26 ms·

Lockheed CEO Pitches Pentagon on Subscription Software

117 points by bubblehack3r 3y ago

jandrese 3y ago
> A parallel acquisition system – buying needed apps by monthly or yearly subscription to meet changing mission requirements – could improve deterrence by complicating an enemy’s war planning, Lockheed Martin’s top executive suggested Wednesday. Bullshit alarms going off full blast on the first paragraph, that's some brazen BS. I didn't even read the rest of the article since they led with that. This is management being absolutely horny for recurring payments. I don't know if business schools are really pushing this idea now or if it's in vogue for some other reason but everybody outside of management hates it.
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  I think it’s all about creating cash flows that can be securitized and resold in capital markets.
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  They already got a taste of this with the logistics backend for the F35[1], but NGAD explicitly said, "we're not doing that shit again", so LM is angling for another way to get those systems locked in. It's gonna be a grappling content for sure, but as long as the DoD doesn't want to pay for things like frickin prototypes then LM's gonna keep angling for ways to make cash on the support end. [1] Which was a mess. I mean, even in an industry notorious for messes, it stood out, by a lot. I can think of one other program I've seen that gave the 35 LSA/MTA/ILS/ERP/DOA/InsertYourFavoriteMeaninglessAcronym a run for its money.
  - Varriount 3y ago
    What occurred with the F35's logistics backend?
    - p_l 3y ago
      Lockheed did it, with predictable results. I've been involved with a previous project of theirs in that space, possibly even one that led to F-35 one. If not for contractual issues, we would have rewritten it better ourselves in less time, without things like finding two years into supposed deployment that a core module wasn't a fit for the problem domain, because they copied it from a completely different type of vehicle.
  - fransje26 3y ago
    If I recall properly, the original was such a piece of excrement, that they had to bin it, and re-write it. Payed by the DoD of course. The new system is just as bad.
- eddmakesio 3y ago
  > I don't know if business schools are really pushing this idea now or if it's in vogue for some other reason but everybody outside of management hates it. I think most senior leadership at Lockheed are engineers and not MBA-types, certainly the CEO has a bachelors of engineering from the Air Force Academy. This is probably to try reduce the risk of big projects with one payout causing financial pains during down markets. The government is going to budget for a subscription way in advance so you suddenly see monthly income for the next lifetime of the administration. One business market a lot of people are enviable is furniture on payment plans - you sell an item and get cash every month for the next couple years. Industries where you have such a clear forecast are much easier to plan around (yes, this was something from Business School lol).
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
One of the super super interesting things i've countered recently about .mil issues was specifically around the Freedom-class Lockheed Martin Litoral Combat Ship (LCS). The inside story of heo the navy spent billions on the "little crappy ships". Most of this is already well known but Propublica drew together the threads of the story well, with some additional references. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-l... Rarely have I seen such a portrayal of villainy. LM's efforts here seem nearly treasonous, with their attempts to thwart open .mil systems & to sell the American people permission or capability to use the technology they'd funded and purchased, by granting zero rights or control over that technology. The last couple of decades of Lockheed Martin retaining the technology &systems entirely should be a clear enough lesson in what America & (forgive me) anyone with an ounce of patriotic blood should never let happen again. Yet that sure sounds like what's happening here, again, even more boldfacedly. > General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin considered much of the data and equipment on the LCS proprietary — a problem that the GAO has identified throughout the military. As a result, only their employees were allowed to do certain repairs, former officers said. This sometimes meant that contractors would go overseas to help, adding millions in travel costs and often delaying missions. The Navy recently purchased some of the data. A Navy spokesperson would not disclose the price "due to proprietary reasons." > Watson and others spent much of their time escorting contractors while on board because so many areas on the ship were considered classified, reducing their ability to do their own jobs, according to interviews with multiple officers who had served on the LCS. Never have I read such a corrupt inexcusable sad practice in military procurement ever. This is stagnant bullshit that prevents adaption, prevents proper response to situations. We must have open systems architecture, where the government decides how things interoperate, and acquired systems don't dictate down but provide upwards to the defenders. And it seems like that lesson of what to never allow again has largely been learned & broadly accepted. Almost every faction of mil seems razor focused on open systems architectures, on intercompatible. It top down systems. On making sure this graft corruption & difficulty in doing anything without endless reams of permission & defense contractor hours never happens again. Not only should Lockheed not be able to charge a subscription, they should never own the software funded by & produced for American defense ever again. Open core should be the rule of the realm. It a core threat to American military might to let defense contractors own & keep the special sauce that makes weapons run, and to be the deciders for how defense technology is ongoingly used and adapted. If America pays for the development, America should own the output. There's similar obvious revelations that have happened elsewhere in the American system. It's not always fully respected or done well. But in principle NIH for example has open access requirements. In principle Americans are entitled to the benefits of health research done by the state, and it's not just sold off or left to be controlled by whomever. Yet Lockheed Martin keeps wanting to be the owner, wants to be the decider, wants to interrupt right of first sale & be forever entailed to & in control of whatever happens next, after some defense tech hardware is purchased.
