General CE Chat

[4bars]

Nationalized defense industries simply do not work well, and it has nothing to do with privatization, capitalism and what not. The problem, is also not with innovation or lack thereof.

The problem is that militaries, governments and armed forces, broadly speaking do not know what they want. This is a hard cap that has plagued armed forces of all nations for thousands of years. Back then it was simpler times, because mass producing spears, shields and metal swords is far easier than 5th generation avionics.

The problem is because the people who understand the forefront of engineering, the people who understand current technological innovation and how far things can be pushed within the next decade, do not work for the military by nature of who they are. Now, you might ask, why don't we just nationalize the companies that DO know? Well, then you'd run into the problem of having to nationalize everybody. This might seem a bit confusing but let me explain with the example of the F-35 procurement roadmap, which has, despite public opinion to the contrary, been a very successful procurement program.

The Air Force wanted a Lo part of the Lo-High equation of their fleet airforces. The cheaper, more numerous and easier to produce alternative to what was then the F-22 (and in the future the lo of the NGAD projects). The Airforce did not know what was technically feasible in 10 years time during the initial design phase of the JSF program. Their requirements were basically - needs to cheap, needs to be stealthy, needs to be have a STOVL and CATOBAR variant, needs to be more maintainable than previous hangar hoggers, needs to be able to carry standard AIM missile series etc etc. Notice how these requirements don't contain any real technical details? How stealthy? What RCS value does the plane need? What cruise speed does it require? How cheap? Cost per airframe?

This is by design. The project says, "here are our requirements, knock yourselves out." The competing private companies will all consolidate with their private sector partners - Engine companies, Materials producers, radar companies, aeronautics parts suppliers, etc etc etc until they amalgamate all of their knowledge together to put forward a prototype design, that incorporates all of the latest tech available in each civilian sub-sector. Military technology is simply an accumulation of all the latest top end civilian technology, put together to form a weaponized platform. Who knows most about civilian tech? The government? No, the people who make the civilian technology themselves.

So Lockheed Martin got together all their subcontractors for each section, their primary engineers and built together a prototype called the X-35. The X-35 would cost A, with flight characteristics, B,C,D,E etc etc. Boeing did the exact same, leveraging all their accumulated knowledge of the civilian sector and built a prototype, the X-32. Their characteristics were also displayed. What the Government here is doing is divesting competing products in a market environment to the people who know the market best. If the government handled a project and gave requirements and a prototype was made, how do we know its the best it can be? It doesn't have any other benchmark to compare it against, isn't leveraging all of the private sector to chip in and to put all their knowledge and expertise together. If what you're suggesting is that a government military hardware producer then just outsources the work to the private sector suppliers anyway, don't we just have privatized military contractors by proxy? What's the difference other than a layer of bureaucracy.

X-32 vs X-35 competed. X-35 came out on top with the best specifications, pushing its competitor out the water. Government made a deal with Lockheed, the X-35 becomes the F-35A,B,C variants and the rest if history.

Now, compare to a project that went disastrously, the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) project. Or rather, the independence class and Freedom class.

Specifically, I am going to talk about a specific requirement, the Mission Modules.

Someone in the Navy decided, "Hang on a minute, wouldn't it be awesome to have combat ships that can swap out at dock what their speciality is in a few hours so it can serve as a ASuW ship, ASU ship, AA Ship, Littoral Gunboat, all at the same time by swapping out modules! This saves us so much manpower and cost and means we don't have to build so many different ship types"

The requirements for LCS unfortunately gave this very very specific requirement. Mission modules. All the bidders for this project MUST HAVE mission modules. Rather than high level requirements that contractors could compete against, you were now provided quantifiable hard requirements. Requirements that were not grounded in reality of the technological competency of the time. This means that all the bids for LCS came with "Yeah we will research and build Mission Modules." The Government (Navy) had no idea what the technical limitations were or the tech requirements, but imposed them anyway. If the contractors wanted to win the projects, they would have to agree to this. The JSF F35 project was the Civilian Private Sector defining what capabilities could be built, the LCS project was the government insisting it must meet these capabilities that may not even exist.

Fast forward two decades to now, and the Littoral Combat Ships got built and are being retired because the Mission modules that all the contractors bid on and agreed to build turned out to be technologically unfeasible at this moment in time.

A quote from a former naval officer on a forum highlights this



Hope these examples made sense.

If you want to see a simple analogy:

A Government Weapons procurement process is like an F1 season. All the engineering teams compete to see who can build the best racing car and at the end one constructor wins the championship (The contract with the government).

Thanks a lot. It is always great to read your explanation in military expertise

 

[AfonsoAlves]

So there is much more competition on the military top edge manufactory? Honest question

Commercial airlines = Boeing and Airbus. China has spent billions trying to make a competitor and it's gotten them nowhere.

