3 ms·
Problem with the spec is often that the military "needs a car". But the specification process forces them to design all the parameters, and they end up with a v
by killjoywashere 5y ago
Problem with the spec is often that the military "needs a car". But the specification process forces them to design all the parameters, and they end up with a very rigorous spec for "Toyota Camry, no A/C, coyote brown, steel wheels" which adds up to 800 pages and a product that even Toyota can't produce for less than $250k/unit. Meanwhile, by the time they've written the spec, the CyberTruck has been designed, marketed, produced, and iterated, and exceeds the spec in every meaningful dimension. The military has required an entirely US-based supply chain that will sustain their vehicle for the next 30 years, but accepts that it's entirely reasonable, in that circumstance, that each washer (Type 304 stainless, O.D. +/- 0.00001 inch) is $47.82/unit.
- orangefox 5y agoThe cybertruck won't meet milspec because it runs solely on battery power. A military vehicle needs to be able to run in expeditionary environments with the ability to store and carry extra fuel for long range operations and refuel quickly. Neither one of those requirements can be met by a battery vehicle.
- Nition 5y agoIt's just a couple of made-up examples to illustrate a possible scenario; I'm sure the military didn't really ask for a Toyota Camry either. This does bring up a different issue though, which is that any time someone uses a hypothetical example to illustrate a point on the Internet, responses end up picking apart the example instead of the point itself.
- ianmcgowan 5y agoThat's a really interesting point that explains the $600 hammer urban myths - the military has a ton of constraints in their specs that are defendable, but result in much higher costs than equivalent consumer spec.