bigyikes 3y ago
How does this make any sense? Let’s assume that this isn’t some grift like “we hope they’ll pay more than what it costs us in maintenance” or “hope they forget to cancel”. Don’t subscriptions only make sense if you have lots of customers? If you only have one customer, if they cancel their subscription, your product is dead. You also can’t amortize your fixed development costs across many subscriptions. How many customers can Lockheed have, realistically? This just sounds like a Government contract with extra steps (read: extra $$$)
- verdverm 3y ago
  It makes sense for a few reasons (ideally..., but this is the mil-ind complex...) 1. Predictable income / expenses for each party, many defense projects are cut at the whim of politicians. This is partly why we are having trouble ramping up production for the weapons Ukraine needs. 2. The US military is trying to adopt more agile development practices. They definitely want to move away from waterfall software as part of that. 3. Your 1 customer argument falls apart as soon as you talk about per-seat pricing. The US mil can buy more or less seats as the size of the force changes or is reallocated. It also sets Lockheed up to charge for drone connectivity. The military benefits because they could opt not to buy more if it doesn't turn out well. note, I have not delved into the details of this article, but base these hypotheses on the developments at large I've seen elsewhere.
  - gustavus 3y ago
    Regardless of the reasons they spout I have 0 belief that the C suite of LM or any company for that manner would make any decision that would make them less money. Whatever excuses they come up with at the root of it is the idea that they will make more money by doing it this way.
    - verdverm 3y ago
      I get your cynicism, but it doesn't really offer any ideas for improvement. If both parties are happier with the arrangement, and it leads to more agility, what exactly is wrong with it. The military is projected to decrease (as % GDP)[1] over the next decade. If they spend more on software and less on overpriced hardware, that might be a good thing. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/217581/outlays-for-defense-and-forecast-in-the-us-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/217581/outlays-for-defen... > Regardless of the reasons they spout They are saying the same thing the military is. The US Military is actively trying out new ways of purchasing, because the old model is not working and not agile enough for today's environment. I trust that the people leading the military know what they need and that Lockheed cannot force them into this. Everyone is ideating right now, the UA War seems to have woken the West up. No need to derail an idea just because it comes from Lockheed's CEO
9659 3y ago
The government pays for the development costs. They will not pay for a subscription unless the contractor takes the up front risk of developing the software. Federal contracting rules also limit the profit that can be made selling to the government (you can argue this are not effective). Some 'agile fans' have been promoted up a few notches at Lockheed, that is all this is. The USG likes to pay for and own source code and weapon system designs.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/09/2002049591/-1/-1/0/DIB_DETECTING_AGILE_BS_2018.10.05.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/09/2002049591/-1/-1/0/DIB... > Agile is a buzzword of software development, and so all DoD software development projects are, almost by default, now declared to be “agile.”
  - User23 3y ago
    I worked for a government adjacent company and was particularly amused by the quarterly agile planning meetings. Who doesn’t love Big Agile?
    - JamesLeonis 3y ago
      My first job out of college was a small defense contractor that underwent ISO 9001 Certification for Agile process. I was a junior engineer who didn't know any better, so I look back bemused over all the really silly things that org did.
    - grepLeigh 3y ago
      "Quarterly agile planning meeting" might be one of my favorite oxymorons now. Thank you!
      - i_love_cookies 3y ago
        [dead]
      - 3y ago
throw7 3y ago
Saw what the contractors are raking in with F-22 maintenance ehhh?
solardev 3y ago
Why do we outsource arms development to private companies to begin with? Why introduce a profit motive into an essential government function?
- pierat 3y ago
  Cause the government won't let the government have enough employees to work for government. Instead We pay 2x the cost of an employee as a contractor, and the company keeps half.
- callalex 3y ago
  It’s very profitable for the shareholders.
- winrid 3y ago
  Going back on this basically admits capitalism isn't efficient enough :)
- whalesalad 3y ago