Let's look at the current suppliers of the US air force:

F15 -> McDonnell (Acquiring by Boeing)
F16 -> General Dynamics
F-18 -> McDonnell + Northrop Gruman collab
F-18 Superhornet -> Boeing
F-22 -> Lockheed Martin
F-35 -> Lockheed Martin
A-10 -> Fairchild Republic -> (Acquired by M7 Aerospace)
AC-130 -> Lockheed
B-1 Lancer -> Rockwell
B-2 Spirit -> Northrop Gruman
B-52 -> Boeing
RC-135 -> L3 Tech
E-9 -> Bombadier
PC-12 -> Pilatus
C-12 -> Beechcraft
Drones like MQ-9 and MQ-1 -> General Atomics

12 Contractors, and I haven't named some of the other ones. The big 3 are Lockheed, Northrop and Boeing. Lockheed specialize in Stealth Fighters, Boeing in 4th gen and tankers, Northrop specialize in Strategic bombers. This is just for the air force.

Let's move to Helicopters because this is a great example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Vertical_Lift

If you look at the people who bid for this project, 7 different companies put forward a prototype for a helicopter to replace the Black Hawks.

Navy wise, there are so many contractors it's not worth me even listing them all but the big ones:

Arleigh Burkes are being built by two different contractors -> Ingalls and Bath Iron Works. The original program had 7 bids.
Constellation Class was won by an Italian Company -> 6 bids.
Aircraft Carriers is a bit of a monopoly, because the institutional knowledge required is gigantic and only one company really has the knowledge to build them- > Newport News Shipbuilding which is in partnership with Northrop.

Army Vehicles there are so many contractors of different nationalities it's not really worth me going into:
But even BAE have a big presence here.

This is ignoring other gigantic players in the market like Dassault, Raytheon, Leonardo, HII, Leidos, General Electric, Rhinemettal (Awkward one here) who build cheaper price per unit items (like MRAP's are built by Oshkosh which don't make the headlines but the US has ordered like 50,000 of them).

 

[4bars]

Commercial airlines = Boeing and Airbus. China has spent billions trying to make a competitor and it's gotten them nowhere.

Let's look at the current suppliers of the US air force:

F15 -> McDonnell (Acquiring by Boeing)
F16 -> General Dynamics
F-18 -> McDonnell + Northrop Gruman collab
F-18 Superhornet -> Boeing
F-22 -> Lockheed Martin
F-35 -> Lockheed Martin
A-10 -> Fairchild Republic -> (Acquired by M7 Aerospace)
AC-130 -> Lockheed
B-1 Lancer -> Rockwell
B-2 Spirit -> Northrop Gruman
B-52 -> Boeing
RC-135 -> L3 Tech
E-9 -> Bombadier
PC-12 -> Pilatus
C-12 -> Beechcraft
Drones like MQ-9 and MQ-1 -> General Atomics

12 Contractors, and I haven't named some of the other ones. The big 3 are Lockheed, Northrop and Boeing. Lockheed specialize in Stealth Fighters, Boeing in 4th gen and tankers, Northrop specialize in Strategic bombers. This is just for the air force.

Let's move to Helicopters because this is a great example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Vertical_Lift

If you look at the people who bid for this project, 7 different companies put forward a prototype for a helicopter to replace the Black Hawks.

Navy wise, there are so many contractors it's not worth me even listing them all but the big ones:

Arleigh Burkes are being built by two different contractors -> Ingalls and Bath Iron Works. The original program had 7 bids.
Constellation Class was won by an Italian Company -> 6 bids.
Aircraft Carriers is a bit of a monopoly, because the institutional knowledge required is gigantic and only one company really has the knowledge to build them- > Newport News Shipbuilding which is in partnership with Northrop.

Army Vehicles there are so many contractors of different nationalities it's not really worth me going into:
But even BAE have a big presence here.

This is ignoring other gigantic players in the market like Dassault, Raytheon, Leonardo, HII, Leidos, General Electric, Rhinemettal (Awkward one here) who build cheaper price per unit items (like MRAP's are built by Oshkosh which don't make the headlines but the US has ordered like 50,000 of them).

But they are all competing between them for the same projects constantly or they are niche? because probably helicopter suppliers they don't compete with fix wing projects (just assumptions based on no knowledge)

Also, reiterating on the civil planes. Sure there are other manufacturers besides Boeing and Airbus (being those the main ones) but they still have competition even if it is regional.

Wouldn't be the same case on military avionics? 3 for planes (and specialized) and other minors and civil major planes being 2 main ones and others minors

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Actually, the FLV Helicopter program is a fantastic reason why private sector prototyping is so good.
Each bid went into a different direction with different pro's and cons and it gives the military shit tonnes of options to weigh out.

