stupid war sustainability question

judypilot said:
I particularly like "logistics life cycle" in the title. That pretty much says it all. My dad worked as an engineer for United Airlines. At one point in his career, he intersected with DoD (I don't remember why). He came back just shaking his head about the inefficiency (read: wasted money) in defense contracting. I doubt it's gotten better.
Click to expand...

My work is mostly on various DoD contracts. It is still a mess. In my area they have largely pushed to fixed-priced contracts, which creates a mess when you are working on projects that inherently have unknown scope creep that will encountered, so all the contractors have to protect themselves when they bid the jobs. There are some smart folks in DoD who have learned how to semi-efficiently work with the contracting tools they've been given, but I don't think they are the majority. This is mostly for service-oriented work, not DoD hardware.
 
wanttaja said:
I was soon sent back to my home organization as they caved to the new version of the NAVAIR spec. And, of course, there was a cost overrun, and people tsked-tsked and asked why Boeing just couldn't manage their contracts....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

You don't need the government program office changing the rules to cause a cost overrun. I've seen enough cost estimates to know that the government almost ALWAYS grossly underestimates the cost and time required for a program.

One time I was in the audience when an FAA person talked about schedule overruns, and used the STARS program as one example. Years earlier I was involved in the estimate for that program and know that the FAA person took the hopelessly optimistic estimate (hint: wasn't my input) and made it even shorter. Surprise!!! is was late... very late.
 
wanttaja said:
And its own process for updating and making their acquisition process more complex.

After years of working programs that were acquired through the Air Force process, I was loaned out to a program doing something for the Navy. The Navy had just updated their main acquisition regulations, and it was going to cost my program more money to comply with additional testing and documentation. I pointed out that our CONTRACT with the Navy specified that we used the previous version of the NAVAIR specification, and, at a meeting with our contracts people, used the dread term "Out of scope" when referring to the new one.

I was soon sent back to my home organization as they caved to the new version of the NAVAIR spec. And, of course, there was a cost overrun, and people tsked-tsked and asked why Boeing just couldn't manage their contracts....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...


Yep. The stories I could tell from the Lockheed side would fill a very large, boring, and depressing book.

I recall having an argument with the gov't lead engineer on a missile development program over a component I wanted to add to the missile. He was objecting to the weight increase. I pointed out that not only would we still be below the weight requirement, we were even still below the non-required objective weight. But, I told him, if he'd like to change the specification to a lower weight I'd be more than happy to quote the change and give him a change proposal. He backed off, but many times contractors will cave and accept scope creep with inevitable delays and overruns.

The bureaucracy and BS in gov't contracting would astonish anyone who's never seen it.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
In my area they have largely pushed to fixed-priced contracts, which creates a mess when you are working on projects that inherently have unknown scope creep that will encountered, so all the contractors have to protect themselves when they bid the jobs.
Click to expand...


That's EXACTLY right. All bids have an associated probability that the job can be completed for the amount of the bid, based on the history of similar prior projects. A contractor might bid a cost-plus job at a 50-50 probability that the job can be done for the bid, so half the time there will be an overrun and the gov't will pay a bit more. But on a fixed-price bid, the contractor (depending on the competitive situation) might submit a bid with an 80-20 or 90-10 probability which will be a much higher price, and the gov't will have to pay every dime of that higher price.

The real situation is a bit more complex, but fixed-price jobs will always cost more over the long haul.
 
kyleb said:
The Germans built their tanks like watches and rarely built two dozen that were alike before making engineering changes and tweaks to make 'em better. And the production numbers showed it. You can't mass produce that way.
Click to expand...

So the Germans invented Agile!
 
Bob Noel said:
I didn't know "Agile" applied to hardware...
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? I took an Agile & scrum class a couple years ago at my last job. The guy was going on about how Agile could be used for ANYTHING, and illustrated with how you'd use Agile methodology to cook breakfast.

I've rarely had a week so full of nonsense.
 
Bob Noel said:
I didn't know "Agile" applied to hardware...
Click to expand...

DaleB said:
Are you kidding? I took an Agile & scrum class a couple years ago at my last job. The guy was going on about how Agile could be used for ANYTHING, and illustrated with how you'd use Agile methodology to cook breakfast.

I've rarely had a week so full of nonsense.
Click to expand...

I just took my first agile class last week. It is very reminiscent of the DoDAF mafia assertions 20 years ago that any system could be fully documented in DoDAF. Both have their place, but their zealots are poster children for "if the only tool you have is Agile/DoDAF, everything looks like software."
 
Van Johnston said:
I just took my first agile class last week. It is very reminiscent of the DoDAF mafia assertions 20 years ago that any system could be fully documented in DoDAF. Both have their place, but their zealots are poster children for "if the only tool you have is Agile/DoDAF, everything looks like software."
Click to expand...

I wouldn't let Agile anywhere near anything safety critical.
 
Bob Noel said:
I wouldn't let Agile anywhere near anything safety critical.
Click to expand...


Amen and amen.

Drove me nuts to see folks trying to cram Agile into weapon development. Sure, there are a few isolated components or subsystem elements where it can be helpful, if carefully applied with good oversight and precautions. But widespread use is insane.

“Fail fast” doesn’t work very well when each failure costs millions of dollars. Or when you’re designing a parachute.
 
Half Fast said:
Amen and amen.

Drove me nuts to see folks trying to cram Agile into weapon development. Sure, there are a few isolated components or subsystem elements where it can be helpful, if carefully applied with good oversight and precautions. But widespread use is insane.

“Fail fast” doesn’t work very well when each failure costs millions of dollars. Or when you’re designing a parachute.
Click to expand...

