all the people who had to be part of that decision-making process, testing it meets specs, procurement of materials to meet the spec of a ten-year-old production, etc.
the air force has machinists and qualified people who can repair their old planes, so presumably if this was just something you could bang together out of sheet metal they would have.
the air force has machinists and qualified people who can repair their old planes, so presumably if this was just something you could bang together out of sheet metal they would have.
Have you ever tried to actually work with the government? Even with internal champions the paperwork is staggering. Even with all the laws that are supposed to encourage smaller companies to work with the government, the paperwork and systems you have to navigate to land, let alone, complete a contract is insane. It’s driving the smaller, more focused contractors right out of business/government contracts. When those small, honest, firms close all that is left are the huge firms. And those companies are quite adept at wringing every dollar out of the government and establishing contracts that pay over years and years.
It’s so frustrating.
It’s so frustrating.
That's chump change, I once saw a $22 million hard drive. I held it in my hands, and even plugged it in to grab data off it. And it wasn't even FOUO, it was fully unclassified.
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
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
Where's Harry Truman when we need him?
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/11/1175403633/truman-committee-b...
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/11/1175403633/truman-committee-b...
This also shows once more how you cannot measure military strength of nations by budget. For example, US military spending is X times that of Russia, therefore the US army must be stronger. Or F35 costs so many mamy dollars, it has to be a super duper aircraft.
Something tells me they've changed their trash can build pipeline to microservices.
"Trash cans" is a simplification, IMHO. They're containerized garbage collection utilities orchestrated by a cloud-native Dumpster Swarm service.
This is similar to hospitals sometimes billing $300 for a simple saline IV bag. Creative accounting where the cost of highly scrutinized items is reduced, so other items are inflated to essentially make up for the difference.
I think this idea is disproven in the first couple paragraphs by simply comparing markup over previous payments:
> 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.
> In 2020, the Pentagon paid Boeing over $200,000 for four of the trash cans, translating to roughly $51,606 per unit. In a 2021 contract, the company charged $36,640 each for 11 trash containers, resulting in a total cost of more than $400,000. The apparent overcharge cost taxpayers an extra $600,000 between the two contracts.
> In another case, Lockheed Martin hiked the price of an electrical conduit for the P-3 plane as much as 14 fold, costing the Pentagon an additional $133,000 between 2008 and 2015.
> Jamaica Bearings — a company that distributes parts manufactured by other firms — sold the Department of Defense 13 radio filters that had once cost $350 each for nearly $49,000 per unit in 2022. The apparent markup cost taxpayers more than $600,000 in extra fees.
> 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.
> In 2020, the Pentagon paid Boeing over $200,000 for four of the trash cans, translating to roughly $51,606 per unit. In a 2021 contract, the company charged $36,640 each for 11 trash containers, resulting in a total cost of more than $400,000. The apparent overcharge cost taxpayers an extra $600,000 between the two contracts.
> In another case, Lockheed Martin hiked the price of an electrical conduit for the P-3 plane as much as 14 fold, costing the Pentagon an additional $133,000 between 2008 and 2015.
> Jamaica Bearings — a company that distributes parts manufactured by other firms — sold the Department of Defense 13 radio filters that had once cost $350 each for nearly $49,000 per unit in 2022. The apparent markup cost taxpayers more than $600,000 in extra fees.
The 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 the Senate results:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/12/16/moral-and-polit...
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
very few righteous people in Soddom, and even those - who knows how they would vote if their Nay actually had a chance to block the bill.
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 the Senate results:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/12/16/moral-and-polit...
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
very few righteous people in Soddom, and even those - who knows how they would vote if their Nay actually had a chance to block the bill.
[deleted]
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.
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.
A vote of Nay on the military budget is not directly a vote of Aye on infrastructure spending.
Also jobs are not really transferable. So all the military people need to be less mad at you than the infrastructure people are now happy with you; otherwise you lose at re-election.
Like you need to figure out what the transition is from using military as an employment welfare to construction as an employment welfare and why the US will stick to that transition at each phase. That's a lot of work; much easier as a politician to not rock that boat.
