One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
In those decades SF technology has one thing in common, regardless of the specific narrative: it granted incredible agency to the person who wielded it.
We also constantly tell ourselves that out technology advances forward, sometimes outpacing science fiction... Except the actual properties of our technology "evolve" in the opposite direction. We now have devices that are low-power, utterly fragile and dependent on tons of external services.
Our real technology today takes our agency away. As the article points out, it's often deliberate.
I sometimes entertain the idea of making a web comic where people have science fiction tech (spaceships, tasers, AI) with all our current problems: glitches, constant updates, loss of functionality due to poor connectivity, DRM, incomprehensible setup procedures, etc.
But I do get your point. I do miss the days when my iPhone 4s would get horribly damaged, I'd order a part online, and a day later I have fixed it myself.
It's pretty "brickish", but you can order replacement parts easily and service it yourself: https://shop.fairphone.com/en/spare-parts/
But the real issue is what does it run? Android? Seems contrary to the point of building your own device.
There has yet to be a serious Mobile OS in the FOSS world that’s not tied in to the evils of Google, and still has e.g. baseband or phone call support.
I have vague memories of Philip K Dick short stories in which consumers are egged on to never fix but repeatedly buy new versions of technologies, because the old ones are built with limited lifespans, or the new versions have some superficially attractive feature with dubious actual value.
The story "Foster, you're dead!" springs to mind. Consumers are pressured into buying newer and newer bomb shelters in order to protect themselves from an imaginary enemy with constantly improving imaginary capabilities.
The more general idea that advances in technology would remove agency from the masses feels quite old, you can see the seeds of it in Brave New World for example.
It's time to reconsider. Fundamental technology advancement has slowed down considerably, and most vendors are transitioning to rent-seeking models as their ability to get revenue through organic replacement is gone.
This structure works ok if you have wars in other countries with weak enemies and you are just wasting money. But what about a big war where the nation has to put all resources into the war effort?
"Welcome to the Army, and congratulations on being drafted. Here's what you'll be working on - the good news is that you're already well trained in the area."
USA will lose that war. Let's hope it doesn't happen.
The only "big" wars we've fought (Revolutionary, 1812, Civil, WWII, arguably WWI) have seen us build up a military from among the citizenry, for wars in which citizens mostly believed. There was always initially huge turnover among the officer class, as large numbers of colonels and generals selected by wealth, seniority, and politicking were replaced by men of broader experience who could lead soldiers to win in battle. There was steady improvement in munitions over the course of those wars, as general techniques of American craft and industry were focused on the requirements of war. Perhaps most importantly, soldiers and sailors came from every American family at every level of society. Also, those armies won those wars.
The standing army we have now has none of those characteristics. It spends vast sums in opaque fashion on increasingly specialized and fragile "weapons systems". It is saddled with an immense sclerotic immovable officer class. It shamelessly markets in misleading fashion to ensnare young people with limited options for its rank and file. Also, though it occasionally accomplishes a police action, the permanent American military loses all the "small" wars in which it engages, while slaughtering millions of innocents.
Not just existing military factories - civilian infrastructure will be converted where possible. E.g. a car factory changes to making military vehicles.
If necessary, guys with guns will arrive to ensure that production continues.
Lots of historical references on this sort of thing from the WW2 era.
What makes you think the military can't control them?
You don't need a war to do that, that's already the law.
The government (not just the military) can force you to license them your patent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_patent_use_(United_...
As for the contractors, the story of hms Prince of Wales against Bismarck comes to mind, with contractors sailing into battle to help mitigate reliability with its guns.
So there are precedents, in case of a dire need a state will enforce a deeper control over what is required to fight a war.
But that would n ever happen because they'll make plenty of money and if the U.S. is ever invaded, pretty much everyone will become a nationalist.
All the wiz-bang equipment that is too delicate will quickly be abandoned, only the rugged and simple stuff will be useful. Tremendous amounts of money will be squandered, but war itself is an ecstasy of waste.