All these were competitors to win the same contract.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

But they are all competing between them for the same projects constantly or they are niche? because probably helicopter suppliers they don't compete with fix wing projects (just assumptions based on no knowledge)

Also, reiterating on the civil planes. Sure there are other manufacturers besides Boeing and Airbus (being those the main ones) but they still have competition even if it is regional.

Wouldn't be the same case on military avionics? 3 for planes (and specialized) and other minors and civil major planes being 2 main ones and others minors

Civilian airliners wise, commercial airlines have Airbus + Boeing cornering 99.1% of the market. The 0.9% is like aircraft in sanctioned countries.

Broader civilian airlines have slightly more competition in the form of bombadier but....that's about it.

Most are specialized, but even specialized subsets have huge competition. For example, the bid to win the MRAP contract had like 20 bids.

The DoD has their preferred option though in the most critical, advanced, important stuff. it's very unlikely that a 5th fighter jet competition will be won by anyone other than Lockheed or Boeing.

 

[MrMarcello]

Yes, was thinking the same. And regardless of capping or not, does the government really want to match Wall Street salaries & bonuses and stock options and so forth?

The Armed Forces cannot compete with the for-profit sector. That said, compensation has risen decently over the past two decades but still lingers behind the public sector. Civil service wages are low compared to the public sector, I'd say worse off than military who at least get non-taxable allowances, free health care, and less taxed deductions on wages.

A few years ago, Congress shot down requests to raise reenlistment bonuses for special operators that would have paid 250-300k for reenlistment as the forces were losing quality personnel to defense contractors offering 150-300k in annual compensation. Currently, all enlisted are capped at 30k per year up to 180k over a 6-year reenlistment, but that's for critical career fields like special operators, linguists, etc. Many reenlistees do not qualify for a bonus based on a few factors while others receive amounts based on quotients that are less than the 30k max.

Some qualify for a decent initial enlistment bonus paid out over the first x years of their enlistment, but not all qualify and not all that do get the same rate. They also have to make it through their initial training platform to get the first bonus installment and complete the contract or potentially owe money back.

Meanwhile, aviators are still earning 25-50k per year in a flying bonus dependent on the branch of service; Air Force offers the highest rate. The Air Force recently offered upwards of 600k in career bonuses for pilots electing to commit additional years beyond the required commitment, at 50k per year; think it's 6 years minimum required but not sure. This is in addition to salary and allowances, they also receive rated or non-rated flight pay.

It's not easy to give an example of the average pay for each rank as factors such as residing in gov quarters or off-base, with or without dependents, location of assignment that may draw a higher/lower housing allowance, additional special pays based on career fields, etc. Housing and subsistence are non-taxable allowances. But here's sort of a glimpse...

An E-6 in Tampa, FL with 13 years service, off-base, married, per month pay - 4650 base pay, 2874 housing, 460 subsistence
An O-4 in Tampa, FL with 15 years service, off-base, married, rated pilot 11 years, per month pay - 9417 base pay, 3084 housing, 317 subsistence, 1000 fly pay
The housing rate changes based on assigned zip code; places like DC and LA pay much higher but Altus and Montgomery would be much lower.

For shits and giggles, an O-10 four-star general with 30 years service, married -- four-stars reside on the installation for security purposes so no housing allowance paid.
18492 base pay, 317 subsistence - I believe a four-star also receives a personal money allowance but it's peanuts, like a two-or-three hundred extra per month.

Note: this is available public info through any search engine so nothing classified is posted above.

 

[MrMarcello]

Oh, and retired pay is very nice. For active duty, 20 years equals 50% of retired pay grade, 30 years equals 75% and is the max rate. So that four-star retires at let's say it's 20k/month by 2026 so that's about 15k/month in retired pay. And probably add some VA disability pay in there on top of it. And he/she will likely get some cushy exec, or consultant, or whatever gig paying 50-500k per year depending on full/part-time, industry, etc. Many of my colleagues are retiring in the E-8/E-9 tiers and immediately getting contract offers well over 100k, some over 150k.

 

[4bars]

Civilian airliners wise, commercial airlines have Airbus + Boeing cornering 99.1% of the market. The 0.9% is like aircraft in sanctioned countries.

Broader civilian airlines have slightly more competition in the form of bombadier but....that's about it.

Most are specialized, but even specialized subsets have huge competition. For example, the bid to win the MRAP contract had like 20 bids.

The DoD has their preferred option though in the most critical, advanced, important stuff. it's very unlikely that a 5th fighter jet competition will be won by anyone other than Lockheed or Boeing.