Also jobs are not really transferable. So all the military people need to be less mad at you than the infrastructure people are now happy with you; otherwise you lose at re-election.
Like you need to figure out what the transition is from using military as an employment welfare to construction as an employment welfare and why the US will stick to that transition at each phase. That's a lot of work; much easier as a politician to not rock that boat.
War is better of course /s
Yes but you can never sell this to the right. You have to package it up into something like "fight the war" or "build a wall" (another useless project that's only meant as a job creation program to boost support in areas where the president needs it). Conservatives and liberals alike agree on job creation programs
> Yes but you can never sell this to the right.
Just don't delude yourself that "the right" is the Republican parties. Both large political parties in the US are staunchly right-wing parties by most criteria.
> Conservatives and liberals alike agree on job creation programs
No, they do not. I mean, they agree on funding large corporations and the military as though that's a job creation program.
Just don't delude yourself that "the right" is the Republican parties. Both large political parties in the US are staunchly right-wing parties by most criteria.
> Conservatives and liberals alike agree on job creation programs
No, they do not. I mean, they agree on funding large corporations and the military as though that's a job creation program.
Your approach worked rather well for the Germans getting over the economic crisis in the 1930s. The events of the early 1940s, however, gave them cause to reconsider this course of action.
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.
If your district has a bunch of window factories; it's probably in your best interest to keep crime high.
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.
Boeing is mass producing parts for 737s. They are no longer doing so for 707s.
[deleted]
How do people feel about the submarine disaster?
I think they sailed too close to the wind, but there's always going to be an element of risk in some things. Saving thousands of dollars by using a PlayStation controller might be smart, and even make the sub safer (if you put savings towards a hull that won't implode). Some people might say that you should never cut a corner if lives are on the line, and if that's the case they can't complain about a $52,000 trash can, or that 5 major contractors are now the only ones able to compete for contracts.
I think they sailed too close to the wind, but there's always going to be an element of risk in some things. Saving thousands of dollars by using a PlayStation controller might be smart, and even make the sub safer (if you put savings towards a hull that won't implode). Some people might say that you should never cut a corner if lives are on the line, and if that's the case they can't complain about a $52,000 trash can, or that 5 major contractors are now the only ones able to compete for contracts.
The optimist in me was hoping it was one of those bomb-proof trash cans, like the kinds designed as a result of the 2004 bombings in Madrid.
Is it that much worse than $999 monitor stand?
If only everyone paid their fair share!
[deleted]
If you haven't worked in the government it can be hard to appreciate how many rules there are around procurement and how complex and sometimes crazy they are. At one project I worked on we used Red Hat enterprise Linux because the rules prohibited "freeware" and Red Hat was nice enough to charge us money for the CDs the operating system came on. It was going on a classified machine so taking advantage of the features that differentiated it from the free Fedora version was out of the question but rules are rules. But generally the rules that applied to me working at an FFRDC were much less burdensome than some of those my friends who have worked at defense contractors have had to deal with.
All of which is to say that while it's absurd for a trash can to have a price of $50,000, we can't be sure that this doesn't actually reflect changes in the actual cost structure of providing it. The rules are different for providing commercial off the shelf (COTS) goods versus specially procured goods. There are a lot of rules and regulations that would apply to the later but not the former. What if the old version was made in Mexico, for instance? Then you might have to go to a US company and get them to analyze the old version to figure out what composition the plastic is, create new molds to the exact specifications as the old shape, and have your new parts certified as identical to the old parts while being produced 100% in the US by US people.
Which isn't to say that defense or other contractors can't be huge sleazeballs who try to gouge the government sometimes. And sometimes this is outright corruption like the time that one guy in the DoD who was leaving for a job at LabView soon said another group where I worked was going to have to redo our work in LabView and we should get in bed with a corporation too. But this was on a recorded meeting so we were able to get that decision reversed. But often the way it works is that defense contractors working on cost-plus contracts do their best to interpret regulations in such a way as to maximize their costs so that they maximize their profits.
Preventing outright corruption like with the LabView guy is really important but the complicated rules we write to try to prevent that sometimes end up producing requirements documents that let a defense contractor claim with a straight face that the $47,000 they spent producing the trash was all legally mandated expenses and then they get to sell it to the government for $52,000 and pocket the standard 10% of the $5,000 difference.
