←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: 0s | 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 #
1. t1234s ◴[12 Nov 25 14:18 UTC] No.45900500[source]▶
Programs like the F35 might possibly be used funnel money into other LM black projects over the years
replies(1): >>45902090 #
2. wildzzz ◴[12 Nov 25 16:26 UTC] No.45902090[source]▶
In an indirect way, yes, some of the profit LM makes on the F-35 contracts does flow to internal R&D projects that may ultimately contribute to a black program. But actual black programs are funded by Congress. Even the most secretive, unacknowledged special access programs still have someone on the intelligence or defense committees giving the thumbs up to allocate money towards some department or agency's black budget. There would simply be no need to illegally launder money through another program unless LM was intent on using that money for criminal activities.

I'm sure it's been done elsewhere, look at Iran-Contra, but it just wouldn't be done for something like a defense contractor building planes. It would be completely unnecessary and likely illegal.