7 ms·

> Who is going to sit around building this technology in advance of its only customer wanting to buy it? Ok, so that's a fair point, but we don't really owe th

> Who is going to sit around building this technology in advance of its only customer wanting to buy it? Ok, so that's a fair point, but we don't really owe these companies a viable business model. What happened to funding DARPA and NRL and Lincoln Labs and other places instead of private companies for the research portion? What happened to funding real research instead of funding an amorphous combination of research and delivery? Those two things could still be separate. We could have a ton of competing research designs, and when some of them yield working prototypes, /then/ we can decide whether to pour hundreds of billions into building them. > It's a joint-venture where the government foots the R&D risk to get a product that doesn't exist yet. You're suggesting this is more kickstarter than amazon, basically. Which is fine. But if the government was 100% aware that there was risk, why aren't they hedging their bets like any sane investor should? It sure looks like they went all-in on the F-35, for example.

rayiner 12y ago
> Ok, so that's a fair point, but we don't really owe these companies a viable business model. The U.S.G. doesn't owe them anything, but if it wants these weapons, it needs to offer its contractors a viable business model. > What happened to funding DARPA and NRL and Lincoln Labs and other places instead of private companies for the research portion? DARPA doesn't really do research. It manages R&D grants to private companies. Lincoln Labs is also a private entity. And in any case, they do more blue-sky stuff, not applied development. > We could have a ton of competing research designs, and when some of them yield working prototypes One of the early steps of the F-35 project was to issue contracts for two competing designs, one from Boeing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32) and one from Lockheed-Martin (which ultimately became the JSF). Each one cost $750 million.
monknomo 12y ago
Most government agencies that do 'research' funnel grant and contract money to private entities. Having scientists or building things directly is 'communism' and we're against that. After all, a government employee manages to be both expensive and incompetent, so why not save money by hiring contractors to do their work? /s I think going all in on the F-35 has to do with the some kind of power struggle between the air force and the army. The F-35 is the air force's baby, but it's a ground support role, which means the army is the organization that benefits from it. It's ground support as the air force prefers: fast, stealthy, light, in-and-out and not as the army prefers: slow, heavily armed, lingering for hours. As far as I can tell, the air force doesn't really care to do ground support the way the army would prefer. I assume they resent the idea that they're a support organization and not the principal actors. I don't know, maybe it's tied up in the old idea that pilots are the knights of the skies? Of course, I'm no expert - everything I know I learned here: http://www.jqpublicblog.com/lying-win-air-force-misrepresents-combat-records-campaign-retire-10/ http://www.jqpublicblog.com/lying-win-air-force-misrepresent... here: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-budget http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-... and here: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/12/fallows_chart/35e182a0b.png http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/12/fa... http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...
- rayiner 12y ago
  At least with DARPA it's not about communism but wanting to avoid bureaucracy. They don't even own their own building and program managers are kicked out after four years. Basically they don't want to become NASA.
  - monknomo 12y ago
    It's true that ending up like NASA would be unfortunate, but it seems like there is a better way. Also, my crack about communism was not meant to be from DARPS's viewpoint. I see it more that it is easier to fund something that spreads money to private business across many districts than it is to fund generic government activity.
- dubyah 12y ago
  No, the reason why is because the F-35 is a multi-service and multi-national project. Couple that with large production numbers trying to leverage the advantages from economies of scale, you have a very heavy program. It's strange how many people hold the F-35 as solely the Air Force's fault when considering the branches and countries involved and especially considering how much the STOVL requirement on the part of the Marines compromised the design for all other variants. The whole F-35 vs A-10 satisfies a lot of tropes; government bureaucracy gone wild, old vs new, Air Force doesn't care about CAS, etc.. The fact is, guided munitions have changed the nature of close air support to the point that most CAS missions have been performed by other aircraft for a number of years now. The A-10 operates well in such asymmetrical environments as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Air Force concern is towards less permissive environments and having an inventory of planes that can multitask vs single-task. The A-10 has always been known to operate only in permissive environments and MANPADS are an emerging threat (Su-25 in Ukraine, for example). Yes, the A-10 is highly survivable, but there is case to be made in not being hit in the first place. I would prefer if they kept the A-10 (and to be honest, prefer if they start fielding A-29 or some other LAS/LAAR craft in such permissive environments), but their argument against the A-10 (essentially, "we prefer to keep it, but other aircraft can do a pretty good role and it's cheaper to abandon it") isn't without merit.