I see. Thanks for the explanations

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Oh, and retired pay is very nice. For active duty, 20 years equals 50% of retired pay grade, 30 years equals 75% and is the max rate. So that four-star retires at let's say it's 20k/month by 2026 so that's about 15k/month in retired pay. And probably add some VA disability pay in there on top of it. And he/she will likely get some cushy exec, or consultant, or whatever gig paying 50-500k per year depending on full/part-time, industry, etc. Many of my colleagues are retiring in the E-8/E-9 tiers and immediately getting contract offers well over 100k, some over 150k.

Which branch are you in?

 

[MrMarcello]

Which branch are you in?

AF, on the reserve side with a ton of active duty under my belt.

 

[4bars]

@AfonsoAlves

Just another note. I understand monopolistic situations that can bring Boeing to get quality issues. But I assume that the subcontractors from Boing probably are quite a lot that compete for the pieces that are not the best. And Boeing, as it has a responsibility with its stakeholders for benefits, goes to the lowest bidder and also quality checks. And that is more prominent in the private sector than the public sector

 

[Raoul]

The Armed Forces cannot compete with the for-profit sector. That said, compensation has risen decently over the past two decades but still lingers behind the public sector. Civil service wages are low compared to the public sector, I'd say worse off than military who at least get non-taxable allowances, free health care, and less taxed deductions on wages.

A few years ago, Congress shot down requests to raise reenlistment bonuses for special operators that would have paid 250-300k for reenlistment as the forces were losing quality personnel to defense contractors offering 150-300k in annual compensation. Currently, all enlisted are capped at 30k per year up to 180k over a 6-year reenlistment, but that's for critical career fields like special operators, linguists, etc. Many reenlistees do not qualify for a bonus based on a few factors while others receive amounts based on quotients that are less than the 30k max.

Some qualify for a decent initial enlistment bonus paid out over the first x years of their enlistment, but not all qualify and not all that do get the same rate. They also have to make it through their initial training platform to get the first bonus installment and complete the contract or potentially owe money back.

Meanwhile, aviators are still earning 25-50k per year in a flying bonus dependent on the branch of service; Air Force offers the highest rate. The Air Force recently offered upwards of 600k in career bonuses for pilots electing to commit additional years beyond the required commitment, at 50k per year; think it's 6 years minimum required but not sure. This is in addition to salary and allowances, they also receive rated or non-rated flight pay.

It's not easy to give an example of the average pay for each rank as factors such as residing in gov quarters or off-base, with or without dependents, location of assignment that may draw a higher/lower housing allowance, additional special pays based on career fields, etc. Housing and subsistence are non-taxable allowances. But here's sort of a glimpse...

An E-6 in Tampa, FL with 13 years service, off-base, married, per month pay - 4650 base pay, 2874 housing, 460 subsistence
An O-4 in Tampa, FL with 15 years service, off-base, married, rated pilot 11 years, per month pay - 9417 base pay, 3084 housing, 317 subsistence, 1000 fly pay
The housing rate changes based on assigned zip code; places like DC and LA pay much higher but Altus and Montgomery would be much lower.

For shits and giggles, an O-10 four-star general with 30 years service, married -- four-stars reside on the installation for security purposes so no housing allowance paid.
18492 base pay, 317 subsistence - I believe a four-star also receives a personal money allowance but it's peanuts, like a two-or-three hundred extra per month.

Note: this is available public info through any search engine so nothing classified is posted above.

I interact with USSF quite a bit over here and the amount of housing money they get here in LA is absurd. There are young LTs who get into roommate situations in beach homes that go for 6k a month or more. It’s definitely changed a lot since I was in.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

@AfonsoAlves

Just another note. I understand monopolistic situations that can bring Boeing to get quality issues. But I assume that the subcontractors from Boing probably are quite a lot that compete for the pieces that are not the best. And Boeing, as it has a responsibility with its stakeholders for benefits, goes to the lowest bidder and also quality checks. And that is more prominent in the private sector than the public sector

The problem with Boeing is not with the quality of their pieces, all the issues they have had have been quality with its internal systems (software) and their assembly and putting the parts together.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Nationalized defense industries simply do not work well, and it has nothing to do with privatization, capitalism and what not. The problem, is also not with innovation or lack thereof.

The problem is that militaries, governments and armed forces, broadly speaking do not know what they want. This is a hard cap that has plagued armed forces of all nations for thousands of years. Back then it was simpler times, because mass producing spears, shields and metal swords is far easier than 5th generation avionics.

The problem is because the people who understand the forefront of engineering, the people who understand current technological innovation and how far things can be pushed within the next decade, do not work for the military by nature of who they are. Now, you might ask, why don't we just nationalize the companies that DO know? Well, then you'd run into the problem of having to nationalize everybody. This might seem a bit confusing but let me explain with the example of the F-35 procurement roadmap, which has, despite public opinion to the contrary, been a very successful procurement program.

