7 ms·

I find it impressive that the government is actually punishing a project for running late and underdelivering. They should expand this to all parts of the gove

I find it impressive that the government is actually punishing a project for running late and underdelivering. They should expand this to all parts of the government. Can you imagine if the F-35 was cancelled the first time it fell behind schedule? The Space Launch System? The Littoral Combat System? The USS JFK? So many boondoggles could be killed off before they spend money. Maybe contractors would have to start properly estimating costs up front. Or maybe nothing would ever get done again. I do wonder what the FCC is planning to do with these funds if they aren't funding Starlink. Are they going to go towards a "safer" project like Project Kuiper? Or maybe dumping it into Inmarsat?

shmatt 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_projects_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_pr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_projects#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_pro... F35 Survived but there are like 50 other planes that didnt in that second list
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  Bradley IFV is not on this list.
  - runlaszlorun 3y ago
    Former Bradley guy here. Like others have mentioned, it’s done far better then expected. It (along with any other IFV) are pretty much the ultimate Swiss army knife of a military vehicle. It can pretty much do almost any ground role even though isn’t insanely awe inspiring for any one. And the 25mm autocannon is prob the easiest thing in our existing arsenal we have to adapt for an anti-drone role. And, no, that one set of photos from Ukraine of Bradleys damaged in a minefield has zero bearing pro or con given the 40 years of experience we have otherwise with it.
    - fullspectrumdev 3y ago
      My friends in Ukraine fucking love the Bradley. It fills a lot of roles, being very useful for casevac under fire (much better than many alternative options).
    - justsomehnguy 3y ago
      I find it quite amusing how proud American guys are defending their MIC... which took 15 years to produce Bradley. This thread is not about how good/bad M2 is. Please re-read the comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38632482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38632482
  - fullspectrumdev 3y ago
    The Bradley is actually good. Did it have some initial hiccups? Sure, but all military equipment has. These days? The Bradley fucking rocks. My friends out in harms way love them.
  - georgeecollins 3y ago
    Say what you want about the Bradley, and criticism of the military is very healthy! I think the war in Ukraine shows that while the project may have been wasteful the end result is still useful.
  - mustacheemperor 3y ago
    Because the Bradley IFV was only a boondoggle within the almost completely fictionalized setting of Pentagon Wars. Someone else pointed out the performance in Ukraine, but IMO this was already a settled point in 1991, when they collectively destroyed more enemy armor than the Abrams and only lost 3 vehicles to enemy fire.
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    The Pentagon Wars was misleading bullshit and the Bradley IFV was a good idea that was slated to come in under budget (before James Burton demanded his tests). The tests were a huge waste of money that conclusively proved that the Bradley couldn't survive an anti-tank missile, which is irrelevant because 1) the Bradley isn't a tank and was never required to survive one, and 2) the Pentagon already knew that; they'd tested the components individually already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk (28min 20sec)
- jandrese 3y ago
  Most of those weren't cancelled because they ran behind schedule, they were cancelled for political reasons or because the role they were designed for went away. Sometimes because some other project was overrunning their budget so badly that they had to be cancelled to free up the money for the boondoggle.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  And the f35 is honestly legit when it's all said and done. There's a reason why it's sold so well, and it's only getting better.
  - boc 3y ago
    If the Marines hadn't insisted on adding STOL/VTOL capabilities wrt the F35B, the project would have been much more straightforward and successful. Even despite that crazy requirement, it's still a success for NATO exports.
- fastaguy88 3y ago
  Those lists would be far more informative if they had some years associated with them. Many of the cancelled projects were prop-planes cancelled in the 1940's and 50's.
lesuorac 3y ago
I think you may not understand what the government is. The government is a collection of individuals. It is not a single borg instance. Some individuals within that collection are going to act different than other ones. Also the government does a lot of funding through different mechanisms. Many miltiary programs are a cost+ program where they pay the contractor the cost of development plus a profit% so the initial budget is a bit moot since the point is to pay for a capability. That obviously doesn't apply here and the FCC wasn't offering a Cost+ program.
- jandrese 3y ago