  That’s the way it always has been done. We’ve never had a national industry for this. To undo what has been done is virtually impossible.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  The simple answer is probably profit, as cynical as it sounds. Not only is a ton of congress literally invested in defense companies [1], including the people overseeing said companies - but the defense companies also directly fund the election campaigns of politicians. [2] Every bomb made, every missile dropped, and every artillery shell launched just makes everybody richer and gets those election coffers stocked even fuller. Alongside the above 2 metrics, I'd also add that a lot of the graft is not directly tracked. For instance play ball with the defense industry while in office, and one can look forward to fatly compensated lobbying or advisory positions after leaving office. Similar to how presidents who play ball with banks/wallstreet get to go get paid $500k/speech for say-nothing 30 minute chats. There's a reason congress has never seen a war it didn't like. [1] - https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-members-are-trading-defense-stocks-while-shaping-military-policy-2021-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-members-are-trading... [2] - https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D
treme 3y ago
In before pay per kill pricing model becomes new norm in defense contracts
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
whalesalad 3y ago
I miss the old days in the 60's when Lockheed would produce a mach-3 capable spy plane in a few short months. Now they're pulling a BMW and selling subscription services for heated seats.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- corrigible 3y ago
  literally just finished reading both "sled driver" and "skunkworks" and wow, those guys knew what they were about.
- p_l 3y ago
  Lockheed tradition for bribery and lobbying goes back to 1950s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals)
  - fransje26 3y ago
    That knowledge, contrary to what used to be their core business, hasn't been lost apparently..
- fransje26 3y ago
  Just a bummer they didn't also go for what make Beamers appealing in the first place: quality and reliability.
  - alephnan 3y ago
    Is this meant as sarcasm? BMWs and German cars are pretty bad for reliability, especially with respect to electronic failure. When it does work, it works great.
    - fransje26 3y ago
      It was not fully serious banter, yes. :-) > When it does work, it works great. That, unfortunately, does not currently apply the Lockheed dog though..
grepLeigh 3y ago
One thing to note is that the Pentagon and other DoD / three-letter federal agencies have already been purchasing per-seat and per-node subscription plans from FedRAMP certified vendors. The difference is that the annual budget is pre-allocated, so the threat/risk of cancellation is much lower compared to the rest of the private sector. I feel like the high cost of FedRAMP certification combined with the reduced cancellation pressure leads to stagnation / low competition in this space.
- ang_cire 3y ago
  The stability + the large budgets are 100% the only reason people stomach FedRAMP. I've seen one company go in before getting a sponsor agency, and they got their SaaS environment built and certified as FedRAMP Ready (and listed), but never actually got an agency customer and didn't go the JAB route, and all the money they spent went down the drain. It's really tough to justify FedRAMP if you don't have the political connections to get a sponsor, and that keeps the space nepotistic and stagnant (as you said).
  - grepLeigh 3y ago
    For anyone wondering what JAB means, it's a joint board that blesses certain vendors, cloud offerings, and other software/tech products. If you don't get a Provisional Authorization to Operate (P-ATO) from the JAB, you're SOL. As a small software business owner, it's such a frustrating and anti-competitive experience. The US's runaway defense spending isn't just pricey missiles, planes, and salaries; a big chunk is now software. It's a subtle issue, though, and I have yet to hear any politician address it meaningfully.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Can’t wait until fighter jets come with a “click to unlock bag of missiles!” buttons.
sergers 3y ago
I think this is just moving the payment model from capex to opex. Many govt contracts are upfront huge capital costs, and then long maintenance contracts which you are locked to that vendor for x years term even though you "own" the software. Subscription just spreads those fees somewhat evenly across the term
- sheepybloke 3y ago
  I agree! What people don't realize are the lucrative parts of a govt contract is the follow on contracts to support. You don't make money on the initial design of a plane, you make money on adding weapons and fixing bugs for the next 25+ years of the planes life. By having the development be a subscription, you also incentivize more continuous development and improvement of the product. For example, instead of designing the system, deploying it, and then have to negotiate a ton of PRs to fix the system after the fact, you can have a more continuous dev cycle, fixing the issues as they come up because you're on contract already to fix them.
stephen_g 3y ago
Of course, contractors have long known that much of the money is in this kind of model - the equivalent of sustainment or support contracts for the equipment they sell. Usually the sustainment contract for some kind of equipment can make a lot more profit than the contract to design and sell the equipment itself.
jandrese 3y ago
Drink verification can to launch missile.
RobotToaster 3y ago
Final boss of pay2win
seydor 3y ago
F35 heated seats?
- fransje26 3y ago
  A must-have, for pilot comfort. A small gesture from the house, to compensate for the fact that his/her neck might snap on punch-out.. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/f-35-latest-problems-ejector-seat/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/f-35-latest-problems-e...