The Air Force wanted a Lo part of the Lo-High equation of their fleet airforces. The cheaper, more numerous and easier to produce alternative to what was then the F-22 (and in the future the lo of the NGAD projects). The Airforce did not know what was technically feasible in 10 years time during the initial design phase of the JSF program. Their requirements were basically - needs to cheap, needs to be stealthy, needs to be have a STOVL and CATOBAR variant, needs to be more maintainable than previous hangar hoggers, needs to be able to carry standard AIM missile series etc etc. Notice how these requirements don't contain any real technical details? How stealthy? What RCS value does the plane need? What cruise speed does it require? How cheap? Cost per airframe?

This is by design. The project says, "here are our requirements, knock yourselves out." The competing private companies will all consolidate with their private sector partners - Engine companies, Materials producers, radar companies, aeronautics parts suppliers, etc etc etc until they amalgamate all of their knowledge together to put forward a prototype design, that incorporates all of the latest tech available in each civilian sub-sector. Military technology is simply an accumulation of all the latest top end civilian technology, put together to form a weaponized platform. Who knows most about civilian tech? The government? No, the people who make the civilian technology themselves.

So Lockheed Martin got together all their subcontractors for each section, their primary engineers and built together a prototype called the X-35. The X-35 would cost A, with flight characteristics, B,C,D,E etc etc. Boeing did the exact same, leveraging all their accumulated knowledge of the civilian sector and built a prototype, the X-32. Their characteristics were also displayed. What the Government here is doing is divesting competing products in a market environment to the people who know the market best. If the government handled a project and gave requirements and a prototype was made, how do we know its the best it can be? It doesn't have any other benchmark to compare it against, isn't leveraging all of the private sector to chip in and to put all their knowledge and expertise together. If what you're suggesting is that a government military hardware producer then just outsources the work to the private sector suppliers anyway, don't we just have privatized military contractors by proxy? What's the difference other than a layer of bureaucracy.

X-32 vs X-35 competed. X-35 came out on top with the best specifications, pushing its competitor out the water. Government made a deal with Lockheed, the X-35 becomes the F-35A,B,C variants and the rest if history.

Now, compare to a project that went disastrously, the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) project. Or rather, the independence class and Freedom class.

Specifically, I am going to talk about a specific requirement, the Mission Modules.

Someone in the Navy decided, "Hang on a minute, wouldn't it be awesome to have combat ships that can swap out at dock what their speciality is in a few hours so it can serve as a ASuW ship, ASU ship, AA Ship, Littoral Gunboat, all at the same time by swapping out modules! This saves us so much manpower and cost and means we don't have to build so many different ship types"

The requirements for LCS unfortunately gave this very very specific requirement. Mission modules. All the bidders for this project MUST HAVE mission modules. Rather than high level requirements that contractors could compete against, you were now provided quantifiable hard requirements. Requirements that were not grounded in reality of the technological competency of the time. This means that all the bids for LCS came with "Yeah we will research and build Mission Modules." The Government (Navy) had no idea what the technical limitations were or the tech requirements, but imposed them anyway. If the contractors wanted to win the projects, they would have to agree to this. The JSF F35 project was the Civilian Private Sector defining what capabilities could be built, the LCS project was the government insisting it must meet these capabilities that may not even exist.

Fast forward two decades to now, and the Littoral Combat Ships got built and are being retired because the Mission modules that all the contractors bid on and agreed to build turned out to be technologically unfeasible at this moment in time.

A quote from a former naval officer on a forum highlights this



Hope these examples made sense.

If you want to see a simple analogy:

A Government Weapons procurement process is like an F1 season. All the engineering teams compete to see who can build the best racing car and at the end one constructor wins the championship (The contract with the government).

This is all great information and much appreciated. For me, I have no problems with his type of private sector involved with that military and don't argue that these are good examples of efficiency.

Where I personally have problems with too much privatization is not with advanced weapons production but other aspects of the military that are being outsourced to the private sector where the incentives don't end up aligning.

One example is what happened with Kellogg, Brown and Root with water treatment plants in Iraq. This task was outsourced to the Halliburton subsidiary but KBR never actually spent the resources to purify the water. They faked it at a drastically lower cost and then just billed the government. So here the private sector contractor never actually produced what they said they were producing and were basically defrauding the government (and taxpayers). Unfortunately Halliburton got off because the Carter vs Halliburton False Claims lawsuit (and here) was dismissed on a very shady technicality. So even though the whistleblower had the evidence to prove Halliburton through KBR was committing fraud, they never had to pay back all the money they essentially stole from taxpayers, let alone the problems in Iraq of never actually building water purifying plants.

