9 ms·

One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment

93 points by dsr12 7y ago

noahmbarr 7y ago
In addition to right to repair, couldn’t the military contract based durability / SLA standards?
- kop316 7y ago
  I wish I had your optimism. They usually do have those. But when they blow then off, there's usually very little recourse the government can do. There is usually very little in a contract language for what happens when they get blown off, so the person with the broken Humvee (as an example) has to contact the appropriate government entity (contracting officer) to contact the company rep. So the company gets a slap on the hand. The government can threaten to end the contract, but that is a nuclear option. The biggest (realistic) stick the government can have is to threaten to not renew a contract, but when you talk about a Humvee (to continue the example), that sadly is totally unrealistic. So the contractor knows they have a monopoly and have no incentive to work harder. I'll tell you a story on a very large program I was on. We did developmental testing for a very large platform (Billions of dollars). We had a prime (Company A) who gave specifications for a form factor to Company B. For months, we told Company A that the Line Replaceable unit (LRU) that goes into the platform would not fit, and it took us eight months for Company A to admit there was even a problem. We only got them to admit there was a problem because we literally had a general officer come out to the test site and try to fit in the LRU himself. What ended up being the issue? Company A gave the wrong size specifications to Company B. Guess what happened? The government had to pay to retrofit the design so the LRU would fit. We simply had no stick to make them pay for their mistake. The company said if they had to pay for it, they wouldn't have enough money for the rest of testing. And also guess what? no one in the government wants to be in charge of a failed program.
  - close04 7y ago
    In addition, while there are fines stipulated in any such contract for breach of SLA, in reality it's almost always cheaper to pay the fine than actually meet the SLA. One would ask "why not increase the fine?". The answer is nobody would sign a contract with you without guaranteed profit. So if the risk outweighs the reward there's no deal.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Couldn't you do something like make (via legislation) any item on commercial sale subject to a minimum 10 year warranty on workmanship [for military purchasers] for repair or replacement, up to a value of X% of company revenue. When you made a lemon, surely it's then cheaper to replace with a current product than it is to go to court; and being a military supplier would be a high status indication so don't companies (any making products that aren't adjective crap) should still want to make money through creating good products?
      - kop316 7y ago
        You can't be forced to actually work with the government. So if the governmeny makes it too much of a PITA, no one will bid or they will make the contract costs incredibly high.
        cannonedhamster 7y ago
        Actually, yeah you can. Happened in WW2. People can be drafted and stop lossed. Entire factories were taken over, wages were frozen, and product shortages happened due to military need. If people can't make a profit building military units perhaps it's time the military starts building it's own skills again.
        kop316 7y ago
        That will never happen in a post-Vietnam era, outside of the US fighting for it's existence.
      - 7y ago
- rtkwe 7y ago
  It talks about the exact transition that caused them to go towards not doing that a few paragraphs in... Corporate consolidation and an move away from developing their own equipment meant the DoD had to become a better customer and accept terms from a corporate supplier. > In alignment with this new paradigm, policymakers simplified the Federal Acquisition Regulation in 1994 and 1995, exempting “commercial items” from a large portion of the rules (as well as expanding the definition of what is a commercial item to include goods that could be seen as specialized military goods). Congress also encouraged federal agencies to purchase commercial items “to the maximum extent practicable.” These changes fueled high rates of commercial purchases, which, coupled with consolidation in the defense industry, contributed to the Defense Department’s increased use of commercial technology and the negotiation of single-source contracts. > Ultimately, the power dynamics shifted between the Defense Department and commercial industry, forcing the department to accept warranties, contracts or prices that it could previously avoid — all thanks to changes in research and development funding, regulations and a lack of competition. Either way I'm glad it's become an issue for the military. Makes me more hopeful it'll be adopted since it can be framed with some good ol' flag waving jingoistic military worship along side the other issues like e-Waste and consumer rights.