117 points by bubblehack3r 3y ago

> A parallel acquisition system – buying needed apps by monthly or yearly subscription to meet changing mission requirements – could improve deterrence by complicating an enemy’s war planning, Lockheed Martin’s top executive suggested Wednesday. Bullshit alarms going off full blast on the first paragraph, that's some brazen BS. I didn't even read the rest of the article since they led with that. This is management being absolutely horny for recurring payments. I don't know if business schools are really pushing this idea now or if it's in vogue for some other reason but everybody outside of management hates it.

SkyMarshal 3y ago
I think it’s all about creating cash flows that can be securitized and resold in capital markets.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
They already got a taste of this with the logistics backend for the F35[1], but NGAD explicitly said, "we're not doing that shit again", so LM is angling for another way to get those systems locked in. It's gonna be a grappling content for sure, but as long as the DoD doesn't want to pay for things like frickin prototypes then LM's gonna keep angling for ways to make cash on the support end. [1] Which was a mess. I mean, even in an industry notorious for messes, it stood out, by a lot. I can think of one other program I've seen that gave the 35 LSA/MTA/ILS/ERP/DOA/InsertYourFavoriteMeaninglessAcronym a run for its money.
- Varriount 3y ago
  What occurred with the F35's logistics backend?
  - p_l 3y ago
    Lockheed did it, with predictable results. I've been involved with a previous project of theirs in that space, possibly even one that led to F-35 one. If not for contractual issues, we would have rewritten it better ourselves in less time, without things like finding two years into supposed deployment that a core module wasn't a fit for the problem domain, because they copied it from a completely different type of vehicle.
- fransje26 3y ago
  If I recall properly, the original was such a piece of excrement, that they had to bin it, and re-write it. Payed by the DoD of course. The new system is just as bad.
eddmakesio 3y ago
> I don't know if business schools are really pushing this idea now or if it's in vogue for some other reason but everybody outside of management hates it. I think most senior leadership at Lockheed are engineers and not MBA-types, certainly the CEO has a bachelors of engineering from the Air Force Academy. This is probably to try reduce the risk of big projects with one payout causing financial pains during down markets. The government is going to budget for a subscription way in advance so you suddenly see monthly income for the next lifetime of the administration. One business market a lot of people are enviable is furniture on payment plans - you sell an item and get cash every month for the next couple years. Industries where you have such a clear forecast are much easier to plan around (yes, this was something from Business School lol).

