←back to thread

The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

(steveblank.com)
285 points ridruejo | 2 comments | 11 Nov 25 14:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
stackskipton ◴[11 Nov 25 21:26 UTC] No.45893105[source]▶
As someone who has some familiarity with this process, just like safety regulations are written in blood, Federal Acquisition rules are written in misuse of money, sometimes criminally.

Yes, we have swung too much towards the bureaucrats but I'm not sure throwing out everything is solution to the issue.

Move fast works great when it's B2B software and failures means stock price does not go up. It's not so great when brand new jet acts up and results in crashes.

Oh yea, F-35 was built with move fast, they rolled models off the production line quickly, so Lockheed could get more money, but it looks like whole "We will fix busted models later" might have been more expensive. Time will tell.

replies(21): >>45893777 #>>45893843 #>>45893847 #>>45893934 #>>45894255 #>>45894410 #>>45894990 #>>45895591 #>>45895700 #>>45895838 #>>45896005 #>>45896219 #>>45896396 #>>45897182 #>>45897650 #>>45897842 #>>45899571 #>>45899715 #>>45899941 #>>45901076 #>>45902745 #
Alupis ◴[11 Nov 25 22:37 UTC] No.45893847[source]▶
The F-35 was Lockheed's entry in the Joint Strike Fighter program. The JSF has roots going back to 1996. The X-35 first flew in 2000. The F-35 first flew in 2006, and didn't enter service until 2015(!!).

That's nearly 20 years to develop a single airframe. Yes, it's the most sophisticated airframe to date, but 20 years is not trivial.

The F-35 had many issues during trials and early deployment - some are excusable for a new airframe and some were not. I suspect the issue wasn't "move fast, break things" but rather massive layers of bureaucracy and committees that paralyzed the development pipeline.

The F-22 was part of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program which dates back to 1981. It's prototype, the YF-22 first flew in 1990, and the F-22 itself first flew in 1997. It entered production in 2005. Again, 20+ years to field a new airframe.

Something is very wrong if it takes 20+ years to field new military technologies. By the time these technologies are fielded, a whole generation of employees have retired and leadership has turned over multiple times.

replies(10): >>45893896 #>>45893924 #>>45894007 #>>45894253 #>>45894547 #>>45895026 #>>45896372 #>>45900500 #>>45902683 #>>45904463 #
themafia ◴[11 Nov 25 22:42 UTC] No.45893896[source]▶
> but rather massive layers of bureaucracy and committees that paralyzed the development pipeline.

They decided to make one airframe in three variants for three different branches. They were trying to spend money they didn't have and thought this corner cutting would save it.

> Something is very wrong if it takes 20+ years to field next-generation military technologies.

It's the funding. The American appetite for new "war fighters" is exceptionally low when there's no exigent conflict facing us. They're simply building the _wrong thing_.

replies(4): >>45893999 #>>45894004 #>>45894873 #>>45896249 #
Spooky23 ◴[12 Nov 25 03:58 UTC] No.45896249[source]▶
> The American appetite for new "war fighters" is exceptionally low when there's no exigent conflict facing us.

That’s a problem easily solved.

We have the menace of the Red Maple Leaf people to the north, and perhaps a buffer zone south of the Rio Grand would stave off the caravans, give Texans some breathing room, and make more room for real Americans. Remember, the anti-Christ may show up at any time.

replies(2): >>45896523 #>>45898736 #
mikkupikku ◴[12 Nov 25 11:06 UTC] No.45898736[source]▶
The American people have no appetite for war with Canada. Half the country think it's a deranged threat and the other half think it's a hilarious joke. There's no genuine support for it from the public.

Mexico is another story, but even then I don't think there's much in the way of public support for a ground invasion.

replies(1): >>45899549 #
1. ExoticPearTree ◴[12 Nov 25 12:53 UTC] No.45899549[source]▶
More than half the country was against the wars in Vietnam or in Iraq (2003), but they still happened. And if the current administration decides they want to invade Canada, Canada will be invaded no matter what the country thinks. Same goes for Mexico. How it ends, it is a completely different story and another administration's problem.
replies(1): >>45900839 #
2. mikkupikku ◴[12 Nov 25 14:43 UTC] No.45900839[source]▶
A great deal changed after Vietnam. Iraq was only possible because the country had a general blood lust against Muslims after 9/11, who were easy for a mostly white christian country to "other".

Nothing like that exists for Canada. Proposals to invade Canada aren't taken seriously by the public. Those who pretend to support it are just trying to piss people off with how stupid they can be.