I don't have a good solution for how to fix this in defense specifically, but Alon Levy's work on why transit costs are ten times larger in the US than in Spain or Italy seems like a good starting point. Or I'm currently reading ReCoding America which promises to give some insight on government software porcurement.
All of which is to say that while it's absurd for a trash can to have a price of $50,000, we can't be sure that this doesn't actually reflect changes in the actual cost structure of providing it. The rules are different for providing commercial off the shelf (COTS) goods versus specially procured goods. There are a lot of rules and regulations that would apply to the later but not the former. What if the old version was made in Mexico, for instance? Then you might have to go to a US company and get them to analyze the old version to figure out what composition the plastic is, create new molds to the exact specifications as the old shape, and have your new parts certified as identical to the old parts while being produced 100% in the US by US people.
Which isn't to say that defense or other contractors can't be huge sleazeballs who try to gouge the government sometimes. And sometimes this is outright corruption like the time that one guy in the DoD who was leaving for a job at LabView soon said another group where I worked was going to have to redo our work in LabView and we should get in bed with a corporation too. But this was on a recorded meeting so we were able to get that decision reversed. But often the way it works is that defense contractors working on cost-plus contracts do their best to interpret regulations in such a way as to maximize their costs so that they maximize their profits.
Preventing outright corruption like with the LabView guy is really important but the complicated rules we write to try to prevent that sometimes end up producing requirements documents that let a defense contractor claim with a straight face that the $47,000 they spent producing the trash was all legally mandated expenses and then they get to sell it to the government for $52,000 and pocket the standard 10% of the $5,000 difference.
I don't have a good solution for how to fix this in defense specifically, but Alon Levy's work on why transit costs are ten times larger in the US than in Spain or Italy seems like a good starting point. Or I'm currently reading ReCoding America which promises to give some insight on government software porcurement.
Thought it was going to be about a decked out Mac Pro!
That’s how the national debt accumulated…
You can understand why any taxpayer of the US, after reading this, might question why an increase in the federal income tax is justified.
You might not be aware of this, but the USG separately decides how much to spend and how much to tax.
The difference commonly comes up every now and then when the Gov threatens to shutdown because congress decided to spend more than they decided to tax and eventually that difference catches up to them as that already approved spending is dispersed but there wasn't money to pay for it.
The difference commonly comes up every now and then when the Gov threatens to shutdown because congress decided to spend more than they decided to tax and eventually that difference catches up to them as that already approved spending is dispersed but there wasn't money to pay for it.
I dont understand what your point is. My point was clearly the government isnt optimizing their spend correctly. If the DOD spent $100 on the trash cans instead of $52K, there would be less "overspend" and taxes wouldnt need to go up as much.
Link returns “403 Forbidden” for me.
I mean it's obvious. Regulatory capture
> About half of the Biden administration’s $842 billion Pentagon budget request goes to contractors. In 2022, roughly 30 percent of military spending went to the “big five” weapons makers, which include Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.
> About half of the Biden administration’s $842 billion Pentagon budget request goes to contractors. In 2022, roughly 30 percent of military spending went to the “big five” weapons makers, which include Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.
must be some kind of advanced stealth trash can
This is why smaller government is better.
Also-- as Hunter Biden, John Kerry, Bruce Springsteen, etc. ad naseum-- have demonstrated, nobody really likes to pay taxes. Not even the very wealthy.
Also-- as Hunter Biden, John Kerry, Bruce Springsteen, etc. ad naseum-- have demonstrated, nobody really likes to pay taxes. Not even the very wealthy.
(2023) $52k trash can: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/20/the-pentagons-5...
> In 2020, the Pentagon paid Boeing over $200,000 for four of the trash cans, translating to roughly $51,606 per unit. In a 2021 contract, the company charged $36,640 each for 11 trash containers, resulting in a total cost of more than $400,000. The apparent overcharge cost taxpayers an extra $600,000 between the two contracts.
