It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: scrounger
Because most contracts are cost plus, not fixed price. Cost plus sets the amount of the contract, plus incentives for certain goals being met, but doesn't set penalties for overruns. Fixed price sets the price of the contract, plus an overrun percentage, and everything above that is paid by the company.
For years, cost plus worked just fine. There were overruns, but they were kept largely under control and weren't outrageous. There was also Nunn-McCurdy, which required review at 25% overrun, and termination at 50%, unless it could be proven to be required for national security.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: scrounger
First, I never denied there were overruns. What I said is that they weren't to the extreme they got to as technology advanced. As equipment got more complex, the overruns got worse.
im sorry but "as equipemtn got more complex , the overruns got worse" is a piss poor excuse at best. first equipent ALWAYS gets more "complex" as time goes on. but that does not justify overruns. along with your argument falls flat because the SR 71 by any standard was a "complex" as it gets. but there was not the cost overruns you see today... nice try
Second, you keep bringing up the KC-46, which doesn't do anything for your argument, because it's fixed price. Boeing has already paid over $3B in overruns and fixes. The Air Force, meaning the taxpayer, is paying $55M for a boom redesign because they gave Boeing bad data.
first of all the KC 46 is not a "fixed price" because there is cost overruns . Along with you seem to forgot your initial response there is "always cost overruns".. so suddenly this particular piece of hardware defies all previous and post military projects? your kung fu deflection is weak. Along with maybe the boom was designed by "bad data" . but that defies logic given that boeing is supposed to do testing (we have computers now) and practical prototype that SHOULD have caught this instead of claiming it would work.. so at best your justifying a company not caring about their product working
Third, bringing up OBOGS on the F-35 is also probably not the best argument. OBOGS has been causing issues with the F-18, F-22, T-45, EA-18G, and F-35. It's a systemic problem, not aircraft specific problem.
sigh, Yes ANYTHING that is newer than the previous machine will have new challenges and problems. But what you gloss over is (in this case airforce) specs out a plane.. they want it to do A, B and C.. so the company makes a prototype and when the contract is signed it states what they are making will do A B and C for XX dollars. any "problems" should have been worked out BEFORE they sign a contract that states it will do as promised. not "we promised it but now there are problems"... sorry but if you say it will do what it claims and WE PAY YOU for it.. to claim "we have problems" thats on them. again not up to taxpayers to pay for a company not giving what was agreed to.
If you want to blame someone for "something spec out to the max and contract promise it will when it CLEARLY DOESNT", blame the service that wrote the contract. They write these contracts wanting everything they can fit into these platforms, and want it to do everything. Then the contractor tries to get it to work, and fails, but the price goes up.
im sorry but by your statement your blaming the service for asking for something that cannot be done (your words) . but IGNORE that the company SIGNED A CONTRACT THAT THEY CLAIM (btw ARE PAID) that it can be. if (as you claim) it CANT BE then the company SHOULD NOT SIGN A CONTRACT THAT SAYS IT CAN. Hell even kelly johnson sent back money and WOULD ADMIT if something could not be done. tell me if you asked for a car to do ABC, the company signed a contract that said it could be , YOU PAID FOR IT . Would you accept the blame and pay more? Bet to hell not (nor should you). but your free to require THE REST OF US to pay ? at this point I have to ask.. do you work for boeing or one of the other defense contractors?
A prime example is the E-10A. The Air Force wanted a single platform that could replace the E-3B, E-8C, RC-135, and E-4B. Those are radically different platforms to be cramming into one airframe. They also couldn't integrate air and ground search radars into one platform. So then it became two platforms. Costs continued to climb, until it was canceled finally. Northrop didn't go to the Air Force, the Air Force came to them with the design parameters and let them figure out how to go about making it all work.
um you seemed to leave out (deliberately it seems) a few steps.. the air force presents what they want (specs) on a new plane. they provide some "seed money" for studies to see if possible. the contractor then presents prototypes that are supposed to perform to those requirements. then the company PRESENTS A CONTRACT that CLAIMS THEY CAN MEET IT along with price. THEN the air force signs it and pays WITH UNDERSTANDING that the company will provide what they claimed at said price... if it cant be done the company at design / begining phase (if in real world) would say "cant be done" . again it may be in a contract or pushed (like sgt york) with more cash . something that should not be allowed. but in anycase the company when signs a contract AGREES IT CAN... sorry but your mental gymnatics trying to justify this is getting really desperate
The company is going by the terms of the contract.
um that I think on common sense shown that it isnt the case. Again why is there not a working (ex) f-35 in time frame you promised. the only LOGCIAL reason they dont is there is no penalty if they do not
If the contract says the government pays for overruns, then they pay.
on that I agree. but again my point is CALLING THIS OUT when in civilian world this is NOT (most of the time) happening/done.
Civilian contracts are all about profits and minimizing costs.
somehow military is not or not supposed to be? somehow a private jet (btw military does buy them) when you buy it for the military becomes anti "minimizing costs"? really? what reality are you in
They don't have to pay the R&D and engineering costs because, at least for aircraft, there are going to be so many sold they'll be spread out over multiple companies.
Continued
They write these contracts wanting everything they can fit into these platforms, and want it to do everything. Then the contractor tries to get it to work, and fails, but the price goes up.
The Origin Story In 1943, the U.S. Army’s Air Tactical Service Command (ATSC) met with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation to express its dire need for a jet fighter to counter a rapidly growing German jet threat.
One month later, a young engineer by the name of Clarence "Kelly" L. Johnson and his team of young engineers hand delivered the XP-80 Shooting Star jet fighter proposal to the ATSC.
Quickly the go-ahead was given for Lockheed to start development on the United States' first jet fighter effort.
It was June of 1943 and this project marked the birth of what would become the Skunk Works® with Kelly Johnson at its helm. The formal contract for the XP-80 did not arrive at Lockheed until October 16, 1943; four months after work had already begun .
This would prove to be a common practice within the Skunk Works.
Many times a customer would come to the Skunk Works with a request,The formal contract for the XP-80 did not arrive at Lockheed until October 16, 1943; four months after work had already begun Kelly Johnson and his team designed and built the XP-80 in only 143 days, seven less than was required.
This would prove to be a common practice within the Skunk Works.
Many times a customer would come to the Skunk Works with a request, and on a handshake the project would begin, no contracts in place, no official submittal process. Kelly Johnson and his team designed and built the XP-80 in only 143 days, seven less than was required.
What allowed Kelly to operate the Skunk Works so effectively and efficiently was his unconventional organizational approach.
He broke the rules, challenging the current bureaucratic system that stifled innovation and hindered progress.
His philosophy is spelled out in his "14 rules and practices."
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JohnnyJetson
You're comparing ONE division of one company, and a very small number of contracts 60+ years ago to now. It hasn't worked that way since the U-2 and F-104 were born, and probably never will again.
No, in Fact NO contracts was how Skunk Works got started . . . and as the U-2 et al were All "black projects" (which came in on time, but "what budget"? You certainly won't find much of one which was The Deal to get the guy's at that company to work for them