First, the military does not have inventors, they don't invent new weapons systems. That is done by individuals and corporations. They (the inventor or company) comes up with a new idea, take it to the Pentagon and see if they can get one or more of the services to buy it.
My company designs and builds telecom equipment for the telecom industry. Believe it or not Verizon has very very little internal R&D. Most is farmed out to companies like ours. They give a requirement and we design and manufacturer solution. There has NEVER EVER been a time where we designed and built them something they DIDN’T WANT. We may think it’s best but in no way would we ever design something they didn’t want AND force them to pay for it.
Why Congress is forcing the Army take Abraham Tank upgrades when they’ve explicitly said they didn’t want it…is NOT good business. Funny how Conservative republicans this is acceptable when they are always saying how government should be run more like a business.
I really don’t know a lot about it but my Dad built missle launching systems for Naval contracts for many years. Seemed like the Navy was quite involved in the design/specification/inspection aspects of it and would get quite upset if specs weren’t followed. Seemed to know precisely what they wanted and needed.
As far as the tanks go, my understanding is that minimum production is being maintained in order to not lose the manufacturing plant and expertise that will be needed a few years down the pike. I can understand that as a simple readiness cost. I think maybe the Army just doesn’t want the cost to come out of their budget which would make sense.
As far as the tanks go, my understanding is that minimum production is being maintained in order to not lose the manufacturing plant and expertise that will be needed a few years down the pike.
Then that philosophy should be applied to ALL military weapons tanks/planes/radar systems/guns/trucks/helicopters. It’s NOT.
I’ve worked for a few DoD companies (GE and Raytheon). Most were for the Air-Force. The Air-Force was there to see if what we built met their standards…but they were NOT involved in the design. They were very much involved in the testing though. As far as following specs…the Air Force hired Mitre Corp as their consultant to monitor the design and development.
@asecular You might be the only one who remembers, can you enlighten us? Sure the info may be out there in different takes but I would love to add your information to my knowledge.
You do know that Mitre was formed by the military, right?
You do know that Mitre is a corporation…they are NOT run by the military. They may have been started by the military…but they are NOT run by the military. And a good portion of the work has nothing to do with the military. The engineers that formed Mitre came from MIT. They also designed the NAS (early air traffic control system).
I agree @jtsanders. It’s pretty much up to those on the front lines who come up with their ideal adjustments to weapons systems. No, they don’t invent the major technology but history is filled with improvising by soldiers on the front lines in equipment that eventually became common place. When your life is on the line every day, you’re a little more enlightened about your needs.
@kevin
Yes , I agree people could afford their own health insurance if two things occur. First , it has to be non profit and second, it has to be single payer to control healthcare costs. You can’t have drug companies as the sole determinant of their prices with NO competition or bargaining or free market pressures to keep prices under control. People can easily afford it then through taxes or preminums…just like every other industrialized country in the world can afford it. Right now, part of our private sector for profit premiums build some of the largest office buildings in the world and sponsor golf tournaments.
The three loud booms were developed for the military, not by the military.
I should have maybe been a little clearer in my earlier post. I made it sound like the Pentagon runs a flea market. Sometimes a new and innovative idea may be brought to the military without some previous stimulus, but most often, the process starts with an RFP (request for proposal) which is a general outline of what the military needs.
Sometimes the RFP can be quite vague or it can be very specific, it depends on the need itself. An RFP for a second source of an existing weapon or support system is going to be extremely specific where an RFP for a new advance fighter would be quite general in order to promote new ideas. The RFP will also state any requirements such as training, support, logistics etc. There are specs for these that have to be met (MIL-SPECS).
Proposals are submitted by various companies. when a proposal is accepted, contract negotiations begin. Once the contract is signed and approved, then a COTAR (an officer) is assigned to make sure all requirements in the contract are met. The COTAR is assisted by temporarily assigned SMEs (subject matter experts).
For example, when I was in a training staff command, I often assisted various COTARS in ensuring that all the training requirements in the contract were fulfilled.
Bing, I think this is the sort of involvement your dad saw with the Navy. The company he worked for established what they would deliver, made most of the specs, and the rep form the NAVY was just making sure that the company delivered what they said they would.
It is true that there are cases of they guy on the front line coming up with new ideas that eventually find their way into the system. The camera system on the F-14 is one example. There are plenty of other examples.
For illustrate what I said earlier about the military not always being the best judge of what they need, I can cite two programs. The Air Force was tasked with the development of the ATF (advanced tactical fighter). The RFP left a lot of room for new ideas and that resulted in the fly-off of the F-22 and F-23. They bought the F-22. The Navy was tasked at the same time to develop the ATA (advanced tactical attack) aircraft. The Navy go way to specific in the RFP so that the only design that met the RFP was an F-18 without the afterburners. That clearly got rejected as it should have.