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

One of the super super interesting things i've countered recently about .mil issues was specifically around the Freedom-class Lockheed Martin Litoral Combat Ship (LCS). The inside story of heo the navy spent billions on the "little crappy ships". Most of this is already well known but Propublica drew together the threads of the story well, with some additional references. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-l... Rarely have I seen such a portrayal of villainy. LM's efforts here seem nearly treasonous, with their attempts to thwart open .mil systems & to sell the American people permission or capability to use the technology they'd funded and purchased, by granting zero rights or control over that technology. The last couple of decades of Lockheed Martin retaining the technology &systems entirely should be a clear enough lesson in what America & (forgive me) anyone with an ounce of patriotic blood should never let happen again. Yet that sure sounds like what's happening here, again, even more boldfacedly. > General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin considered much of the data and equipment on the LCS proprietary — a problem that the GAO has identified throughout the military. As a result, only their employees were allowed to do certain repairs, former officers said. This sometimes meant that contractors would go overseas to help, adding millions in travel costs and often delaying missions. The Navy recently purchased some of the data. A Navy spokesperson would not disclose the price "due to proprietary reasons." > Watson and others spent much of their time escorting contractors while on board because so many areas on the ship were considered classified, reducing their ability to do their own jobs, according to interviews with multiple officers who had served on the LCS. Never have I read such a corrupt inexcusable sad practice in military procurement ever. This is stagnant bullshit that prevents adaption, prevents proper response to situations. We must have open systems architecture, where the government decides how things interoperate, and acquired systems don't dictate down but provide upwards to the defenders. And it seems like that lesson of what to never allow again has largely been learned & broadly accepted. Almost every faction of mil seems razor focused on open systems architectures, on intercompatible. It top down systems. On making sure this graft corruption & difficulty in doing anything without endless reams of permission & defense contractor hours never happens again. Not only should Lockheed not be able to charge a subscription, they should never own the software funded by & produced for American defense ever again. Open core should be the rule of the realm. It a core threat to American military might to let defense contractors own & keep the special sauce that makes weapons run, and to be the deciders for how defense technology is ongoingly used and adapted. If America pays for the development, America should own the output. There's similar obvious revelations that have happened elsewhere in the American system. It's not always fully respected or done well. But in principle NIH for example has open access requirements. In principle Americans are entitled to the benefits of health research done by the state, and it's not just sold off or left to be controlled by whomever. Yet Lockheed Martin keeps wanting to be the owner, wants to be the decider, wants to interrupt right of first sale & be forever entailed to & in control of whatever happens next, after some defense tech hardware is purchased.

bigyikes 3y ago

How does this make any sense? Let’s assume that this isn’t some grift like “we hope they’ll pay more than what it costs us in maintenance” or “hope they forget to cancel”. Don’t subscriptions only make sense if you have lots of customers? If you only have one customer, if they cancel their subscription, your product is dead. You also can’t amortize your fixed development costs across many subscriptions. How many customers can Lockheed have, realistically? This just sounds like a Government contract with extra steps (read: extra $$$)