  As if cost+ contracting hasn't been a major factor in projects going overbudget and behind schedule. Even with cost+ the contractor needs to provide an estimate up front of both the time and money needed. While it is understood that it is just an estimate, having projects come in for 5x or more of the original estimated cost is egregious. SLS for example was estimated to cost $1.5B, but instead costs $11.2B and still hasn't launched.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    > SLS for example was estimated to cost $1.5B I wish it was; lol. The initial estimate was $18B [1]. I suspect you saw the $1.5B number for some sub-component of SLS. That's another common problem with government projects. The media will read some government report that says a new railroad will cost $1B and then report that the entire project will cost $1B while the report only talked about track cost and not about land acquisition, even environmental studies, or etc. That said, yes SLS is over ($23B) the $18B budget and not done. I do wish NASA would move closer to how DARPA does things where you payout a reward to companies that achieve some milestone. Somewhat close to what the FCC did here except the FCC is giving the money ahead of milestone. But there are pros and cons to this as government contracting is a pia so when you get into the situation of a single competitor it gets awkward. Contractors not meeting their bids is a problem though. At the personal/corporate/government level I don't think people account for enough the fact that the contractor might not uphold their side of the bargin. Similar to how many people choose the cheapest insurance and then :surprise-pickachu-face: all their claims get denied. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding
atty 3y ago
To be fair, defense is an existential risk for the US and its allies. NATO can’t really afford to not have a reasonably up-to-date combat jet. They also need to continually feed money into the military industrial complex so that suppliers don’t go under/downsize too much/etc. Not disagreeing with your sentiment, just think that certain fields like defense, healthcare, etc have slightly different priority lists.
- tehjoker 3y ago
  > defense is an existential risk for the US this is not a true statement for a huge country with oceans on 2 sides and nukes. it is a true statement about people relying on the us military to make money tho
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - FredPret 3y ago
    Oceans are only a defense if you can float a navy on them. The British Islands got invaded a couple of times... until they built a big navy. Having two oceans is great, but now you need at least two fleets. Nukes are only worth something if you have a lot of them and can credibly delivery them in multiple ways. Now you need subs, long-range bombers and the fighters to protect them, and missile silos. Now add in reliance on a global supply chain (many types of oil and minerals, grades of steel not made in the US, TSMC), and all of a sudden you need to be able to help protect your partners on the other side of the world. Now sprinkle in a couple of crazy dictators with nuclear arsenals and huge armies of their own, and it's starting to make sense why the US military needs constant re-investment.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > Now you need subs, long-range bombers and the fighters to protect them, and missile silos. The role of the long-range bombers in the nuclear triad is heavily questioned. It is not quite certain that you "need" them.
I_Am_Nous 3y ago
The FCC didn't even give Starlink a chance to run late or underdeliver, they assessed the program and capability and decided it wasn't where they wanted to spend grant money. So they aren't being punished, they are being passed over for a better option.
- ALittleLight 3y ago
  What is the better option?
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    The FCC originally didn't want to include fixed wireless or satellite internet for RDOF consideration, so from that fact alone I believe they were intending it to be fiber optic. A fiber plant is pretty immutable, even if you end up upgrading the things connected to the fiber for higher speeds. Once it's buried, it's pretty reliable (unless a passing herd of excavators get hungry and smell the fiber buried underground) while a satellite system is hard to upgrade and subject to the unpredictability of space. For example, mission Group 4-7 deployed 49 satellites and a geomagnetic storm killed all but 10 of them. The risk is just much higher with satellites than with buried fiber. If the FCC is trying to build more permanent networks, fiber in the ground is much more permanent.
    - jandrese 3y ago
      Buried fiber is never going to happen for the rural folks serviced by Starlink. It's hard to get companies to put fiber down in well populated suburbs, getting them out into the country is pure wishful thinking, especially if you're only talking about a billion dollars.
      - YokoZar 3y ago
        Do we have to bury it? Why not just put it up on transmission lines? It seems weird to me that we can run Cable TV to fairly remote locations but not fiber.
wizardwes 3y ago
Part of the issue is that some of these companies are the only companies in the US capable of this scale of manufacturing, which is expensive to maintain, and only the government really uses. In other words, they're too big to fail. If we penalize them, and they go out of business or even just downsize, and then we need something urgently, we're SOL. And so we keep ponying up so that, should we need it, we keep their manufacturing capabilities.
bsder 3y ago
> So many boondoggles could be killed off before they spend money. This is, in fact, precisely the issue with government contracting. But not in the way you think. For all practical purposes, every single government contract can be cancelled without warning and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Consequently, every single government contract is executed with that in mind. This leads to all the pathological behaviors that everybody bitches about.
cavisne 3y ago
I looked a bit more into this program and its all a lot more complicated 1) The money was granted in 2020 based on an inaccurate map (leading starlink & others to get funding for covering places like Target's and major airports) 2) This Starlink-FCC debate has been a protracted process, since then the program has essentially failed (a third of the money has gone to companies that didnt deliver) 3) Since then significantly more funding has been given to states for broadband, making this FCC program relatively small It seems like the FCC is clawing back as much money as possible to try and recover from the initial auction design. https://communitynets.org/content/worries-mount-rural-digital-opportunity-fund-default-money-will-be-wasted https://communitynets.org/content/worries-mount-rural-digita...
inemesitaffia 3y ago
There's going to be future rounds

