4 ms·

I used to think this way. I worked at one of the top 10 government contractors and was disgusted with the waste. But rather than think of it as using a team t

I used to think this way. I worked at one of the top 10 government contractors and was disgusted with the waste. But rather than think of it as using a team that's too big to poorly and slowly develop a product that's not needed, think of it as a continuous training and readiness program for developers. When the priorities change and we NEED something, you'll have a team of people ready to go. I've actually seen that happen. We do the same thing in manufacturing - I saw a comment about javelins below, but why do we keep ordering tanks even though we don't need them? To keep the production lines active and the workers trained. It's a waste if you look at it first-order, but if you think of it as readiness and training, it's a lot less wasteful.

throwaway202303 4y ago
America had very little in the way of military industry at the start of WW2 yet ramped up at an incredible rate. Industrial efforts can be repurposed in a matter of months. (One problem here is that the US depends on other countries for much of its manufacturing)
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Is it possible that ramp up times have increased or become more complicated in the last 100 years due to changes in technology and capabilities of adversaries?
- bee_rider 4y ago
  The world is smaller nowadays. And our allies are not so warlike anymore, if there were a big war we’d probably be in more of a rush to get to them.
- nradov 4y ago
  Nonsense. Military equipment is orders of magnitude more complex now. It was possible to take a car factory and repurpose it to make P-51 Mustangs. It is not possible to do that for F-35 Lightning IIs. The materials and technology are just too different. And even the domestic components have lead times measured in years. In an emergency, production could only be marginally accelerated no matter how much funding and manpower we put into it. That is the reality.
  - webnrrd2k 4y ago
    I think that your claim of nonsense is mistaken. For example, one of your points isn't, in general, true. You wrote "It was possible to take a car factory and repurpose it to make P-51 Mustangs. It is not possible to do that for F-35 Lightning IIs." But any car factory isn't expected to produce fully formed F-35s. But they can produce many components for a F-35. And many factorys together can produce, for eg, a F-35. You also wrote: "And even the domestic components have lead times measured in years. In an emergency, production could only be marginally accelerated no matter how much funding and manpower we put into it. That is the reality." That's exactly the problem that the report and blog post address. It is the reality now, because of the defense industry being more about financial engineering than actual engineering. And that is a big problem for the US. It doesn't have to be that way.
- 0zemp1c 4y ago
  yeah no, you aren't churning nuclear subs out of a rowboat factory in 2023 even if you were to start a new company to build nuclear subs (for example) today, you are probably looking at a decade or more until you can produce something
_huayra_ 4y ago
The problem is that of financial opportunity cost: the money keeping the "tank line" active by ordering excess tanks would likely be much better spent on other programs (or even merely not further ballooning the debt). Spending the same amount of dollars on funding the IRS, GAO, SEC, FDA, EPA, or even the USGS or NOAA would likely see much more direct benefits to US residents. Even direct assistance like food stamps or section 8 rent subsidies has a much higher multiplier than spending oodles of cash ensuring the US is ready to defend its hegemony.
- nradov 4y ago
  Tank production lines may be somewhat of a weak example because the US military is reducing their tank inventory anyway. Some tanks (and other armored vehicles) might be needed for a future conflict in the Middle East, Europe, or Africa but would be largely useless in the Pacific Theater. The real need is to maintain production lines for ships and aircraft. Once they industrial base disappears there it's gone for good; there just wouldn't be any way to spin it back to again in a reasonable time frame. Of course we could adopt an isolationist stance and cut back military spending to the minimum for homeland defense only, but we might not like the results when China dominates the entire Asia-Pacific region.
masfuerte 4y ago
There is enormous civilian demand for software development so we don't need government make-work programs. Contractors having endless meetings and failing to complete unnecessary projects are not learning anything useful anyway.
analognoise 4y ago
The tank lines are a wonderful example! The military asked to cancel it multiple times. It keeps getting funded because of jobs in Lima, Ohio - basically it is congressional make-work that spends our money AND weakens our defense (because those funds could have gone to other things the military actually wanted): https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-agai...
- greedo 4y ago
  Funny, countries still want to buy M1 Abrams (made in Lima). Especially after the invasion of Ukraine. It's not make work, it's keeping a production facility viable.
christophilus 4y ago
I think that argument makes sense for manufacturing (maybe) since that has mostly left our shores, so it makes sense to subsidize somewhat for security purposes. But software engineering (which it may not have been clear my original comment was referring to) has no such need for subsidy in the US.