Another more well known example from a different area of military contracting is the Blackwater war crimes case. So while I agree with your point above specifically about how the private sector is more efficient at advanced weapons production, there are many other areas where military activities should not be outsourced to the private sector because it can have bad (fraud) to disastrous (war crimes) results. There definitely is a place for private sector involvement in the military but there are also areas where private sector contracting needs to be stopped IMO, for the examples above.

 

[4bars]

The problem with Boeing is not with the quality of their pieces, all the issues they have had have been quality with its internal systems (software) and their assembly and putting the parts together.

AS far as I know the quality of the pieces too moving factories and the suppliers of these factories. Basically they cut corners everywhere because cost reductions

 

[MrMarcello]

I interact with USSF quite a bit over here and the amount of housing money they get here in LA is absurd. There are young LTs who get into roommate situations in beach homes that go for 6k a month or more. It’s definitely changed a lot since I was in.

I almost moved out west to LA to room with a friend just to collect MHA on GIB, was considering apply for some local unis about a decade ago. The MHA was slightly more than the local BAH at the time, insane amounts.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

This is all great information and much appreciated. For me, I have no problems with his type of private sector involved with that military and don't argue that these are good examples of efficiency.

Where I personally have problems with too much privatization is not with advanced weapons production but other aspects of the military that are being outsourced to the private sector where the incentives don't end up aligning.

One example is what happened with Kellogg, Brown and Root with water treatment plants in Iraq. This task was outsourced to the Halliburton subsidiary but KBR never actually spent the resources to purify the water. They faked it at a drastically lower cost and then just billed the government. So here the private sector contractor never actually produced what they said they were producing and were basically defrauding the government (and taxpayers). Unfortunately Halliburton got off because the Carter vs Halliburton False Claims lawsuit (and here) was dismissed on a very shady technicality. So even though the whistleblower had the evidence to prove Halliburton through KBR was committing fraud, they never had to pay back all the money they essentially stole from taxpayers, let alone the problems in Iraq of never actually building water purifying plants.

Another more well known example from a different area of military contracting is the Blackwater war crimes case. So while I agree with your point above specifically about how the private sector is more efficient at advanced weapons production, there are many other areas where military activities should not be outsourced to the private sector because it can have bad (fraud) to disastrous (war crimes) results. There definitely is a place for private sector involvement in the military but there are also areas where private sector contracting needs to be stopped IMO, for the examples above.

This is a different problem in itself I feel. First of all, were KBR contracted by the DoD? Or the State department or another civilian department?

This isn't a case of private vs public for situations regarding water treatment plants.

Military forces should not be tasked with state building and infrastructure projects outside of menial work and security.

Need a ditch dug in some place outside Baghdad? Sure, gather a non-com and some enlisted to spend a day doing it.

Repairing a water treatment plant? That's well outside the purview of what the DoD should be imo which is why I asked who the task was subcontracted from.

 

[Raoul]

This is a different problem in itself I feel. First of all, were KBR contracted by the DoD? Or the State department or another civilian department?

This isn't a case of private vs public for situations regarding water treatment plants.

Military forces should not be tasked with state building and infrastructure projects outside of menial work and security.

Need a ditch dug in some place outside Baghdad? Sure, gather a non-com and some enlisted to spend a day doing it.

Repairing a water treatment plant? That's well outside the purview of what the DoD should be imo which is why I asked who the task was subcontracted from.

KBR were largely DOD in Iraq and Afghanistan and one of the reasons companies like them exist is for the precise reason you've bolded above. Post cold war, the US military downsized substantially. Bases were closed, force numbers reduced by about 1m troops across all branches. This created a problem for Afghanistan because we were initially in a low intensity conflict with about 10k troops in country in 2002, and those troops needed everything from housing to food to laundry and sanitation services. KBR and a few other lesser known companies were instrumental in being able to deploy in theater as soon as conditions were safe, and set up everything that was needed. The company got a bad rap because it was part of Haliburton at the time, which was tied to Cheney since he was a former CEO.

On the other hand, KBR and others weren't adequately regulated during much of their time in combat zones, which is something that will need to be looked it if another war takes place in the future.

 

[MrMarcello]

That reminds me of when Gen Shinseki told the Bush administration he'd need a far higher troop package for Iraq than Rumsfield had stated. Thin-skinned, big ego Rumsfield later said some shit about Shinseki in public and practically killed the general's power from there on.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq were planning disasters by the administration. Afghanistan was never meant to be an occupation, it was to be a smash-and-grab, we're out in 6-12 months max. Oh, and we'll build your infrastructure, deliver democracy, and fast-track you into modern first world stuff.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

This is a different problem in itself I feel. First of all, were KBR contracted by the DoD? Or the State department or another civilian department?