shmatt 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_projects_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_pr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_projects#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_pro... F35 Survived but there are like 50 other planes that didnt in that second list

justsomehnguy 3y ago
Bradley IFV is not on this list.
- runlaszlorun 3y ago
  Former Bradley guy here. Like others have mentioned, it’s done far better then expected. It (along with any other IFV) are pretty much the ultimate Swiss army knife of a military vehicle. It can pretty much do almost any ground role even though isn’t insanely awe inspiring for any one. And the 25mm autocannon is prob the easiest thing in our existing arsenal we have to adapt for an anti-drone role. And, no, that one set of photos from Ukraine of Bradleys damaged in a minefield has zero bearing pro or con given the 40 years of experience we have otherwise with it.
  - fullspectrumdev 3y ago
    My friends in Ukraine fucking love the Bradley. It fills a lot of roles, being very useful for casevac under fire (much better than many alternative options).
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    I find it quite amusing how proud American guys are defending their MIC... which took 15 years to produce Bradley. This thread is not about how good/bad M2 is. Please re-read the comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38632482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38632482
- fullspectrumdev 3y ago
  The Bradley is actually good. Did it have some initial hiccups? Sure, but all military equipment has. These days? The Bradley fucking rocks. My friends out in harms way love them.
- georgeecollins 3y ago
  Say what you want about the Bradley, and criticism of the military is very healthy! I think the war in Ukraine shows that while the project may have been wasteful the end result is still useful.
- mustacheemperor 3y ago
  Because the Bradley IFV was only a boondoggle within the almost completely fictionalized setting of Pentagon Wars. Someone else pointed out the performance in Ukraine, but IMO this was already a settled point in 1991, when they collectively destroyed more enemy armor than the Abrams and only lost 3 vehicles to enemy fire.
- Qwertious 3y ago
  The Pentagon Wars was misleading bullshit and the Bradley IFV was a good idea that was slated to come in under budget (before James Burton demanded his tests). The tests were a huge waste of money that conclusively proved that the Bradley couldn't survive an anti-tank missile, which is irrelevant because 1) the Bradley isn't a tank and was never required to survive one, and 2) the Pentagon already knew that; they'd tested the components individually already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk (28min 20sec)
jandrese 3y ago
Most of those weren't cancelled because they ran behind schedule, they were cancelled for political reasons or because the role they were designed for went away. Sometimes because some other project was overrunning their budget so badly that they had to be cancelled to free up the money for the boondoggle.
hughesjj 3y ago
And the f35 is honestly legit when it's all said and done. There's a reason why it's sold so well, and it's only getting better.
- boc 3y ago
  If the Marines hadn't insisted on adding STOL/VTOL capabilities wrt the F35B, the project would have been much more straightforward and successful. Even despite that crazy requirement, it's still a success for NATO exports.
fastaguy88 3y ago
Those lists would be far more informative if they had some years associated with them. Many of the cancelled projects were prop-planes cancelled in the 1940's and 50's.

lesuorac 3y ago

I think you may not understand what the government is. The government is a collection of individuals. It is not a single borg instance. Some individuals within that collection are going to act different than other ones. Also the government does a lot of funding through different mechanisms. Many miltiary programs are a cost+ program where they pay the contractor the cost of development plus a profit% so the initial budget is a bit moot since the point is to pay for a capability. That obviously doesn't apply here and the FCC wasn't offering a Cost+ program.

jandrese 3y ago
As if cost+ contracting hasn't been a major factor in projects going overbudget and behind schedule. Even with cost+ the contractor needs to provide an estimate up front of both the time and money needed. While it is understood that it is just an estimate, having projects come in for 5x or more of the original estimated cost is egregious. SLS for example was estimated to cost $1.5B, but instead costs $11.2B and still hasn't launched.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > SLS for example was estimated to cost $1.5B I wish it was; lol. The initial estimate was $18B [1]. I suspect you saw the $1.5B number for some sub-component of SLS. That's another common problem with government projects. The media will read some government report that says a new railroad will cost $1B and then report that the entire project will cost $1B while the report only talked about track cost and not about land acquisition, even environmental studies, or etc. That said, yes SLS is over ($23B) the $18B budget and not done. I do wish NASA would move closer to how DARPA does things where you payout a reward to companies that achieve some milestone. Somewhat close to what the FCC did here except the FCC is giving the money ahead of milestone. But there are pros and cons to this as government contracting is a pia so when you get into the situation of a single competitor it gets awkward. Contractors not meeting their bids is a problem though. At the personal/corporate/government level I don't think people account for enough the fact that the contractor might not uphold their side of the bargin. Similar to how many people choose the cheapest insurance and then :surprise-pickachu-face: all their claims get denied. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding

atty 3y ago

To be fair, defense is an existential risk for the US and its allies. NATO can’t really afford to not have a reasonably up-to-date combat jet. They also need to continually feed money into the military industrial complex so that suppliers don’t go under/downsize too much/etc. Not disagreeing with your sentiment, just think that certain fields like defense, healthcare, etc have slightly different priority lists.

tehjoker 3y ago
> defense is an existential risk for the US this is not a true statement for a huge country with oceans on 2 sides and nukes. it is a true statement about people relying on the us military to make money tho
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- FredPret 3y ago
  Oceans are only a defense if you can float a navy on them. The British Islands got invaded a couple of times... until they built a big navy. Having two oceans is great, but now you need at least two fleets. Nukes are only worth something if you have a lot of them and can credibly delivery them in multiple ways. Now you need subs, long-range bombers and the fighters to protect them, and missile silos. Now add in reliance on a global supply chain (many types of oil and minerals, grades of steel not made in the US, TSMC), and all of a sudden you need to be able to help protect your partners on the other side of the world. Now sprinkle in a couple of crazy dictators with nuclear arsenals and huge armies of their own, and it's starting to make sense why the US military needs constant re-investment.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > Now you need subs, long-range bombers and the fighters to protect them, and missile silos. The role of the long-range bombers in the nuclear triad is heavily questioned. It is not quite certain that you "need" them.

I_Am_Nous 3y ago

The FCC didn't even give Starlink a chance to run late or underdeliver, they assessed the program and capability and decided it wasn't where they wanted to spend grant money. So they aren't being punished, they are being passed over for a better option.

ALittleLight 3y ago
What is the better option?
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  The FCC originally didn't want to include fixed wireless or satellite internet for RDOF consideration, so from that fact alone I believe they were intending it to be fiber optic. A fiber plant is pretty immutable, even if you end up upgrading the things connected to the fiber for higher speeds. Once it's buried, it's pretty reliable (unless a passing herd of excavators get hungry and smell the fiber buried underground) while a satellite system is hard to upgrade and subject to the unpredictability of space. For example, mission Group 4-7 deployed 49 satellites and a geomagnetic storm killed all but 10 of them. The risk is just much higher with satellites than with buried fiber. If the FCC is trying to build more permanent networks, fiber in the ground is much more permanent.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    Buried fiber is never going to happen for the rural folks serviced by Starlink. It's hard to get companies to put fiber down in well populated suburbs, getting them out into the country is pure wishful thinking, especially if you're only talking about a billion dollars.
    - YokoZar 3y ago
      Do we have to bury it? Why not just put it up on transmission lines? It seems weird to me that we can run Cable TV to fairly remote locations but not fiber.

wizardwes 3y ago

Part of the issue is that some of these companies are the only companies in the US capable of this scale of manufacturing, which is expensive to maintain, and only the government really uses. In other words, they're too big to fail. If we penalize them, and they go out of business or even just downsize, and then we need something urgently, we're SOL. And so we keep ponying up so that, should we need it, we keep their manufacturing capabilities.

bsder 3y ago

> So many boondoggles could be killed off before they spend money. This is, in fact, precisely the issue with government contracting. But not in the way you think. For all practical purposes, every single government contract can be cancelled without warning and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Consequently, every single government contract is executed with that in mind. This leads to all the pathological behaviors that everybody bitches about.

cavisne 3y ago

I looked a bit more into this program and its all a lot more complicated 1) The money was granted in 2020 based on an inaccurate map (leading starlink & others to get funding for covering places like Target's and major airports) 2) This Starlink-FCC debate has been a protracted process, since then the program has essentially failed (a third of the money has gone to companies that didnt deliver) 3) Since then significantly more funding has been given to states for broadband, making this FCC program relatively small It seems like the FCC is clawing back as much money as possible to try and recover from the initial auction design. https://communitynets.org/content/worries-mount-rural-digital-opportunity-fund-default-money-will-be-wasted https://communitynets.org/content/worries-mount-rural-digita...

inemesitaffia 3y ago

There's going to be future rounds