3 ms·

> Of course, the devil is in the details: the military needs service documentation, detailed schematics, 3D models of parts so they can be manufactured in the f

by uticus 1y ago

> Of course, the devil is in the details: the military needs service documentation, detailed schematics, 3D models of parts so they can be manufactured in the field, and so on. This phrase, embedded in a quote touting the benefits, seems to me to show a big downside. If the Navy (owner) gains the right they also gain the responsibility, and it's not like the Navy is not some huge bureaucratic system. Quite the opposite, the Navy makes most contractors look like DIY Mom and Pops. A sailor may fix an oven themselves until someone gets burned or electrically shocked, at which point the bureaucratic machine starts up and we end back up at square one: waiting to fix ovens until after-actions, reg updates, personnel coaching, part investigation, etc. In fact the more I focus on this phrase the more the whole article seems like a sarcasm piece (and not just because of the Vulture's reporting style).

InSteady 1y ago
You think the prospect of injuries in among military personell are going to prevent policies and practicalities that increase operational fitness? There are about 1.5 million injuries in the US military per year that require medical treatment and documentation (so more than a first aid kit). A few burns per year vs a 13 billion dollar carrier in a dysfunctional state... even an idiotic beaurocracy (which the miltiary is not) can figure that one out.
- uticus 1y ago
  > You think the prospect of injuries in among military personell are going to prevent policies and practicalities that increase operational fitness? My point is that someone has to shoulder the costs. I'm not sure I would classify the Navy as an "idiotic beaurocracy" but it is not an efficient organization. They can "get it done" as you imply only with an obscene amount of money budgeted (and even so still have to shuffle money around every year). In one scenario, contracting out helps operational fitness by letting sailors focus on their MOS and taking the burden of upkeep and maintenance off the table. Sure, contracting is often done poorly or even wickedly, but the best solution isn't always to replace contracting with an MOS.

by uticus 1y ago

InSteady 1y ago

You think the prospect of injuries in among military personell are going to prevent policies and practicalities that increase operational fitness? There are about 1.5 million injuries in the US military per year that require medical treatment and documentation (so more than a first aid kit). A few burns per year vs a 13 billion dollar carrier in a dysfunctional state... even an idiotic beaurocracy (which the miltiary is not) can figure that one out.

uticus 1y ago
> You think the prospect of injuries in among military personell are going to prevent policies and practicalities that increase operational fitness? My point is that someone has to shoulder the costs. I'm not sure I would classify the Navy as an "idiotic beaurocracy" but it is not an efficient organization. They can "get it done" as you imply only with an obscene amount of money budgeted (and even so still have to shuffle money around every year). In one scenario, contracting out helps operational fitness by letting sailors focus on their MOS and taking the burden of upkeep and maintenance off the table. Sure, contracting is often done poorly or even wickedly, but the best solution isn't always to replace contracting with an MOS.