7 ms·

Rationally, I know these planes have a lot more capabilities than the F-15s that were popular in my youth. But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that

by runako 6y ago

Rationally, I know these planes have a lot more capabilities than the F-15s that were popular in my youth. But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that these planes cost ~10x as much while every other technology is 100s of times cheaper.

tekdude 6y ago
I used to work in a DoD acquisitions role (as sort of an engineering analyst). It's not the actual planes or engineering design work that costs so much money. Most of the time, the companies building the systems know what they're doing. (Not always though... I saw some awful stuff...) The real costs come from all of the work necessary to get those systems through the government's testing and certification processes. Typically, each individual subsystem has to be checked by a different DoD agency that specializes in that kind of technology. That means dozens or hundreds of similar but different documentation packages need to be created, reviewed, revised, and signed off...
- azinman2 6y ago
  Is that an opportunity for software to standardize and be able to output different kinds of specs? Or is this something only a human can do?
  - bigtones 6y ago
    Defense is as much about creating and maintaining jobs as it is about building war machines. The military-industrial complex is very politically motivated to keep jobs over any real need for efficiency gains.
  - gumby 6y ago
    The pentagon has been trying for decades to shift as much as possible to COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) supply with limited success. In their defense they have some exotic requirements; not just things like warplaenes but simply buying things that will continue to be available for n years into the future. Also in their defense: the contractors go out of their way to paperwork their way out of anything standard. This is like med device companies who try to wedge a “consumable” into their otherwise single-purchase device. But the biggest problem is the military themselves who can’t write specs that could be satisfied by anything COTS, adding random requirements because they aren’t subject to the usual fit-for-purpose constraints of a business. And Congress also gets to weigh in, which, while crucial, often doesn’t help...
- runako 6y ago
  I get all of that, 100%. I'm also saying they have been building these planes for nearly 50 years. At what point have we finished paying for the infrastructure to build these? And I'm guessing it's not possible to add one more plane to this order at or near the 1985 price, which speaks to cost inflation beyond one-offs like documentation updates etc.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that these planes cost ~10x as much while every other technology is 100s of times cheaper. This, at least as much as the prior, is a rational response. There's a trend that defense analysts have observed where defense systems that are institutionally popular but fundamentally obsolete in the combat environment become radically more expensive (usually, but not exclusivelt, with costs focussed on survivability features) with successive generations (or updates of existing gear, if it's a kind that is refreshed rather than replaced); battleships went through this before being abandoned and manned tactical combat aircraft are on technology that as long as 20+ years ago were being written about being well into the same trend.
SubjectToChange 6y ago
> But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that these planes cost ~10x as much while every other technology is 100s of times cheaper. Imagine how much an iPhone would cost if Apple only built 10 of them in a year and at most 2000 would ever be built. And those iPhones can't be shoddy prototypes either, in fact they would need to conform to much higher standards and testing than current mass produced models. You can see that it wouldn't be surprising if each of these hypothetical iPhones cost tens or even hundreds of millions each (especially given Apple's R&D budget). And unlike most things, Military aircraft have become more expensive because of technology, not less.

by runako 6y ago

tekdude 6y ago

I used to work in a DoD acquisitions role (as sort of an engineering analyst). It's not the actual planes or engineering design work that costs so much money. Most of the time, the companies building the systems know what they're doing. (Not always though... I saw some awful stuff...) The real costs come from all of the work necessary to get those systems through the government's testing and certification processes. Typically, each individual subsystem has to be checked by a different DoD agency that specializes in that kind of technology. That means dozens or hundreds of similar but different documentation packages need to be created, reviewed, revised, and signed off...

azinman2 6y ago
Is that an opportunity for software to standardize and be able to output different kinds of specs? Or is this something only a human can do?
- bigtones 6y ago
  Defense is as much about creating and maintaining jobs as it is about building war machines. The military-industrial complex is very politically motivated to keep jobs over any real need for efficiency gains.
- gumby 6y ago
  The pentagon has been trying for decades to shift as much as possible to COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) supply with limited success. In their defense they have some exotic requirements; not just things like warplaenes but simply buying things that will continue to be available for n years into the future. Also in their defense: the contractors go out of their way to paperwork their way out of anything standard. This is like med device companies who try to wedge a “consumable” into their otherwise single-purchase device. But the biggest problem is the military themselves who can’t write specs that could be satisfied by anything COTS, adding random requirements because they aren’t subject to the usual fit-for-purpose constraints of a business. And Congress also gets to weigh in, which, while crucial, often doesn’t help...
runako 6y ago
I get all of that, 100%. I'm also saying they have been building these planes for nearly 50 years. At what point have we finished paying for the infrastructure to build these? And I'm guessing it's not possible to add one more plane to this order at or near the 1985 price, which speaks to cost inflation beyond one-offs like documentation updates etc.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that these planes cost ~10x as much while every other technology is 100s of times cheaper. This, at least as much as the prior, is a rational response. There's a trend that defense analysts have observed where defense systems that are institutionally popular but fundamentally obsolete in the combat environment become radically more expensive (usually, but not exclusivelt, with costs focussed on survivability features) with successive generations (or updates of existing gear, if it's a kind that is refreshed rather than replaced); battleships went through this before being abandoned and manned tactical combat aircraft are on technology that as long as 20+ years ago were being written about being well into the same trend.

SubjectToChange 6y ago

> But as a taxpayer, it's really hard to swallow that these planes cost ~10x as much while every other technology is 100s of times cheaper. Imagine how much an iPhone would cost if Apple only built 10 of them in a year and at most 2000 would ever be built. And those iPhones can't be shoddy prototypes either, in fact they would need to conform to much higher standards and testing than current mass produced models. You can see that it wouldn't be surprising if each of these hypothetical iPhones cost tens or even hundreds of millions each (especially given Apple's R&D budget). And unlike most things, Military aircraft have become more expensive because of technology, not less.