US Defense Contracting- Something is a miss!

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
I've been studying known, and alleged secret US Defense Contracts for several years now. I've come to a chilling conclusion. The Pentagon practices it's own form of socialism! That's right, they aren't giving out contracts based on quality of work or contractor reliability, but on some other system! Here are some examples:

Haliburton: This is one of the most famouse examples. They were given a No-Bid contract to work in Iraq.

ATF/F-22: I know we have debated this for years, but I still can't shake the feel that they Just gave Lockheed the contract. Lockheed got a Ton of "credit for the F-117, which is a very simple and basic aircraft. Northrop, on the otherhand seems to have been penilized for delivering on the B-2, one of the most technically difficult contrats in HISTORY! (The F-23 should have been the F-15's sucessor IMHO!)

Quarts/Darkstar: Not to pick on Lockheed, but why where they given, with no compatition or almost none, a contract to replace something they had just failed on?

F-14: It is a great plane and I love it. I say it the best interceptor ever. However, who/what did the F-14 compete against for the contract? Shouldn't they have had at least one compeditor?(if there was one, tell me!)

Why do they have these no-bid contract? I though compatition was the whole idea behind Capitalism! What is this, scoialism in America?

Tim




posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I'm really wondering why you would consider this socialism?
How is the government scratching corporate backs socialism?
I agree that it is bad thing, but actually it's capitilism working in it's most corupt form.



Basically socialism is the belief that what is socially produced should be socially owned. In other words, if hundreds of people come together to produce a factory, it shouldn’t then become the sole property of one person. Socialists hold that production should be based on human need, not profit. Instead of large factories and offices being run by individual capitalists whose sole interest is profit, they should be democratically controlled by the workers. Socialism is about genuine democracy.


www.geocities.com...

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily support or agree with the web site linked.
linked for purpose of education only.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I'm really wondering why you would consider this socialism?
How is the government scratching corporate backs socialism?
I agree that it is bad thing, but actually it's capitilism working in it's most corupt form.


I think you might be right on this one! I not an expert on economics, and often get some of my terms confused. I wasn't sure about the term, but I knew something about the system was very wrong!

Tim



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
No problem Ghost, political terms are very often confused, mainly because the powers that be don't want us to know the truth, so anything that is a threat to them (socialism, communism, anarchism) is misrepresented and demonised so you don't ever become informed of how life could be so much better for you.

What's good for us is bad for them, and visa versa. They want to keep you inside a neat little box so you continue consuming and slaving for their system.

Edit*it's late lol...lotsa mystaks

[edit on 31/10/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
I've come to a chilling conclusion.
The Pentagon practices it's own form of socialism! That's right, they aren't giving out contracts based on quality of work or contractor reliability, but on some other system! .........



I though compatition was the whole idea behind Capitalism!
What is this, scoialism in America?

Tim


one response could be....

there is competition- - - in a 'one-step-removed' sense
the favoritism by the Defense Dept, or as some see it 'Doleing out Work'
is just the fascists way of insuring that there is more than 1 Corporation which has the infrastructure and capacity & diversity to accomplish
'Projects' needed by the Pentagon +Defense Dept +DARPA, et al.

besides, between Lockheed, Boeing, Rockwell, Haliburton and the others'
a whole bunch of sub-systems are divied-up...there's no such thing as One Corporate Provider of a 'Project'...but there IS a single Corporation which acts as the Project Manager and holds reign over the other sub-contractors & is the 'accountable party' when something-goes-wrong
(i.e. cost overruns or delayed delivery)

It's in the Feds interest to 'rotate' contracts, and give all qualified parties a piece-of-the-pie...the policy of 'managed selection process' insures only limited layoffs...
a diverse geography in sites producing DefenseDept 'deterrents'...
does not concentrate power & influence of the DefenseIndustry...

To really answer the charges
would take a page or three to present, imo



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio

It's in the Feds interest to 'rotate' contracts, and give all qualified parties a piece-of-the-pie...the policy of 'managed selection process' insures only limited layoffs...


I would argue that it's more likely so the gov get's a good political contribution from ALL the contractors. If they were to leave some out they'd loose out in political contributions from them big time.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
So, how's that tinfoil hat working out? Are the black helicopters still hovering over your house?



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
F-14: It is a great plane and I love it. I say it the best interceptor ever. However, who/what did the F-14 compete against for the contract? Shouldn't they have had at least one compeditor?(if there was one, tell me!)
Tim


The "ORIGINAL" F-14 was going to be the navalized F-111B equipped with AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. When it proved to be too heavy and have other problems, they had a "rush" contract for their new interceptor. Back in the 1950s and 60s contractors and the Pentagon had a different relationship than they do now.

When Kelly Johnson came up with the U-2 and the F-104, he designed them, then went to the Pentagon and said "Hey, I have these designs, do you think you might be interested?" There was no competition or anything with many designs around that time. Then in the 1970s it became a competition, and the military would list requirements and gradually became the process we have now.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I don't see the whole "socialism" connection here. Furthermore, Halliburton was given the no-bid contract in Iraq because (at least at the time) they were the only company in the world who was capable of doing the kind of work that our government needed. President Clinton also awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract in Bosnia. Where were all the anti-Halliburton folks then?

The point is, when there's only one company out there that's able to do what you need done, why waste the time and energy of accepting bids? Why award the contract to a company that has never done the kinds of things that you need done, just because they bid lower than Halliburton?

I also find your description of the F-117 as "a very simple and basic aircraft" to be a tad bit off the mark. We're talking about DECADES of top secret R&D to make a fighter (in reality its more of a bomber or attack aircraft) that has the radar cross section of a small bird. Reducing a plane's radar signature while also reducing its heat signature and still allowing it to have a respectable payload is not a very simple and basic task. Looking back, some of the ideas implimented could be considered "basic". But figuring that out at the time certainly wasn't "simple".

But overall I do agree with your gripes over government no-bid contracts. Obviously there are circumstances, such as the Halliburton one, where I don't expect our government to sit around and take bids. Sometimes situations arise where we need something done TODAY and we need it done by a company that has proven itself to be dependable in the past. Also, when accepting bids we shouldn't just go with the lowest one. I mean, you get what you pay for. When it comes to the safety of our men and women in uniform, as well as the defense of this nation, I don't want our government pinching pennies.

Our government should also try to work with American companies- especially ones that employ a lot of people and do a lot of good for their respective communities and employees. If we're going to be spending billions of dollars on something then we should be dumping it back into our economy through American businesses like Boeing.

The bottom line is that the fat cats in Washington are doing plenty of things wrong when it comes to spending our money. One of them are these no-bid contracts. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't want to spin this into a political conversation, so I will just say that we need to start holding our political leaders more accountable when it comes to things like no-bid contracts and pork barrell spending.





top topics
 
0

log in

join