> In another case, Lockheed Martin hiked the price of an electrical conduit for the P-3 plane as much as 14 fold, costing the Pentagon an additional $133,000 between 2008 and 2015.
> Jamaica Bearings — a company that distributes parts manufactured by other firms — sold the Department of Defense 13 radio filters that had once cost $350 each for nearly $49,000 per unit in 2022. The apparent markup cost taxpayers more than $600,000 in extra fees.
(2018) $10k toilet seat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-...
> U.S. Air Force paid about $10,000 each to replace toilet seat covers on the C-5 Galaxy, a Vietnam-era military cargo plane that is still in service, at least three times and as recently as last year.
(1985) $34,560 for 54 toilet covers ($640 each) by Lockheed: https://web.archive.org/web/20081017195946/http://www.time.c...
> President Ronald Reagan held a televised news conference in 1987, where he held up one of these shrouds and stated: "We didn't buy any $600 toilet seat. We bought a $600 molded plastic cover for the entire toilet system."
(1983) $435 hammer (supposedly an accounting error): https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/41635361
> Questioning the $435 cost, the chief petty officer made agency inquiries. This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted by the Naval Audit Service, which determined that the Gould contract contained "excess costs of about $729,000." The Pentagon responded by issuing a public announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould, but also that the DoD needed to make "major changes" in the way it procured spare parts. Although Gould believed that the Navy's audit was flawed, it agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84,000 in August 1983 to appease the DoD.
> In 2020, the Pentagon paid Boeing over $200,000 for four of the trash cans, translating to roughly $51,606 per unit. In a 2021 contract, the company charged $36,640 each for 11 trash containers, resulting in a total cost of more than $400,000. The apparent overcharge cost taxpayers an extra $600,000 between the two contracts.
> In another case, Lockheed Martin hiked the price of an electrical conduit for the P-3 plane as much as 14 fold, costing the Pentagon an additional $133,000 between 2008 and 2015.
> Jamaica Bearings — a company that distributes parts manufactured by other firms — sold the Department of Defense 13 radio filters that had once cost $350 each for nearly $49,000 per unit in 2022. The apparent markup cost taxpayers more than $600,000 in extra fees.
(2018) $10k toilet seat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-...
> U.S. Air Force paid about $10,000 each to replace toilet seat covers on the C-5 Galaxy, a Vietnam-era military cargo plane that is still in service, at least three times and as recently as last year.
(1985) $34,560 for 54 toilet covers ($640 each) by Lockheed: https://web.archive.org/web/20081017195946/http://www.time.c...
> President Ronald Reagan held a televised news conference in 1987, where he held up one of these shrouds and stated: "We didn't buy any $600 toilet seat. We bought a $600 molded plastic cover for the entire toilet system."
(1983) $435 hammer (supposedly an accounting error): https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/41635361
> Questioning the $435 cost, the chief petty officer made agency inquiries. This led to several agency investigations and an audit conducted by the Naval Audit Service, which determined that the Gould contract contained "excess costs of about $729,000." The Pentagon responded by issuing a public announcement that Gould had overcharged the Navy and that not only was the DoD seeking immediate repayment from Gould, but also that the DoD needed to make "major changes" in the way it procured spare parts. Although Gould believed that the Navy's audit was flawed, it agreed to make a good faith repayment of $84,000 in August 1983 to appease the DoD.
its legal
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-shelf, or completely boutique stuff, and of course implemented in such a way that the clients (that would be us) can't just access the code themselves, or that clients can just build upon or make wrappers.
The contractor will send you their own techs or engineers - even if it's across the world - to fix the most trivial bugs. And it will take months or planning, budgeting, and what not.
In once instance, one contractor tech spotted a bug in the code, which some user had reported about - it was a one character fix, just a typo, really. So he fixed it on the spot, along with the rest of the stuff he came for.
A couple of weeks later he comes back, and reverses the bug. He had told his manager about the bug fix, and was berated for fixing in. In order to fix that bug, it had to be reported correctly, go through software update meetings, go through budgets, and the whole nine yards.
The bug was reported the correct way, and many months later he came back to fix it (again).
The whole process of specs and updates was like pulling teeth.