verdverm 3y ago
It makes sense for a few reasons (ideally..., but this is the mil-ind complex...) 1. Predictable income / expenses for each party, many defense projects are cut at the whim of politicians. This is partly why we are having trouble ramping up production for the weapons Ukraine needs. 2. The US military is trying to adopt more agile development practices. They definitely want to move away from waterfall software as part of that. 3. Your 1 customer argument falls apart as soon as you talk about per-seat pricing. The US mil can buy more or less seats as the size of the force changes or is reallocated. It also sets Lockheed up to charge for drone connectivity. The military benefits because they could opt not to buy more if it doesn't turn out well. note, I have not delved into the details of this article, but base these hypotheses on the developments at large I've seen elsewhere.
- gustavus 3y ago
  Regardless of the reasons they spout I have 0 belief that the C suite of LM or any company for that manner would make any decision that would make them less money. Whatever excuses they come up with at the root of it is the idea that they will make more money by doing it this way.
  - verdverm 3y ago
    I get your cynicism, but it doesn't really offer any ideas for improvement. If both parties are happier with the arrangement, and it leads to more agility, what exactly is wrong with it. The military is projected to decrease (as % GDP)[1] over the next decade. If they spend more on software and less on overpriced hardware, that might be a good thing. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/217581/outlays-for-defense-and-forecast-in-the-us-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/217581/outlays-for-defen... > Regardless of the reasons they spout They are saying the same thing the military is. The US Military is actively trying out new ways of purchasing, because the old model is not working and not agile enough for today's environment. I trust that the people leading the military know what they need and that Lockheed cannot force them into this. Everyone is ideating right now, the UA War seems to have woken the West up. No need to derail an idea just because it comes from Lockheed's CEO

9659 3y ago

The government pays for the development costs. They will not pay for a subscription unless the contractor takes the up front risk of developing the software. Federal contracting rules also limit the profit that can be made selling to the government (you can argue this are not effective). Some 'agile fans' have been promoted up a few notches at Lockheed, that is all this is. The USG likes to pay for and own source code and weapon system designs.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/09/2002049591/-1/-1/0/DIB_DETECTING_AGILE_BS_2018.10.05.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/09/2002049591/-1/-1/0/DIB... > Agile is a buzzword of software development, and so all DoD software development projects are, almost by default, now declared to be “agile.”
- User23 3y ago
  I worked for a government adjacent company and was particularly amused by the quarterly agile planning meetings. Who doesn’t love Big Agile?
  - JamesLeonis 3y ago
    My first job out of college was a small defense contractor that underwent ISO 9001 Certification for Agile process. I was a junior engineer who didn't know any better, so I look back bemused over all the really silly things that org did.
  - grepLeigh 3y ago
    "Quarterly agile planning meeting" might be one of my favorite oxymorons now. Thank you!
    - i_love_cookies 3y ago
      [dead]
    - 3y ago

throw7 3y ago

Saw what the contractors are raking in with F-22 maintenance ehhh?

solardev 3y ago

Why do we outsource arms development to private companies to begin with? Why introduce a profit motive into an essential government function?

pierat 3y ago
Cause the government won't let the government have enough employees to work for government. Instead We pay 2x the cost of an employee as a contractor, and the company keeps half.
callalex 3y ago
It’s very profitable for the shareholders.
winrid 3y ago
Going back on this basically admits capitalism isn't efficient enough :)
whalesalad 3y ago
That’s the way it always has been done. We’ve never had a national industry for this. To undo what has been done is virtually impossible.
somenameforme 3y ago
The simple answer is probably profit, as cynical as it sounds. Not only is a ton of congress literally invested in defense companies [1], including the people overseeing said companies - but the defense companies also directly fund the election campaigns of politicians. [2] Every bomb made, every missile dropped, and every artillery shell launched just makes everybody richer and gets those election coffers stocked even fuller. Alongside the above 2 metrics, I'd also add that a lot of the graft is not directly tracked. For instance play ball with the defense industry while in office, and one can look forward to fatly compensated lobbying or advisory positions after leaving office. Similar to how presidents who play ball with banks/wallstreet get to go get paid $500k/speech for say-nothing 30 minute chats. There's a reason congress has never seen a war it didn't like. [1] - https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-members-are-trading-defense-stocks-while-shaping-military-policy-2021-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-members-are-trading... [2] - https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D