This isn't a case of private vs public for situations regarding water treatment plants.

Military forces should not be tasked with state building and infrastructure projects outside of menial work and security.

Need a ditch dug in some place outside Baghdad? Sure, gather a non-com and some enlisted to spend a day doing it.

Repairing a water treatment plant? That's well outside the purview of what the DoD should be imo which is why I asked who the task was subcontracted from.

It was DoD and it wasn't really state building or infrastructure, it was logistical support for the military.

It's a case where I feel the better model is something like the Corps of Engineers who are mostly civilian contractors but there is a structure and oversight in place that aligns the incentives much better to prevent the type of fraud we've seen with KBR and other military contractors.

For tasks assigned to Blackwater, on the other hand, those should have all been handled by the military itself rather than "cowboy jackasses with itchy trigger fingers" as one combat vet I know phrased it.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

KBR were largely DOD in Iraq and Afghanistan and one of the reasons companies like them exist is for the precise reason you've bolded above. Post cold war, the US military downsized substantially. Bases were closed, force numbers reduced by about 1m troops across all branches. This created a problem for Afghanistan because we were initially in a low intensity conflict with about 10k troops in country in 2002, and those troops needed everything from housing to food to laundry and sanitation services. KBR and a few other lesser known companies were instrumental in being able to deploy in theater as soon as conditions were safe, and set up everything that was needed. The company got a bad rap because it was part of Haliburton at the time, which was tied to Cheney since he was a former CEO.

On the other hand, KBR and others weren't adequately regulated during much of their time in combat zones, which is something that will need to be looked it if another war takes place in the future.

Well they got a bad rap because they were defrauding the government and tax payers as well. As I said above there needs to be a better model like the Corps of Engineers rather than just letting for profit entities with poorly aligned incentives have full reign.

That reminds me of when Gen Shinseki told the Bush administration he'd need a far higher troop package for Iraq than Rumsfield had stated. Thin-skinned, big ego Rumsfield later said some shit about Shinseki in public and practically killed the general's power from there on.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq were planning disasters by the administration. Afghanistan was never meant to be an occupation, it was to be a smash-and-grab, we're out in 6-12 months max. Oh, and we'll build your infrastructure, deliver democracy, and fast-track you into modern first world stuff.

Yeah that was definitely a problem as most of military intelligence fully agreed with Shinseki and felt, off record, that Rumsfeld was a moron.

 

[MrMarcello]

For tasks assigned to Blackwater, on the other hand, those should have all been handled by the military itself rather than "cowboy jackasses with itchy trigger fingers" as one combat vet I know phrased it.

I don't see this as feasible. The Armed Forces were already stretched to the max with two wars to support and deployment dwell ratios shrank to 1:1 for many career fields. People were getting out when they could due to continuous deployment tempos. The Army was so stretched thin they were extending deployments to 12-15 months at a time, unheard of since Vietnam.

 

[Raoul]

Well they got a bad rap because they were defrauding the government and tax payers as well. As I said above there needs to be a better model like the Corps of Engineers rather than just letting for profit entities with poorly aligned incentives have full reign.



Yeah that was definitely a problem as most of military intelligence fully agreed with Shinseki and felt, off record, that Rumsfeld was a moron.

The government just needs to do a better job of oversight. USACE don't do the same type of work that the likes of KBR did in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that is a non-starter. Its up to the government to monitor this stuff so if a contractor isn't delivering at a level of quality they should be, then its up to the gov to correct it.

 

[Raoul]

I don't see this as feasible. The Armed Forces were already stretched to the max with two wars to support and deployment dwell ratios shrank to 1:1 for many career fields. People were getting out when they could due to continuous deployment tempos. The Army was so stretched thin they were extending deployments to 12-15 months at a time, unheard of since Vietnam.

Add to this, USACE are usually busy doing important things like building structures to rehabilitate transportation and economic growth in countries. There's simply no getting around the reality that private companies are going to be heavily relied on for basic services so the military can fight instead of having to peel potatoes in DFACs.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I don't see this as feasible. The Armed Forces were already stretched to the max with two wars to support and deployment dwell ratios shrank to 1:1 for many career fields. People were getting out when they could due to continuous deployment tempos. The Army was so stretched thin they were extending deployments to 12-15 months at a time, unheard of since Vietnam.

In hindsight, sure, but ideally in the future, the US wouldn't engage in a second, completely unnecessary action based on false pretenses that everyone knew was BS at the time. Had the US just stuck to Afghanistan, the Army would never have been stretched so thin. Ultimately, the US should not have for-profit mercenary companies like Blackwater involved in the future the way they were as its just a recipe for fraud and war crimes as the entire disaster of the Iraq war showed.

