5 ms·

Ok dumb question; if it's so damn broken why are we paying Lockheed Martin for it? Did someone not think to put a term in their contracts saying that if they ca

by tibbon 10y ago

Ok dumb question; if it's so damn broken why are we paying Lockheed Martin for it? Did someone not think to put a term in their contracts saying that if they can't meet basic milestones (working software) that the US Government (and the people) aren't going to pay for it? It's just software...

bardworx 10y ago
From my understanding, parts to this jet are made all over the US so its beneficial for US to keep paying which retains jobs in so many states. This plane is highly political and its not really easy to "pull the plug" or not pay since many states will loose workforce. Robert Gates wrote a chapter in his book about it that was fascinating. http://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/030794963X http://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/03079...
jsprogrammer 10y ago
Why would LM sign such a contract?
- tormeh 10y ago
  Hopefully they wouldn't, when you look at the end result of their contribution to the project.
acomjean 10y ago
You'd have to rebid it, and who would take it? A lot of these are "cost plus" contracts (the government pays the cost + a fixed % profit, and bonuses for meeting delivery dates). This has been railed against as wasteful compared to the private industry [1] This is some of the thought process (from article:) "I've talked several times this year about the importance of having mature technology before you go into production," Thornberry said. "A lot of what happens with cost-plus situations is the technology's not mature so you don't know what it's going to cost because you haven't invented it yet. That's exactly what we're trying to get away from." So the more excuses the companies make the more money make (the spec changed..), as long as you can get someone to sign off on it. The cynic in me notes that a lot of these companies have former military heads as presidents. [1]http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/25/mccain-lrsb-air-force-bomber-block-northrop-boeing-lockheed/80921324/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/25/mc...
cmdrfred 10y ago
It's likely that Lockheed's lobbyists wrote the contract.
hackuser 10y ago
> if it's so damn broken why are we paying Lockheed Martin for it? I think it may still be in beta, or the equivalent.
johngalt 10y ago
The program is there to transfer money from the federal government to various states that have Lockheed subcontractors. The aircraft is a byproduct.
azemPC 10y ago
Because most of these defense contracts are glorified job bills for various districts disguised as beefing up US Defense.

by tibbon 10y ago

bardworx 10y ago

From my understanding, parts to this jet are made all over the US so its beneficial for US to keep paying which retains jobs in so many states. This plane is highly political and its not really easy to "pull the plug" or not pay since many states will loose workforce. Robert Gates wrote a chapter in his book about it that was fascinating. http://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/030794963X http://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War/dp/03079...

jsprogrammer 10y ago

Why would LM sign such a contract?

tormeh 10y ago
Hopefully they wouldn't, when you look at the end result of their contribution to the project.

acomjean 10y ago

You'd have to rebid it, and who would take it? A lot of these are "cost plus" contracts (the government pays the cost + a fixed % profit, and bonuses for meeting delivery dates). This has been railed against as wasteful compared to the private industry [1] This is some of the thought process (from article:) "I've talked several times this year about the importance of having mature technology before you go into production," Thornberry said. "A lot of what happens with cost-plus situations is the technology's not mature so you don't know what it's going to cost because you haven't invented it yet. That's exactly what we're trying to get away from." So the more excuses the companies make the more money make (the spec changed..), as long as you can get someone to sign off on it. The cynic in me notes that a lot of these companies have former military heads as presidents. [1]http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/25/mccain-lrsb-air-force-bomber-block-northrop-boeing-lockheed/80921324/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/25/mc...

cmdrfred 10y ago

It's likely that Lockheed's lobbyists wrote the contract.

hackuser 10y ago

> if it's so damn broken why are we paying Lockheed Martin for it? I think it may still be in beta, or the equivalent.

johngalt 10y ago

The program is there to transfer money from the federal government to various states that have Lockheed subcontractors. The aircraft is a byproduct.

azemPC 10y ago

Because most of these defense contracts are glorified job bills for various districts disguised as beefing up US Defense.