rayiner 12y ago

> Ok, so that's a fair point, but we don't really owe these companies a viable business model. The U.S.G. doesn't owe them anything, but if it wants these weapons, it needs to offer its contractors a viable business model. > What happened to funding DARPA and NRL and Lincoln Labs and other places instead of private companies for the research portion? DARPA doesn't really do research. It manages R&D grants to private companies. Lincoln Labs is also a private entity. And in any case, they do more blue-sky stuff, not applied development. > We could have a ton of competing research designs, and when some of them yield working prototypes One of the early steps of the F-35 project was to issue contracts for two competing designs, one from Boeing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32) and one from Lockheed-Martin (which ultimately became the JSF). Each one cost $750 million.

monknomo 12y ago

Most government agencies that do 'research' funnel grant and contract money to private entities. Having scientists or building things directly is 'communism' and we're against that. After all, a government employee manages to be both expensive and incompetent, so why not save money by hiring contractors to do their work? /s I think going all in on the F-35 has to do with the some kind of power struggle between the air force and the army. The F-35 is the air force's baby, but it's a ground support role, which means the army is the organization that benefits from it. It's ground support as the air force prefers: fast, stealthy, light, in-and-out and not as the army prefers: slow, heavily armed, lingering for hours. As far as I can tell, the air force doesn't really care to do ground support the way the army would prefer. I assume they resent the idea that they're a support organization and not the principal actors. I don't know, maybe it's tied up in the old idea that pilots are the knights of the skies? Of course, I'm no expert - everything I know I learned here: http://www.jqpublicblog.com/lying-win-air-force-misrepresents-combat-records-campaign-retire-10/ http://www.jqpublicblog.com/lying-win-air-force-misrepresent... here: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-budget http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-... and here: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/12/fallows_chart/35e182a0b.png http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/12/fa... http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...

rayiner 12y ago
At least with DARPA it's not about communism but wanting to avoid bureaucracy. They don't even own their own building and program managers are kicked out after four years. Basically they don't want to become NASA.
- monknomo 12y ago
  It's true that ending up like NASA would be unfortunate, but it seems like there is a better way. Also, my crack about communism was not meant to be from DARPS's viewpoint. I see it more that it is easier to fund something that spreads money to private business across many districts than it is to fund generic government activity.
dubyah 12y ago
No, the reason why is because the F-35 is a multi-service and multi-national project. Couple that with large production numbers trying to leverage the advantages from economies of scale, you have a very heavy program. It's strange how many people hold the F-35 as solely the Air Force's fault when considering the branches and countries involved and especially considering how much the STOVL requirement on the part of the Marines compromised the design for all other variants. The whole F-35 vs A-10 satisfies a lot of tropes; government bureaucracy gone wild, old vs new, Air Force doesn't care about CAS, etc.. The fact is, guided munitions have changed the nature of close air support to the point that most CAS missions have been performed by other aircraft for a number of years now. The A-10 operates well in such asymmetrical environments as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Air Force concern is towards less permissive environments and having an inventory of planes that can multitask vs single-task. The A-10 has always been known to operate only in permissive environments and MANPADS are an emerging threat (Su-25 in Ukraine, for example). Yes, the A-10 is highly survivable, but there is case to be made in not being hit in the first place. I would prefer if they kept the A-10 (and to be honest, prefer if they start fielding A-29 or some other LAS/LAAR craft in such permissive environments), but their argument against the A-10 (essentially, "we prefer to keep it, but other aircraft can do a pretty good role and it's cheaper to abandon it") isn't without merit.