Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Happy Hoosier

(9,357 posts)
12. But Democrats usually support jobs programs, right? ;)
Thu Aug 17, 2023, 10:29 AM
Aug 2023

For the record, I fully support Government investment in the development and technology and maintaining a manufacturing base to support a strong defense.

There is plenty to fault in military R&D but I don;t agree that "much" of it is "nothing more than a jobs program." For example, as someone who works primarily in tactical aerospace technology, most (but not all) of the criticism of the F-35 program is uninformed garbage.

MOST of the projects I've worked on over the years have been worthy, at least IMHO. Where they fail is usually in poor managment, quite often to the Government deferring too much to the contractors who often place company profit ahead of what's best for the Country. I mean, companies need to make money... I get that. But IMHO, the Government needs to cultivate and maintain technical expertise in order to hold the contractor's feet to the fire.

I'm kind of appalled at how oftern in the past (this is less common now, but it does still happen) the Government allows Contractors to retain the rights to data associated with defense systems. Quite often, they own the data interfaces. The Government does this because it does not have the technical expertise to meaningfully own the docs and data, but it means that the Contractor retains an iron grip on anything to do with the system in question. This leads to "vendor lock" and (you guessed it) bloated costs.

There is a signficant effort underway in DoD to reduce this vendor lock. As you might imagine, many of the Big Boy vendors are less than enthusiastic about it, but some are starting to see the benefits of collaboration. We'll see.

In THIS case, the idea behind the ship was a decent one, but it is an example of where the Navy simply gave too much leeway to the contractor. They allowed the program to pass milestones it had no business passing. The program should have failed much earlier than it did.

The thing is failure happens in R&D. It's part of the process. But we must be willing to declare failures when we see them.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Think of how many people.... AntivaxHunters Aug 2023 #1
True, but it would never have been spent on them. Xavier Breath Aug 2023 #8
It is not like it is real money...It was tax dollars. Chainfire Aug 2023 #2
Can they take it to Maui to house people there. flying_wahini Aug 2023 #3
But they kept building them Historic NY Aug 2023 #4
Jobs program Johnny2X2X Aug 2023 #5
+1. And to siphon tax payer dollars to the military industrial complex. Got to keep those companies Hotler Aug 2023 #11
But Democrats usually support jobs programs, right? ;) Happy Hoosier Aug 2023 #12
I'm fine with cutting our loses, but this incompetence is embarassing. Silent Type Aug 2023 #6
So I assume it can be retrofitted and used in some other capacity???? Freethinker65 Aug 2023 #7
The ship is junk. It'll be scrapped. Happy Hoosier Aug 2023 #9
I've read the ships have a lot of rust because smaller crews was one of the selling points Kennah Aug 2023 #17
YES! Happy Hoosier Aug 2023 #22
Are they even ocean-going and can keep up with other ships in the open ocean? brush Aug 2023 #23
They were intended as "Littoral" ships... Happy Hoosier Aug 2023 #24
I've read they were intended to be less detectable Kennah Aug 2023 #31
Hey Trump I think we got your new home just about ready? Brainfodder Aug 2023 #10
We'll name it the Leakin' Lena EYESORE 9001 Aug 2023 #14
Could Ukraine use it? Bayard Aug 2023 #13
That would be like donating a recalled product to Goodwill EYESORE 9001 Aug 2023 #15
New Russian sub? Kennah Aug 2023 #18
"National Security" orthoclad Aug 2023 #16
"What exactly are we defending against, and for whom?" Space aliens, of course Kennah Aug 2023 #20
Well, since we have wide ocean borders and friendly neighbors, orthoclad Aug 2023 #21
the petrol-dollar matrix + forced treasuries buying Celerity Aug 2023 #25
Yes. Valuation depends on credibility. harumph Aug 2023 #26
General Butler said it well orthoclad Aug 2023 #30
It's okay.... TheRealNorth Aug 2023 #19
These are built in Alabama, you know Turberville-landia? pfitz59 Aug 2023 #27
Hah! - My Navy "saves" on other ones! (sarcasm) UTUSN Aug 2023 #28
Blame the admirals. They'll accept any ship that has a nice looking wheel Wonder Why Aug 2023 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The $362 million warship ...»Reply #12