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    Known in government circles as Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS). It's the military's attempt to avoid redesigning the wheel when they need something that the civilian market also needs. I know from my interactions with the DOD supply chain that few, if any, people think about the warranty implications of COTS hardware beyond making sure there is support from the manufacturer. This isn't too bad when the COTS hardware is a smallish component of a larger system that a unit can replace from spares if there is a failure (which is where the COTS movement started). It's a much bigger deal when the entire larger system is itself a COTS bundle, as is the case in this article.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      What I'm a little afraid of is the congress will just carve out a warranty exception for the military as a bandaid to fix this specific issue without addressing right to repair on the whole. I could easily see them passing a law that basically says 'warranties shall not be considered void due to repairs made as part of a military mission' or something similar (wrapped in way more legalese) and leaving it at that or giving the full right to repair, ie: suppliers must provide CAD, board schematics, and make available replacement parts, but only for the military.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Yes, certainly but that isn't the goal. The Military Industrial Complex is nastily organic in the sense that self-perpetuation is what wins out. In this case the graft in both bueracratic overspeccing mazes and profiteering.
- jacobush 7y ago
  The tail is often wagging the dog, so... maybe?
bitlax 7y ago
What is the workaround for the New York Times paywall?
- ProAm 7y ago
  Paying for content you want to read. Good journalism isn't cheap, this is one of those things you shouldnt pirate.
  - lostgame 7y ago
    If I could pay somehow on a per-article basis, for the articles I stumbled upon - I would. I don’t regularly read NYT and would have no use for a monthly subscription as HN is the only place I see (unfortunately) regularly posting from NYT. What we need is some kind of universal pass for articles that you pay a monthly fee for, and then as you read the articles from the sites it supports, it pays that publisher. Additionally, the poster asked for a workaround - not to be lambasted for their choice to do so. :)
    - corebit 7y ago
      Sounds like Brave's BAT!
    - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
      Brave Browser is an attempt at something similar.
    - rb808 7y ago
      If you create an account you get 5 free articles a month so that should suit you fine.
      - ISL 7y ago
        I'd do it (and indeed have done it, but don't use the account), if I didn't have to be tracked in order to read....
Spooky23 7y ago
I think that it made sense to do make the contract changes back in the 90s, as technology was moving super-fast on the hardware side. It's time to reconsider. Fundamental technology advancement has slowed down considerably, and most vendors are transitioning to rent-seeking models as their ability to get revenue through organic replacement is gone.
mothsonasloth 7y ago
The British military have the same problems. It's disgusting how a prestigious military force has been reduced to a pitiful size reliant on contractors to install airconditioning units, weekend warriors who fly in and out on short tours and vehicles that have had "extended life" programs instead of making new ones. Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese have been building next generation ground, air and sea units. The UK have two aircraft carriers which were designed in the early 2000s. Sure we have our own innovative equipment but as the article says, they are operated and maintained by civilian technicians. Are the technicians going to fly in to a warzone or if push comes to shove pickup a M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas and fight when the Russians come rolling through the Fulda gap.
- varjag 7y ago
  > The UK have two aircraft carriers which were designed in the early 2000s. That's sparkling new for an aircraft carrier tho, and it's two more seaworthy carriers than Russia has.
  - Semiapies 7y ago
    All the yammering about "reduced to a pitiful size" aside, the world's navies are basically the USN, the RN, and everyone else sitting in the Honorable Mentions section.
- paganel 7y ago
  > M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas and fight when the Russians come rolling through the Fulda gap. Not to be a downer, but judging by the most recent European land war (the one in Ukraine) just picking up a "M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas" won't do that much in terms of stopping the enemy, you need kick-ass artillery and a kick-ass air-force, otherwise you're just sending those men into a meat grinder. That, of course, if we don't engage in a nuclear war, in which case the discussion is totally different.
  - captainredbeard 7y ago
    Combined arms existed in the 1980s.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
