somewhere, PukinDog is laughing...
Posted on 01/06/2017 7:07:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind
There is a very simple & honest answer for unrealistic requirement, one word: "no".
A contractor who's afraid to say "no" is to blame when his efforts fail.
The government should be in the business of putting such contractors out of business and raising up others with the courage to say "yes" when they mean "yes" and "no" when they mean anything else.
Believe me, it's all about the very most basic of basics.
If you're mind is screwed up there, then nothing will ever go right.
You have a simplified answer for a problem you don’t have experience with.
There are many cases where contractors say no. When a company thinks it can not make a profit on a contract, it can and often does “no bid”. If the contractor tells the customer that they can do it for X price, and the customer agrees, and then the customer comes back after contract award and says “ we want you to change A, B and C to meet additional requirements we forgot to tell you about” then cost will increase.
You are in the meme of blaming the contractor. Why don’t you talk to Trump about how contracts works. You don’t ever get anything for free. If you want “better”, then it will have a cost above “good enough”.
I have decades of related experience in "the real world".
Magnum44: " then the customer comes back after contract award and says 'we want you to change A, B and C to meet additional requirements we forgot to tell you about' then cost will increase."
Of course, but the issue here is: can the contractor actually meet the new requirements?
If "yes", fine and good, charge appropriately.
But if it turns out, years down the road, the real answer was "no", then who is to blame?
I'm saying: the government can ask for whatever it wants, however realistic or unrealistic that might be.
Only the contractor actually knows if he can do the job, and if he says "yes" when he should have said "no", then it's his head on the chopping block.
My prediction is that, in due time, President Trump will cut off a bunch of contractors' heads and fire government employees, so that everybody gets the idea that "business as usual" won't work any more.
To be fair, here is an article that supports your view of the F-35s merits as a dogfighter.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-russia-china-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-can-dogfight-15675
You are correct in that I do not know the program requirements, but I am of the opinion that the program has been terribly mismanaged given the information that I am able to access.
From the an article in Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/
"In 2004, the F-35B was more than 2,000 pounds overweight, unable to meet its performance goals."
Again, just my opinion, but that sort of sounds like not meeting the requirements.
Then there is this from the same article:
"To avoid further delays resulting from design changes, in 2012 the Pentagon accepted a reduced combat radius for the F-35A and a longer takeoff run for the F-35B. The F-35B's estimated combat radius was reduced by 15 percent."
Now this is totally the fault of folks in the Pentagon, you can't change requirements mid-contract and expect prices to remain stable, but again, it points to a system that is not meeting original requirements.
In the end, I am irked that it seems that we will be getting a weapon system that will not be as capable as promised and for a higher price than was promised.
Again, you speak of things like you know, but you clearly don't. I will bet your "decades of experience" do not include defense contracting on major defense systems. Otherwise you would know better.
Contracts such as F35, where new capabilities need to be developed in order to meet the new requirements have unknowns and risks attached. Those risks, like developing a higher thrust engine with a unique bypass system so it works in super sonic flight as well as vertical take off and landing (something not achieved before F35), or can perform VTOL and be carrier launched from a catapult (something neither the AV-8 or any aircraft ever did), and be stealth to boot, all require an unknown amount of R&D to achieve. Those are only a few of the thousands of such challenges. The contractor AND the customer have to accept the cost/risk. It is arrogance on any customer, and ignorance on any outside observer, to simplify a problem to "the contractor should have known". You get what you pay for, and if you are going to complain about how tax payer money is spent, complain to your congressman. The contractor is simply trying his best to meet your need and not work for charity.
Finally, if the customer wanted, he can cancel the contract at any time. Clearly if they were smart enough to have a "better" solution they might do so. Perhaps the truth is they "need" the capability to work, but its just convenient to blame someone else for the govt's mismanagement.
somewhere, PukinDog is laughing...
But they are never, ever sold to Congress that way.
Instead, they are sold as: "here is the end product, here is the time-line and here is the price", to which Congress says "OK".
But decades of experience prove that initial sales-pitch is always a pack of lies and reality turns out to be end product less than promised at costs and time spans multiples of original claims.
And here's the hardest truth: if Congress were told up front of the unimaginable costs and time spans, they would never approve such nonsense.
They would instead insist on much more modest goals and more realistic time frames.
They would say: not every new idea needs to be incorporated this time, save the most difficult parts for the next generation.
Of course you may argue that, in effect, Congress really likes to be lied to, that they well expect the initial sales pitches are just nonsense, because voters would fire Congress critters if they knew up front what they were approving... etc., etc.
But who is really fooling whom, and who should pay the price for deceiving voters?
I promise you that in President Trump's world, a contract is a contract, with serious consequences for failure to perform as promised.
He will not be so understanding if the same old, same old B.S. continues unchecked.
Your last post is total BS and I am not going to waste more time trying to address the BS or educate you. If you knew, I wouldn’t have to explain. But you don’t know and nothing I say will change your opinion. Good day.
Sorry, beanhead, but it's you who need serious education, and I believe you'll get it, from the new administration.
Donald Trump knows what a contract is, and will not tolerate the nonsense, "business as usual" between Washington and government contractors.
People who don't fulfill their commitments -- on time and under budget will need to find new careers.
Does that include you, beanhead?
If it does, start looking right now!
Sorry, beanhead, but it's you who need serious education, and I believe you'll get it, from the new administration.
Donald Trump knows what a contract is, and will not tolerate the nonsense, "business as usual" between Washington and government contractors.
People who don't fulfill their commitments -- on time and under budget will need to find new careers.
Does that include you, beanhead?
If it does, start looking right now!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.