Comments on: SAC-D Drops F136 Dough; GE Not Worried

By: Curt

Curt — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:28:06 +0000

It is my understand that all the other developed countries in the world operate like the M-ATV procurment– the contractor supplies a prototype and the government picks what will fulfill their needs.

You make an excellent point about the government being a monopoly, but this could be a possible solution:

If contractors use their capital to develop technologies that the government ends up not needing, the contractor can sell their intellectual property to other contractors in the form of an auction or futures market. This way (non-specific names) LM can make a profit off technological developments that are not demanded, and GD could buy the rights to take a risk and use the technology to create a new product the government may want.

It just seems to me that there can be a better way to develop our technological and militaristic superiority with all the money we spend. Considering we devote the most amount of capital in the world to defense, yet there are complaints about a lack of basic items like armor, it just does not seem right. We need to realign our priorities and put more responsibility on contractors to provides the services we need.

By: Curt 2

Curt 2 — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:10:59 +0000

Curt, the problem with your argument is that the Government is a monopoly. Lets take the tanker deal as an example. USAF wants tankers, goes to Boeing to ask for new ones. Boeing has a plane they developed on their dime and offers to lease some. Commercially, everything would be fine, but for the Government things are different (witness the whole sad KC-X deal). The government can have unique requirements (To do the work KC-X work, Boeing or NG needs a separate production line. Congress can change the deal anytime they want (oops, sorry you spent billions on development of the MX, we’re not going to buy any). DoD can change their requirements (I know I said I wanted 750 F-22s but now I am going to buy 187). There are laws to allow a level playing field (you’re not a female, disabled, native american owned, small business, that is in an economically depressed area. You don’t get the contract). Commercial practices are fine for things that don’t push the envelope too far, especially when there is a civilian market, (combat boots come to mind) but if you want to develop new technology in which there is only one customer, the customer pays to develop it. Look around, works that way every where in the world, even in the commercial industry.

By: Curt

Curt — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:12:46 +0000

As a caveat– I do not believe we should get rid of DARPA. Those seedling projects are important for the promotion of advanced technological development. But back to my original point, the US government should not have to pay for the R&D on a production contract.

By: Curt

Curt — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:09:03 +0000

In your example, that would be LM’s fault for developing a product that the customer does not want. Companies should know the expectations and demands of their customers– and should be in active communication with them inorder to develop and deliver that products they will need.

By: ReconTeam

ReconTeam — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:12:05 +0000

The problem with that Curt is that defense matters are significantly more expensive than many other areas in the economy and there is less of a market for such equipment. If a company that specializes heavily in defense like Lockheed Martin spends millions to develop a new missile, and nobody buys it, they haven’t gained anything, and are unlikely to lead similar independent projects.

By: Curt

Curt — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:26:31 +0000

Every other sector of our economy and every other country in the world makes companies complete R&D on their own dime. Maybe we need to change the paradigm as well– it would save the tax payers money and force companies to be more focused and dilligent in development.

By: Curt 2

Curt 2 — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:29:14 +0000

@Curt
By that logic, perhaps P&W can repay the money they took to develop the F135, and the F119, and the F100? Or by extending that logic, we should not develop any new weapons, we should make the companies fund full development. Or we could just buy what they are offering of course don’t expect a öot of innovation.

By: Curt

Curt — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:11:56 +0000

If GE really wants a competition, build it on your own dime and prove that it is superior in performance and delivers savings to the taxpayer. Competition that is propped up by the government is no competition at all.

By: Drake1

Drake1 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:36:13 +0000

“confident of a successful outcome because competition and cost discipline in major defense procurement programs have proven to be in the best interest of taxpayers and our armed services.”

LoL