I always wonder what they will do if there is a big war (maybe one that affects the homeland which is something the US is not used to) and the contractors decide fighting in this war is not good for business or they just want more money? Are they going to suspend IP laws and other contracts? It seems really weird that to have a military that’s dependent on other parties they can’t control. This structure works ok if you have wars in other countries with weak enemies and you are just wasting money. But what about a big war where the nation has to put all resources into the war effort?
- jlawson 7y ago
  They'll just nationalize the factories. Not just existing military factories - civilian infrastructure will be converted where possible. E.g. a car factory changes to making military vehicles. If necessary, guys with guns will arrive to ensure that production continues. Lots of historical references on this sort of thing from the WW2 era.
  - marcoseliziario 7y ago
    Exactly. That's what happened in the WWII. This nice tesla factory? Well, we need some nice silent patrol vehicles mr Musk, but we need you to come out with some kind of composite armor for it in 60 days. If you can't do it, don't worry, we will take care of your factory for the duration, and when this is over you can have it again.
- travisoneill1 7y ago
  > a military that’s dependent on other parties they can’t control What makes you think the military can't control them?
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    At what point are they taking control versus handing over tons of money as done in recent wars? Is there a procedure for that?
dsalzman 7y ago
I worked on a predictive maintenance project on the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle in a previous job. It was eye opening to say the least.
- dfsegoat 7y ago
  Could you elaborate? I'm a sucker for esoteric defense+tech anecdotes.
- Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
  There's a whole movie about it if you haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA unless this was an intentional reference, then, whoosh
opwieurposiu 7y ago
In the heat of battle, even the can openers stop working. All the wiz-bang equipment that is too delicate will quickly be abandoned, only the rugged and simple stuff will be useful. Tremendous amounts of money will be squandered, but war itself is an ecstasy of waste. Not sure how much it matters, Historically more equipment tends to win vs. better equipment.
gambler 7y ago
In the 60s science fiction we had all those advanced aliens who had artifacts that were nearly indestructible, worked forever and could output tons of energy. That was our vision of "high-tech". In the 80s we got the idea that maybe advanced aliens would have "smart" devices that could adapt to their environment, repair themselves and be incredibly versatile. In those decades SF technology has one thing in common, regardless of the specific narrative: it granted incredible agency to the person who wielded it. We also constantly tell ourselves that out technology advances forward, sometimes outpacing science fiction... Except the actual properties of our technology "evolve" in the opposite direction. We now have devices that are low-power, utterly fragile and dependent on tons of external services. Our real technology today takes our agency away. As the article points out, it's often deliberate. I sometimes entertain the idea of making a web comic where people have science fiction tech (spaceships, tasers, AI) with all our current problems: glitches, constant updates, loss of functionality due to poor connectivity, DRM, incomprehensible setup procedures, etc.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  Nothing stopping you from making your own brickish phone thingy that connects to lte, runs a powerful processor and has a huge battery. You could do it from commodity parts and it would be trivially reparable by slapping in bits you cheaply order off Amazon/New Egg. And compared to 1980, it would still be mind bogglingly sci-fi - it just wouldn't be as sleek and svelte as your new iPhone. But I do get your point. I do miss the days when my iPhone 4s would get horribly damaged, I'd order a part online, and a day later I have fixed it myself.
  - chmod775 7y ago
    That (kind of) phone already exists: https://www.fairphone.com/en/ https://www.fairphone.com/en/ It's pretty "brickish", but you can order replacement parts easily and service it yourself: https://shop.fairphone.com/en/spare-parts/ https://shop.fairphone.com/en/spare-parts/
  - lostgame 7y ago
    >> Nothing stopping you from making your own brickish phone thingy that connects to lte, runs a powerful processor and has a huge battery But the real issue is what does it run? Android? Seems contrary to the point of building your own device. There has yet to be a serious Mobile OS in the FOSS world that’s not tied in to the evils of Google, and still has e.g. baseband or phone call support.
davidf18 7y ago
Why is the military purchasing products that they aren't allowed to fix. They should make that a condition of sale. They are the military. They have financial leverage. I wonder how many of our troops are being harmed or killed because the equipment paid for by our tax money is not in working order. They NYT should ask those leading the military why they are signing contracts that don't absolutely require that the military be able to fix the equipment that they purchase.
ijiiijji1 7y ago
See also: iPadRehab, Louis Rossmann and that Tesla rebuilder guy.