Can't you find an argument closer to your house? You've been chastised for this before.
Re-read my post…I ACKNOWLEDGE that you said it was started by the military. I know Mitre very well…I even consulted for them for 2 years. As usual…You’re LACK of logic alludes me. So it was FORMED by the military!!!..what does that mean?? Has NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand.
asecular, Mike may not say it but I will, Mitre was NOT started by the military. It was started by a civilian responding to an RFP for the Air Force to manage one of their projects. The company was started and formed by a Civilian with no ties to the Military that I know of. I have not looked into RAND or Blackwater, but I’m pretty sure that they were also formed in response to an RFP, although Blackwater may have been formed by recent retirees from special forces.
Interesting discussion. Concerning use of these civilian managed programs to do military jobs like Blackwater, I find them of limited benefit when for profits cost more and at best fill temporary needs the military may find itself unable to handle. They should be used much more judiciously, not only to save money but to enhance accountability.
I would guess that our reputation abroad from all accounts I have read, can be severely damaged by the conduct and overuse of some of these services. It has proven on some accounts, to be a huge waste of resources, a waste that the military itself, like the “tank” discussion, wanted no part of in some instances. I believe that civilian leadership is responsible for more waste in the military then we care to admit.
As a former member of an emergency squadron in the military, I know the apparent waste of time and manpower seen by civilians, like police, medical and fire, can be easily criticized during times of little use. But, most are thankful when in need and little thought is given to waste at that time.
Trying to run the military on a shoe string and keeping forces low in readiness during times of less need, promotes over use of Blackwater and the like when the need arises. That’s where my biggest gripe lies and that’s where lot’s of waste occurs. During war when under prepared, we start throwing huge monies around with little thought of being prepared for the next.
. Concerning use of these civilian managed programs to do military jobs like Blackwate
Difference between Blackwater and Mitre…is that Mitre is a NOT-FOR-PROFIT company. The military uses them as consultants to oversee defense contracts. The FAA uses them also to oversee contracts…And even the FDA has used them. And sometimes Mitre doesn’t have the expertise in-house so they’ll contract out people or companies to help them oversee a project (that’s when I worked for them - they did a contract with the company I was working to help their people get up to speed on and oversee a project for the FAA).
Mike may not say it but I will, Mitre was NOT started by the military. It was started by a civilian responding to an RFP for the Air Force to manage one of their projects
The Military saw a need for a company like this…I didn’t know who started it. But it was for a direct response to help the military. When I worked for Raytheon years ago…We worked very closely with Mitre. They were in on the project from day one. Back then there were these things call B5 and C5 specs that we had to write and design to. Mitre’s job was to make sure we designed what was in the B5 and C5 specs. And we (and the Air-force) was held accountable if there was ANY deviation of the specs.
Companies like Blackwater and Mitre are what are called “captive industries”. They exist solely to serve a larger entity. An automotive example would be Delco, whose existence is to provide electrical parts to General Motors.
When I was in a staff command, we called them “Beltway Bandits”.
Asecular, having spent the better part of 23 years in the manufacturing industry developing and working on hardware and projects for military application, I think Keith and the others here have provided good insights into how the process works. You can lean from them, or “blah blah blah” them. Personally, I prefer to learn from people who have the experience. But it’s your choice.
@MikeInNH
The reason I referred to only Blackwater as a for profit is that I DONOT believe they hold a tax exempt status from the IRS. Whether Mitri is, I would have to check. . But, my comments were directed to those organizations who profit not only in war time but do it without the accountability necessary . They often do serve a limited roll. I just feel they are overused by those " libertarian" minded who think that the solution to everything is to tie it to profit motivation. That’s fine in a few non lethal rolls but not in cases where personal interaction and accountability are more important.
Not for profit is not an IRS designation. Non profit is but “not for profit” is not a tax exempt status. An example of a not for profit would be a CO-OP. The CO-OP has to make a small profit to cover overhead and expenses, but its goal is to provide the members with a product or products or services at a reduced price. The profits, minus reserve capital and investment capital is shared among all the members.
Not all states recognize the not for profit status. A captive company would be another example of a not for profit.
The CO-OP has to make a small profit to cover overhead and expenses
Profit money AFTER overhead and expenses. Not-For-Profit are allowed to make enough money to cover these expenses…and for future R&d. But it’s highly scrutinized by the IRS.