treme 3y ago

In before pay per kill pricing model becomes new norm in defense contracts

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

whalesalad 3y ago

I miss the old days in the 60's when Lockheed would produce a mach-3 capable spy plane in a few short months. Now they're pulling a BMW and selling subscription services for heated seats.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
corrigible 3y ago
literally just finished reading both "sled driver" and "skunkworks" and wow, those guys knew what they were about.
p_l 3y ago
Lockheed tradition for bribery and lobbying goes back to 1950s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals)
- fransje26 3y ago
  That knowledge, contrary to what used to be their core business, hasn't been lost apparently..
fransje26 3y ago
Just a bummer they didn't also go for what make Beamers appealing in the first place: quality and reliability.
- alephnan 3y ago
  Is this meant as sarcasm? BMWs and German cars are pretty bad for reliability, especially with respect to electronic failure. When it does work, it works great.
  - fransje26 3y ago
    It was not fully serious banter, yes. :-) > When it does work, it works great. That, unfortunately, does not currently apply the Lockheed dog though..

grepLeigh 3y ago

One thing to note is that the Pentagon and other DoD / three-letter federal agencies have already been purchasing per-seat and per-node subscription plans from FedRAMP certified vendors. The difference is that the annual budget is pre-allocated, so the threat/risk of cancellation is much lower compared to the rest of the private sector. I feel like the high cost of FedRAMP certification combined with the reduced cancellation pressure leads to stagnation / low competition in this space.

ang_cire 3y ago
The stability + the large budgets are 100% the only reason people stomach FedRAMP. I've seen one company go in before getting a sponsor agency, and they got their SaaS environment built and certified as FedRAMP Ready (and listed), but never actually got an agency customer and didn't go the JAB route, and all the money they spent went down the drain. It's really tough to justify FedRAMP if you don't have the political connections to get a sponsor, and that keeps the space nepotistic and stagnant (as you said).
- grepLeigh 3y ago
  For anyone wondering what JAB means, it's a joint board that blesses certain vendors, cloud offerings, and other software/tech products. If you don't get a Provisional Authorization to Operate (P-ATO) from the JAB, you're SOL. As a small software business owner, it's such a frustrating and anti-competitive experience. The US's runaway defense spending isn't just pricey missiles, planes, and salaries; a big chunk is now software. It's a subtle issue, though, and I have yet to hear any politician address it meaningfully.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Can’t wait until fighter jets come with a “click to unlock bag of missiles!” buttons.

sergers 3y ago

I think this is just moving the payment model from capex to opex. Many govt contracts are upfront huge capital costs, and then long maintenance contracts which you are locked to that vendor for x years term even though you "own" the software. Subscription just spreads those fees somewhat evenly across the term

sheepybloke 3y ago
I agree! What people don't realize are the lucrative parts of a govt contract is the follow on contracts to support. You don't make money on the initial design of a plane, you make money on adding weapons and fixing bugs for the next 25+ years of the planes life. By having the development be a subscription, you also incentivize more continuous development and improvement of the product. For example, instead of designing the system, deploying it, and then have to negotiate a ton of PRs to fix the system after the fact, you can have a more continuous dev cycle, fixing the issues as they come up because you're on contract already to fix them.

stephen_g 3y ago

Of course, contractors have long known that much of the money is in this kind of model - the equivalent of sustainment or support contracts for the equipment they sell. Usually the sustainment contract for some kind of equipment can make a lot more profit than the contract to design and sell the equipment itself.

jandrese 3y ago

Drink verification can to launch missile.

RobotToaster 3y ago

Final boss of pay2win

seydor 3y ago

F35 heated seats?

fransje26 3y ago
A must-have, for pilot comfort. A small gesture from the house, to compensate for the fact that his/her neck might snap on punch-out.. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/f-35-latest-problems-ejector-seat/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/f-35-latest-problems-e...