The government just needs to do a better job of oversight. USACE don't do the same type of work that the likes of KBR did in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that is a non-starter. Its up to the government to monitor this stuff so if a contractor isn't delivering at a level of quality they should be, then its up to the gov to correct it.

That's a bit of an understatement at best. I'm not saying the ACE in it's current form do the same type of work as KBR, I'm saying that ACE provides a more efficient model that would be far better at aligning incentives for that type of work than just paying a premium to get defrauded by the likes of KBR and Blackwater. What should be a non-starter is ever getting into such a stupid, ego driven war again based on premises that we all knew were total BS from the start

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Just got sent a link to a subreddit called r/lesscredibledefense

Holy crap there are some monstrous opinions on there.

 

[berbatrick]

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Then a war was launched against the Jews, and the Arabs lost. Those initial "refugees"

thanks, i think that answers all my questions.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

thanks, i think that answers all my questions.

Cool. Glad you're happy.

More to the point, you asked some loaded questions, and I did my best to answer them without responding in kind, and I even provided documentation to support what I was saying. You chose to ignore that and make a snarky comment, which is another reason discussion is dead on the internet. I'm arguing in good faith, trying to explain my view, and you're taking cheap shots. Bravo.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Palestinians are prone to violence and they hate our children more than they love their children. feckin hell...

What do you call parents encouraging their children to be martyrs and suicide bombers, then? That's what the quote refers to. What do you call it when they celebrate their children's death/martyrdom because they killed Jews in the process?

 

[2cents]

What do you call parents encouraging their children to be martyrs and suicide bombers, then? That's what the quote refers to.

Golda Meir died in 1978. The first Palestinian suicide attack occurred in the 90s.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Golda Meir died in 1978. The first Palestinian suicide attack occurred in the 90s.

The quote is still used today, by other people. Ignore the date and the quote, and answer the question: what do you call it when Palestinian parents encourage their children to die if they kill Jews at the same time?

1989 is credited as the first palestinian suicide bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

 

[maniak]

What do you call parents encouraging their children to be martyrs and suicide bombers, then? That's what the quote refers to. What do you call it when they celebrate their children's death/martyrdom because they killed Jews in the process?

Isn't generalizing about ethnic groups the definition of racism?

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Isn't generalizing about ethnic groups the definition of racism?

That's off topic. I'm specifically asking what one calls the act of encouraging and celebrating the death of one's children - via suicide attacks - as long as it kills Jews in the process? To me, that equates to the "Palestinians hating our [Jewish] children more than they love their own."

 

[2cents]

The quote is still used today, by other people. Ignore the date and the quote, and answer the question: what do you call it when Palestinian parents encourage their children to die if they kill Jews at the same time?

I think it’s extremely fecked up, and the product of a range of factors of which the context of the occupation is an obvious (though not the only) major element.

1989 is credited as the first palestinian suicide bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

That was a case where a Palestinian steered a bus off the road, by its nature it’s a bit different from the wave of suicide bombings that started in earnest during the mid-90s.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

I think it’s extremely fecked up, and the product of a range of factors of which the context of the occupation is an obvious (though not the only) major element.

agree

 

[NotThatSoph]

That's off topic. I'm specifically asking what one calls the act of encouraging and celebrating the death of one's children - via suicide attacks - as long as it kills Jews in the process? To me, that equates to the "Palestinians hating our [Jewish] children more than they love their own."

In the last 20 years, how many suicide attacks?

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

In the last 20 years, how many suicide attacks?

Is your point that the Palestinians no longer believe these things? Because if that's your point, I think you're wrong.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Is your point that the Palestinians no longer believe these things? Because if that's your point, I think you're wrong.

It's a very simple question.

You're using suicide attacks as a way to make claims about Palestinians. There are currently around 5 million Palestinians. I'm sure we could do some math to arrive at a ballpark figure of how many Palestinians there have been during the last 20 years, but I'm sure you get the picture. How many suicide attacks?

 

[Raoul]

Is your point that the Palestinians no longer believe these things? Because if that's your point, I think you're wrong.

Their critique is that you are conflating all Palestinians into one camp when its more likely those who actually believe in that sort of thing are in a minority. So maybe change your framing to Hamas/PIJ (or similar) as opposed to every Palestinian.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

It's a very simple question.

You're using suicide attacks as a way to make claims about Palestinians. There are currently around 5 million Palestinians. I'm sure we could do some math to arrive at a ballpark figure of how many Palestinians there have been during the last 20 years, but I'm sure you get the picture. How many suicide attacks?

It's non sequitur. The philosophy underpinning the suicide bombing campaigns remains a part of the Hamas ideology, which is what I'm referring to. You are trying to equate the cessation of suicide bombings with a change of heart, which did not happen, and you're doing this ignoring the Oct 7 attacks.