93 points by dsr12 7y ago

noahmbarr 7y ago

In addition to right to repair, couldn’t the military contract based durability / SLA standards?

kop316 7y ago
I wish I had your optimism. They usually do have those. But when they blow then off, there's usually very little recourse the government can do. There is usually very little in a contract language for what happens when they get blown off, so the person with the broken Humvee (as an example) has to contact the appropriate government entity (contracting officer) to contact the company rep. So the company gets a slap on the hand. The government can threaten to end the contract, but that is a nuclear option. The biggest (realistic) stick the government can have is to threaten to not renew a contract, but when you talk about a Humvee (to continue the example), that sadly is totally unrealistic. So the contractor knows they have a monopoly and have no incentive to work harder. I'll tell you a story on a very large program I was on. We did developmental testing for a very large platform (Billions of dollars). We had a prime (Company A) who gave specifications for a form factor to Company B. For months, we told Company A that the Line Replaceable unit (LRU) that goes into the platform would not fit, and it took us eight months for Company A to admit there was even a problem. We only got them to admit there was a problem because we literally had a general officer come out to the test site and try to fit in the LRU himself. What ended up being the issue? Company A gave the wrong size specifications to Company B. Guess what happened? The government had to pay to retrofit the design so the LRU would fit. We simply had no stick to make them pay for their mistake. The company said if they had to pay for it, they wouldn't have enough money for the rest of testing. And also guess what? no one in the government wants to be in charge of a failed program.
- close04 7y ago
  In addition, while there are fines stipulated in any such contract for breach of SLA, in reality it's almost always cheaper to pay the fine than actually meet the SLA. One would ask "why not increase the fine?". The answer is nobody would sign a contract with you without guaranteed profit. So if the risk outweighs the reward there's no deal.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Couldn't you do something like make (via legislation) any item on commercial sale subject to a minimum 10 year warranty on workmanship [for military purchasers] for repair or replacement, up to a value of X% of company revenue. When you made a lemon, surely it's then cheaper to replace with a current product than it is to go to court; and being a military supplier would be a high status indication so don't companies (any making products that aren't adjective crap) should still want to make money through creating good products?
    - kop316 7y ago
      You can't be forced to actually work with the government. So if the governmeny makes it too much of a PITA, no one will bid or they will make the contract costs incredibly high.
      - cannonedhamster 7y ago
        Actually, yeah you can. Happened in WW2. People can be drafted and stop lossed. Entire factories were taken over, wages were frozen, and product shortages happened due to military need. If people can't make a profit building military units perhaps it's time the military starts building it's own skills again.
        kop316 7y ago
        That will never happen in a post-Vietnam era, outside of the US fighting for it's existence.
    - 7y ago
rtkwe 7y ago
It talks about the exact transition that caused them to go towards not doing that a few paragraphs in... Corporate consolidation and an move away from developing their own equipment meant the DoD had to become a better customer and accept terms from a corporate supplier. > In alignment with this new paradigm, policymakers simplified the Federal Acquisition Regulation in 1994 and 1995, exempting “commercial items” from a large portion of the rules (as well as expanding the definition of what is a commercial item to include goods that could be seen as specialized military goods). Congress also encouraged federal agencies to purchase commercial items “to the maximum extent practicable.” These changes fueled high rates of commercial purchases, which, coupled with consolidation in the defense industry, contributed to the Defense Department’s increased use of commercial technology and the negotiation of single-source contracts. > Ultimately, the power dynamics shifted between the Defense Department and commercial industry, forcing the department to accept warranties, contracts or prices that it could previously avoid — all thanks to changes in research and development funding, regulations and a lack of competition. Either way I'm glad it's become an issue for the military. Makes me more hopeful it'll be adopted since it can be framed with some good ol' flag waving jingoistic military worship along side the other issues like e-Waste and consumer rights.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  Known in government circles as Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS). It's the military's attempt to avoid redesigning the wheel when they need something that the civilian market also needs. I know from my interactions with the DOD supply chain that few, if any, people think about the warranty implications of COTS hardware beyond making sure there is support from the manufacturer. This isn't too bad when the COTS hardware is a smallish component of a larger system that a unit can replace from spares if there is a failure (which is where the COTS movement started). It's a much bigger deal when the entire larger system is itself a COTS bundle, as is the case in this article.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    What I'm a little afraid of is the congress will just carve out a warranty exception for the military as a bandaid to fix this specific issue without addressing right to repair on the whole. I could easily see them passing a law that basically says 'warranties shall not be considered void due to repairs made as part of a military mission' or something similar (wrapped in way more legalese) and leaving it at that or giving the full right to repair, ie: suppliers must provide CAD, board schematics, and make available replacement parts, but only for the military.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Yes, certainly but that isn't the goal. The Military Industrial Complex is nastily organic in the sense that self-perpetuation is what wins out. In this case the graft in both bueracratic overspeccing mazes and profiteering.
jacobush 7y ago
The tail is often wagging the dog, so... maybe?