throwaway202303 4y ago

America had very little in the way of military industry at the start of WW2 yet ramped up at an incredible rate. Industrial efforts can be repurposed in a matter of months. (One problem here is that the US depends on other countries for much of its manufacturing)

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Is it possible that ramp up times have increased or become more complicated in the last 100 years due to changes in technology and capabilities of adversaries?
bee_rider 4y ago
The world is smaller nowadays. And our allies are not so warlike anymore, if there were a big war we’d probably be in more of a rush to get to them.
nradov 4y ago
Nonsense. Military equipment is orders of magnitude more complex now. It was possible to take a car factory and repurpose it to make P-51 Mustangs. It is not possible to do that for F-35 Lightning IIs. The materials and technology are just too different. And even the domestic components have lead times measured in years. In an emergency, production could only be marginally accelerated no matter how much funding and manpower we put into it. That is the reality.
- webnrrd2k 4y ago
  I think that your claim of nonsense is mistaken. For example, one of your points isn't, in general, true. You wrote "It was possible to take a car factory and repurpose it to make P-51 Mustangs. It is not possible to do that for F-35 Lightning IIs." But any car factory isn't expected to produce fully formed F-35s. But they can produce many components for a F-35. And many factorys together can produce, for eg, a F-35. You also wrote: "And even the domestic components have lead times measured in years. In an emergency, production could only be marginally accelerated no matter how much funding and manpower we put into it. That is the reality." That's exactly the problem that the report and blog post address. It is the reality now, because of the defense industry being more about financial engineering than actual engineering. And that is a big problem for the US. It doesn't have to be that way.
0zemp1c 4y ago
yeah no, you aren't churning nuclear subs out of a rowboat factory in 2023 even if you were to start a new company to build nuclear subs (for example) today, you are probably looking at a decade or more until you can produce something

_huayra_ 4y ago

The problem is that of financial opportunity cost: the money keeping the "tank line" active by ordering excess tanks would likely be much better spent on other programs (or even merely not further ballooning the debt). Spending the same amount of dollars on funding the IRS, GAO, SEC, FDA, EPA, or even the USGS or NOAA would likely see much more direct benefits to US residents. Even direct assistance like food stamps or section 8 rent subsidies has a much higher multiplier than spending oodles of cash ensuring the US is ready to defend its hegemony.

nradov 4y ago
Tank production lines may be somewhat of a weak example because the US military is reducing their tank inventory anyway. Some tanks (and other armored vehicles) might be needed for a future conflict in the Middle East, Europe, or Africa but would be largely useless in the Pacific Theater. The real need is to maintain production lines for ships and aircraft. Once they industrial base disappears there it's gone for good; there just wouldn't be any way to spin it back to again in a reasonable time frame. Of course we could adopt an isolationist stance and cut back military spending to the minimum for homeland defense only, but we might not like the results when China dominates the entire Asia-Pacific region.

masfuerte 4y ago

There is enormous civilian demand for software development so we don't need government make-work programs. Contractors having endless meetings and failing to complete unnecessary projects are not learning anything useful anyway.

analognoise 4y ago

The tank lines are a wonderful example! The military asked to cancel it multiple times. It keeps getting funded because of jobs in Lima, Ohio - basically it is congressional make-work that spends our money AND weakens our defense (because those funds could have gone to other things the military actually wanted): https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-agai...

greedo 4y ago
Funny, countries still want to buy M1 Abrams (made in Lima). Especially after the invasion of Ukraine. It's not make work, it's keeping a production facility viable.

christophilus 4y ago

I think that argument makes sense for manufacturing (maybe) since that has mostly left our shores, so it makes sense to subsidize somewhat for security purposes. But software engineering (which it may not have been clear my original comment was referring to) has no such need for subsidy in the US.