5 ms·
I mean seriously, you really believe this?
by markus_zhang 3y ago
I mean seriously, you really believe this?
- ceejayoz 3y agoThey’re buying four trash cans at a time via a process that can take months of paperwork by the contractor. It’s simply not designed for such low volume scenarios. It’s a bit like doing a custom PCB design and fabrication run for personal reasons. It’ll be $10 worth of components, but a half dozen might cost you $1k if you want someone else to set up a run on their machines to make ‘em. The Stinger missile example further down seems more egregious. edit: Maybe less egregious than I thought; its original microprocessor is now obselete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Replacement
- danhor 3y agoBad example, JLCPCB will do PCBA for just a few dollars.
- cushychicken 3y ago...in China. Which is where we don't want our manufacturing dollars or skill base to go.
- throwaway290 3y agoEvery single trashcan shipped from China for military purpose in US would have to be pulled apart, inspected down to nanolevel and then put back together. That would not be just a few dollars... Edit: Yes obviously they are concerned about targeted attacks. And where do you live that hardware store sells trashcans that verifiably comply with all requirements to be put on a custom military Boeing 707 and not f things up in some costly way? By definition any such trashcan is ripe for targeted attack because no one except US defence would have a use for it.
- pixl97 3y agoThe point actually is, if we are shooting at China for one reason or another we would be getting zero trash cans from them.
- aeyes 3y agoYou can't be serious. Buy a plastic trashcan, use a generic metal scanner and an X-Ray and you are done. If you are concerned about targeted attacks, head down to your local hardware store and buy one of the thousands they have in stock.
- hef19898 3y agoJust don't put it on an aircraft then. Funny, HN was up in arms over Titan's use of a logitech controller just a few days ago. But somehow using something from best buy on a freaking expensive plane like an E-3 is a good idea. Well, folks, that way of thinking actually sank the Titan and cost five lives.
- wongarsu 3y agoI don't think the controller would have gotten such a strong reaction if it was an X-Box 360 or X-Box One controller. Those are reliable, sturdy, and used as controllers in industry and military. But instead it was some $30 Logitech controller, something you would consider the budget choice in the context of somebody playing Call of Duty. I guess the equivalent is putting the flimsy $1.25 trash can from Dollar Store in your spacecraft, instead of a $8 trash can.
- shlubbert 3y agoA trash can is slightly less essential to a vessel's operation than its control surface.
- ceejayoz 3y agoNot if it catches fire. Good example with pillows causing a (still!) missing nuclear weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash Are pillows essential to the plane's operation? No, but them not catching fire is.
- danhor 3y agoThe choose some other manufacturer. E.g. Aisler will do assembly for 10 Boards for around 200€ in Germany, more than JLCPCB (this is probably in part due to the scale and automation with which JLCPCB operates), but much less than 1k.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cannonpalms 3y agoWhat specifically do you find to be untrue?
- cushychicken 3y agoI'd welcome your contrary explanation if you have one handy.
- veave 3y agoCorruption?
- throwaway290 3y agoIf you analyze how much the product and all associated processes can actually cost and then find a discrepancy (or find some pointless regulation that drives up the cost so much and explain how it was designed for profit and not purpose) then you can claim corruption. But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive. If US gov bought cheap plastic stuff from another country instead there can well still be corruption expressed in their choice of suppliers etc.
- mda 3y ago"But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive." Naive or not, this turns out to be true surprisingly frequently.
- throwaway290 3y agoThis is the money quote you can use to argue this is actually corruption: > When the 707 fell out of use in the United States, the trash can was no longer a “commercial” item, meaning that Boeing was not obligated to keep its price at previous levels So now one can look why it cost "mere" $300 before, unless Boeing losing money back then the price hike may be shady behavior and then someone should change supplier asap.
- hef19898 3y agoSingle source supplier tend to have incresible bargaining power. And 50k per E-3 propably isn't even worth mentioning for everyone involved. Peanuts, actually.
- throw_m239339 3y agoNo they don't... they are playing the devil's advocate I think or being sarcastic. This is just plain corruption and fraud but it's legal because defense sector...
- cushychicken 3y agoHow about you ask me what I think instead of telling me what I think. Because what I think is not what you claim.
- throw_m239339 3y agoI was being sarcastic, I thought it was obvious. I'm not sarcastic on the fact that it is plain corruption though, it is. You defending corruption and fraud is just so far fetched it's hard to take your OP seriously.
- jollyllama 3y agoIt's surprising to see people carrying water for the MIC in this way. Boeing already has the machines to make these kinds of things. It's just going to be sheet metal and plastic molds. Even assuming a one-off custom-fab job, $52k is obscene.
- crote 3y agoThe plane was introduced nearly 70 years ago. Why would they keep around obsolete machines for which the last plane left the factory literally decades ago?
- jollyllama 3y agoThat's my point, you don't need specialty machines to make trash cans; it's going to be the same types of sheet metal benders that are used for other simple fixtures.