Just be CMMI level III and everything will be fine ...
 
Half Fast said:
Amen and amen.

Drove me nuts to see folks trying to cram Agile into weapon development. Sure, there are a few isolated components or subsystem elements where it can be helpful, if carefully applied with good oversight and precautions. But widespread use is insane.

“Fail fast” doesn’t work very well when each failure costs millions of dollars. Or when you’re designing a parachute.
Click to expand...
Or bank software.
 
Van Johnston said:
I just took my first agile class last week. It is very reminiscent of the DoDAF mafia assertions 20 years ago that any system could be fully documented in DoDAF. Both have their place, but their zealots are poster children for "if the only tool you have is Agile/DoDAF, everything looks like software."
Click to expand...

Any of the one tool religions are suspect.
 
kyleb said:
Any of the one tool religions are suspect.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. One of the low points in my career was having to get a Six Sigma certification while working in research. Where every experiment is supposed to be different, not identical.
 
GaryM said:
Yes indeed. One of the low points in my career was having to get a Six Sigma certification while working in research. Where every experiment is supposed to be different, not identical.
Click to expand...

We got so wrapped up in 6 Sigma that you couldn't do anything without it turning into a 6 Sigma event. "So you made a process or product improvement. How do we turn that into something we can put on the scoreboard as a 6 Sigma savings?"
 
kyleb said:
We got so wrapped up in 6 Sigma that you couldn't do anything without it turning into a 6 Sigma event. "So you made a process or product improvement. How do we turn that into something we can put on the scoreboard as a 6 Sigma savings?"
Click to expand...
Kanban. Ugh.
 
Half Fast said:
Amen and amen.

Drove me nuts to see folks trying to cram Agile into weapon development. Sure, there are a few isolated components or subsystem elements where it can be helpful, if carefully applied with good oversight and precautions. But widespread use is insane.

“Fail fast” doesn’t work very well when each failure costs millions of dollars. Or when you’re designing a parachute.
Click to expand...

oh, I dunno. Agile could work, it’s just the standard for minimal viable product is exceedingly high.
 
kep5niner said:
Watch Pentagon Wars and you'll have a better understanding of the ridiculousness of the DoD procurement process. Years ago in Command General Staff Officer College, I wrote a paper about the fielding of the V-22 Osprey. From RFP to on the line was 24 years. o_O
Click to expand...
Versus: (Condensed from Wikipedia)
The Liberator originated from a USAAC request in 1938 for Consolidated to produce the B-17 under license. After company executives visited Boeing, Consolidated decided instead to submit a design of its own. In January 1939, the USAAC, under Specification C-212, formally invited Consolidated to submit a design. The specification was written such that the Model 32 would automatically be the winning design. The USAAC awarded a contract for the prototype XB-24 in March 1939. Consolidated finished the prototype and had it ready for its first flight two days before the end of 1939. In April 1939, the USAAC initially ordered seven YB-24. The first six YB-24 were released for direct purchase (by the RAF) on 9 November 1940. The seventh aircraft was used by Consolidated.

Assuming the unlikely earliest possible date of Jan 1, 1938 as a starting point. One year to design a new bomber, three months to "fund" the design, nine months to build and fly a prototype, with delivery for combat use 35 months from a cold start...

The Zeno / Periscope film of Willow run is fun to watch and on YewTub
 
Today I did a bunch of stuff you probably couldn't do in Russia
I woke up then read and watched several news stories about the war in Ukraine after which I headed for the airport and along the way I stopped at the ATM and withdrew 100 US Dollars.
When I got to the airport I pulled out my plane, taxied over to the pumps and bought 25 gallons of 100LL aviation fuel which I paid for with my Capitol One Visa Card.
Then I flew to another little airport about 50 miles away, visited with some friends and then flew back again, without ever telling anyone I was going to do it.
On the way home I went to the McDonalds drive-thru and picked up some chicken mcnuggets and fries. I normally never eat at McDonalds but it just seemed fittingly symbolic.
 
Actually, uh, there are McDonald's in Russia.
 
Half Fast said:
Actually, uh, Mickey D's closed them in opposition to the Ukraine invasion.
Click to expand...

Uh, interesting. I'm not sure that is uh, a wise move since McD's caters to the Russians that are mostly not supportive of the Ukrainian invasion. Uh.
 
Half Fast said:
Well, there's not enough difference so that you'd notice....
Click to expand...

At one time it was called "fast food" but that ain't so anymore. And at another time it might have been good. I can't say as I try to avoid dumpster food.
 
Daleandee said:
At one time it was called "fast food" but that ain't so anymore. And at another time it might have been good. I can't say as I try to avoid dumpster food.
Click to expand...

Digressing, but you're right. The fast food places have too many options for it to be fast food any longer. When I go to McD's, for instance, I'm just looking for something to go in my stomach. Fast and cheap. Like it used to be before they expanded the menu to include so many things.

It can still be cheap, but fast is out the window these days.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Uh, interesting. I'm not sure that is uh, a wise move since McD's caters to the Russians that are mostly not supportive of the Ukrainian invasion. Uh.
Click to expand...
Let's not extract too much virtue here. It's a business thing.
30% reduction in currency's value and looming supply challenges. Not sure I see the upside.
 
I think Bill Burr pretty much nailed the Mc Donald's thing. This is the long version but you can skip to 5:00 to get the gist of it.

 
Pi1otguy said:
30% reduction in currency's value and looming supply challenges. Not sure I see the upside.
Click to expand...

50% reduction from the monthly high and sure to go lower. A ruble is less than a penny now.

Do you know the difference between a ruble and a dollar? A dollar.
 
Also ironically, McD's was one of the better paying jobs in RUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top