Blue Posted October 21, 2018 Posted October 21, 2018 1 hour ago, skibum said: We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants. Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M. A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense. 9 minutes ago, MooseClub said: If ever we’re in a near-peer war the country would need not only the military but the entire defense industry functioning at its highest level. Defending the country means keeping that industry, in addition to the military, as strong as possible. The unfortunate part is it certainly creates a degree of waste and inefficiency in the meantime "A degree of waste and inefficiency" is one thing. Paying Lockheed ~$45M for a capability than can be had for ~$1M isn't "a degree of waste and inefficiency." It's fraud, and it's obscene. If we were actually concerned about keeping the defense-industrial base healthy, we'd be deploying those $1M sims, and using the $44M of savings on other things. What military capabilities could we have added with that extra money? How could we have expanded our industrial base, instead of just feeding the bloat at a few behemoths (Lockheed, Boeing, etc)? If we're really concerned about keeping the defense industrial base healthy for a near-peer war, we would be a lot better off spreading the money around to different, smaller companies, rather than shoveling it all into Lockheed's cash furnace. 1
Homestar Posted October 21, 2018 Posted October 21, 2018 1961: Beware the complex. 2019: Don’t mess with the complex. 3 1
MooseClub Posted October 21, 2018 Posted October 21, 2018 1 minute ago, Blue said: "A degree of waste and inefficiency" is one thing. Paying Lockheed ~$45M for a capability than can be had for ~$1M isn't "a degree of waste and inefficiency." It's fraud, and it's obscene. If we were actually concerned about keeping the defense-industrial base healthy, we'd be deploying those $1M sims, and using the $44M of savings on other things. What military capabilities could we have added with that extra money? How could we have expanded our industrial base, instead of just feeding the bloat at a few behemoths (Lockheed, Boeing, etc)? If we're really concerned about keeping the defense industrial base healthy for a near-peer war, we would be a lot better off spreading the money around to different, smaller companies, rather than shoveling it all into Lockheed's cash furnace. I hear you and don’t disagree. But the arguement is the model has worked for a long time. Not saying it’s perfect or right. Bottom line is keeping those “behemoths” strong has worked for the country since WWII. When things work in national defense for that long nobody in a position to change things is going to be quick to change the model
Blue Posted October 21, 2018 Posted October 21, 2018 15 minutes ago, MooseClub said: I hear you and don’t disagree. But the arguement is the model has worked for a long time. Not saying it’s perfect or right. Bottom line is keeping those “behemoths” strong has worked for the country since WWII. When things work in national defense for that long nobody in a position to change things is going to be quick to change the model The "model" changed with the so-called "peace dividend" of the 90's, and the associated waves of consolidation in the defense industry. Whereas previously you had many realistic competitors for any contract, post-90's you're down to just 2-3 companies competing for any business. This lack of competition stifles innovation, and drives up costs. Hence $45M for a capability that could realistically be accomplished for a fraction of that cost. It'll never be perfect, and we'll never have a defense-industrial base that's free of all waste and inefficiency. However today, we have a monster that consumes more and more treasure, while producing less and less for the national defense.
Clark Griswold Posted October 21, 2018 Posted October 21, 2018 3 hours ago, skibum said: The sales pitch does not matter. Efficiency does not matter. This would make less money for the top defense contractors therefore it is not viable. I worked in simulator research for a while when we created the first high fidelity simulator based on commercial off-the-shelf parts. We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants. We created ours from scratch, in one year using active duty labor. Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M. We were ordered to cease and desist. A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense. You've got a point but mainly for the US Defense Establishment, our Allies are far more price conscious than we are. Paradoxically though they have mission systems that have a second role as jobs programs too, particularly with the Euros, no slight at them just an observation. This modular system to a light jet(s) fleet might attract buyers from nations with little to no margin for pork. Good anecdote and I see the point relayed to you by the SESs, defense contractors are subsidized in a non-acknowledged but open secret way with some validity to it. The problem is that it has the second order effects of entitlement and complacency that keeps the industrial base alive but not healthy and innovative necessarily. IDK, I've had this discussion or ones like it over my career at various places and vantage points, now with a little perspective as I approach Old Fart status I think keeping the Industrial Base engaged and the AF adaptive and not stagnant we would do better to buy less "Silver Bullet" type platforms that are once in a generation or two purchases. Diversify the portfolio with higher numbers of modest systems to compliment the high end, we say we do this (Hi Lo mix) but it just doesn't seem to actually work out that way. Strategically staggering purchases for the USAF, USN, USMC, USA, etc... could be a method to keep a steady stream of contracts but that's not the trend of the last 20 years or so..
war007afa Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 11 hours ago, skibum said: The sales pitch does not matter. Efficiency does not matter. This would make less money for the top defense contractors therefore it is not viable. I worked in simulator research for a while when we created the first high fidelity simulator based on commercial off-the-shelf parts. We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants. We created ours from scratch, in one year using active duty labor. Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M. We were ordered to cease and desist. A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense. My favorite part of this story is how the SES crowd waited a year/$1M to tell y’all to stop
Vito Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 Any idea what the next “T” designation will be for the new TX? T-8; T-9????
nsplayr Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 AETC is soliciting names for the T-X. Likely to be designated the “T-7A” according to the email I saw today. They’re looking for both “historic” and “forward-thinking/innovative” names. I have no good suggestions but happy to submit the best of what the peanut gallery has to offer! Actually, I’ll start the ball rolling with the T-7A “Kickback” for a nod to Acting Sec. Shannahan and the fine executives at Boeing who I’m sure don’t have any improper conversations about any of this out on the golf course... 🤣 Can’t wait for my super sweet Boeing A-7B Corsair III light attack jet in 6-9 more years! Although with A-7 having already been used they may be hamstringing that idea already...
Clark Griswold Posted January 26, 2019 Posted January 26, 2019 (edited) Non-Binary Air Warrior Edited January 26, 2019 by Clark Griswold
Bergman Posted January 26, 2019 Posted January 26, 2019 5 hours ago, DEVIL said: Texan II // Talon II Following the convention of “First basic trainer name” II then “first advanced trainer name” II....I would go with Trojan II!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now