bitlax 7y ago

What is the workaround for the New York Times paywall?

ProAm 7y ago
Paying for content you want to read. Good journalism isn't cheap, this is one of those things you shouldnt pirate.
- lostgame 7y ago
  If I could pay somehow on a per-article basis, for the articles I stumbled upon - I would. I don’t regularly read NYT and would have no use for a monthly subscription as HN is the only place I see (unfortunately) regularly posting from NYT. What we need is some kind of universal pass for articles that you pay a monthly fee for, and then as you read the articles from the sites it supports, it pays that publisher. Additionally, the poster asked for a workaround - not to be lambasted for their choice to do so. :)
  - corebit 7y ago
    Sounds like Brave's BAT!
  - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
    Brave Browser is an attempt at something similar.
  - rb808 7y ago
    If you create an account you get 5 free articles a month so that should suit you fine.
    - ISL 7y ago
      I'd do it (and indeed have done it, but don't use the account), if I didn't have to be tracked in order to read....

Spooky23 7y ago

I think that it made sense to do make the contract changes back in the 90s, as technology was moving super-fast on the hardware side. It's time to reconsider. Fundamental technology advancement has slowed down considerably, and most vendors are transitioning to rent-seeking models as their ability to get revenue through organic replacement is gone.

mothsonasloth 7y ago

The British military have the same problems. It's disgusting how a prestigious military force has been reduced to a pitiful size reliant on contractors to install airconditioning units, weekend warriors who fly in and out on short tours and vehicles that have had "extended life" programs instead of making new ones. Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese have been building next generation ground, air and sea units. The UK have two aircraft carriers which were designed in the early 2000s. Sure we have our own innovative equipment but as the article says, they are operated and maintained by civilian technicians. Are the technicians going to fly in to a warzone or if push comes to shove pickup a M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas and fight when the Russians come rolling through the Fulda gap.

varjag 7y ago
> The UK have two aircraft carriers which were designed in the early 2000s. That's sparkling new for an aircraft carrier tho, and it's two more seaworthy carriers than Russia has.
- Semiapies 7y ago
  All the yammering about "reduced to a pitiful size" aside, the world's navies are basically the USN, the RN, and everyone else sitting in the Honorable Mentions section.
paganel 7y ago
> M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas and fight when the Russians come rolling through the Fulda gap. Not to be a downer, but judging by the most recent European land war (the one in Ukraine) just picking up a "M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas" won't do that much in terms of stopping the enemy, you need kick-ass artillery and a kick-ass air-force, otherwise you're just sending those men into a meat grinder. That, of course, if we don't engage in a nuclear war, in which case the discussion is totally different.
- captainredbeard 7y ago
  Combined arms existed in the 1980s.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

I always wonder what they will do if there is a big war (maybe one that affects the homeland which is something the US is not used to) and the contractors decide fighting in this war is not good for business or they just want more money? Are they going to suspend IP laws and other contracts? It seems really weird that to have a military that’s dependent on other parties they can’t control. This structure works ok if you have wars in other countries with weak enemies and you are just wasting money. But what about a big war where the nation has to put all resources into the war effort?

jlawson 7y ago
They'll just nationalize the factories. Not just existing military factories - civilian infrastructure will be converted where possible. E.g. a car factory changes to making military vehicles. If necessary, guys with guns will arrive to ensure that production continues. Lots of historical references on this sort of thing from the WW2 era.
- marcoseliziario 7y ago
  Exactly. That's what happened in the WWII. This nice tesla factory? Well, we need some nice silent patrol vehicles mr Musk, but we need you to come out with some kind of composite armor for it in 60 days. If you can't do it, don't worry, we will take care of your factory for the duration, and when this is over you can have it again.
travisoneill1 7y ago
> a military that’s dependent on other parties they can’t control What makes you think the military can't control them?
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  At what point are they taking control versus handing over tons of money as done in recent wars? Is there a procedure for that?

dsalzman 7y ago

I worked on a predictive maintenance project on the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle in a previous job. It was eye opening to say the least.

dfsegoat 7y ago
Could you elaborate? I'm a sucker for esoteric defense+tech anecdotes.
Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
There's a whole movie about it if you haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA unless this was an intentional reference, then, whoosh

opwieurposiu 7y ago

In the heat of battle, even the can openers stop working. All the wiz-bang equipment that is too delicate will quickly be abandoned, only the rugged and simple stuff will be useful. Tremendous amounts of money will be squandered, but war itself is an ecstasy of waste. Not sure how much it matters, Historically more equipment tends to win vs. better equipment.

gambler 7y ago

In the 60s science fiction we had all those advanced aliens who had artifacts that were nearly indestructible, worked forever and could output tons of energy. That was our vision of "high-tech". In the 80s we got the idea that maybe advanced aliens would have "smart" devices that could adapt to their environment, repair themselves and be incredibly versatile. In those decades SF technology has one thing in common, regardless of the specific narrative: it granted incredible agency to the person who wielded it. We also constantly tell ourselves that out technology advances forward, sometimes outpacing science fiction... Except the actual properties of our technology "evolve" in the opposite direction. We now have devices that are low-power, utterly fragile and dependent on tons of external services. Our real technology today takes our agency away. As the article points out, it's often deliberate. I sometimes entertain the idea of making a web comic where people have science fiction tech (spaceships, tasers, AI) with all our current problems: glitches, constant updates, loss of functionality due to poor connectivity, DRM, incomprehensible setup procedures, etc.

merpnderp 7y ago
Nothing stopping you from making your own brickish phone thingy that connects to lte, runs a powerful processor and has a huge battery. You could do it from commodity parts and it would be trivially reparable by slapping in bits you cheaply order off Amazon/New Egg. And compared to 1980, it would still be mind bogglingly sci-fi - it just wouldn't be as sleek and svelte as your new iPhone. But I do get your point. I do miss the days when my iPhone 4s would get horribly damaged, I'd order a part online, and a day later I have fixed it myself.
- chmod775 7y ago
  That (kind of) phone already exists: https://www.fairphone.com/en/ https://www.fairphone.com/en/ It's pretty "brickish", but you can order replacement parts easily and service it yourself: https://shop.fairphone.com/en/spare-parts/ https://shop.fairphone.com/en/spare-parts/
- lostgame 7y ago
  >> Nothing stopping you from making your own brickish phone thingy that connects to lte, runs a powerful processor and has a huge battery But the real issue is what does it run? Android? Seems contrary to the point of building your own device. There has yet to be a serious Mobile OS in the FOSS world that’s not tied in to the evils of Google, and still has e.g. baseband or phone call support.

davidf18 7y ago

Why is the military purchasing products that they aren't allowed to fix. They should make that a condition of sale. They are the military. They have financial leverage. I wonder how many of our troops are being harmed or killed because the equipment paid for by our tax money is not in working order. They NYT should ask those leading the military why they are signing contracts that don't absolutely require that the military be able to fix the equipment that they purchase.

ijiiijji1 7y ago

See also: iPadRehab, Louis Rossmann and that Tesla rebuilder guy.