Not sure how much it matters, Historically more equipment tends to win vs. better equipment.
unless this was an intentional reference, then, whoosh
It's disgusting how a prestigious military force has been reduced to a pitiful size reliant on contractors to install airconditioning units, weekend warriors who fly in and out on short tours and vehicles that have had "extended life" programs instead of making new ones.
Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese have been building next generation ground, air and sea units. The UK have two aircraft carriers which were designed in the early 2000s.
Sure we have our own innovative equipment but as the article says, they are operated and maintained by civilian technicians.
Are the technicians going to fly in to a warzone or if push comes to shove pickup a M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas and fight when the Russians come rolling through the Fulda gap.
If you want to see the most amazing military innovation on zero budget, it's being done in Syrian garages or on the streets of Hong Kong. If they fail, the innovators themselves are in physical danger.
The lesson of the Iraq war was that it's possible to throw a trillion dollars into an overseas disaster and all the comfortable profiteers back home remain fine. Why should they change without a gun pointed at them?
(There was definitely a phase of WW2, the first year or so, where all the inadequate British kit got replaced at urgent speed)
> Are the technicians going to fly in to a warzone or if push comes to shove pickup a M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas and fight when the Russians come rolling through the Fulda gap
At the rate things are going, the technicians will simply be bought out by the Russians.
s/Russians/Chinese (FTFY)
That's sparkling new for an aircraft carrier tho, and it's two more seaworthy carriers than Russia has.
Not to be a downer, but judging by the most recent European land war (the one in Ukraine) just picking up a "M4/SA80/G36/FAL/Famas" won't do that much in terms of stopping the enemy, you need kick-ass artillery and a kick-ass air-force, otherwise you're just sending those men into a meat grinder. That, of course, if we don't engage in a nuclear war, in which case the discussion is totally different.
And anyway, the North German Plain was just as likely an assault route for the Warsaw Pact forces as through the Fulda Gap.
Have you got some sort of problem with reservists?
> Are the technicians going to fly in to a warzone
Yes? They flew into Afghanistan all the time to fix equipment.
> In alignment with this new paradigm, policymakers simplified the Federal Acquisition Regulation in 1994 and 1995, exempting “commercial items” from a large portion of the rules (as well as expanding the definition of what is a commercial item to include goods that could be seen as specialized military goods). Congress also encouraged federal agencies to purchase commercial items “to the maximum extent practicable.” These changes fueled high rates of commercial purchases, which, coupled with consolidation in the defense industry, contributed to the Defense Department’s increased use of commercial technology and the negotiation of single-source contracts.
> Ultimately, the power dynamics shifted between the Defense Department and commercial industry, forcing the department to accept warranties, contracts or prices that it could previously avoid — all thanks to changes in research and development funding, regulations and a lack of competition.
Either way I'm glad it's become an issue for the military. Makes me more hopeful it'll be adopted since it can be framed with some good ol' flag waving jingoistic military worship along side the other issues like e-Waste and consumer rights.
I know from my interactions with the DOD supply chain that few, if any, people think about the warranty implications of COTS hardware beyond making sure there is support from the manufacturer. This isn't too bad when the COTS hardware is a smallish component of a larger system that a unit can replace from spares if there is a failure (which is where the COTS movement started). It's a much bigger deal when the entire larger system is itself a COTS bundle, as is the case in this article.
There is usually very little in a contract language for what happens when they get blown off, so the person with the broken Humvee (as an example) has to contact the appropriate government entity (contracting officer) to contact the company rep. So the company gets a slap on the hand. The government can threaten to end the contract, but that is a nuclear option.
The biggest (realistic) stick the government can have is to threaten to not renew a contract, but when you talk about a Humvee (to continue the example), that sadly is totally unrealistic. So the contractor knows they have a monopoly and have no incentive to work harder.
I'll tell you a story on a very large program I was on. We did developmental testing for a very large platform (Billions of dollars). We had a prime (Company A) who gave specifications for a form factor to Company B. For months, we told Company A that the Line Replaceable unit (LRU) that goes into the platform would not fit, and it took us eight months for Company A to admit there was even a problem. We only got them to admit there was a problem because we literally had a general officer come out to the test site and try to fit in the LRU himself.
What ended up being the issue? Company A gave the wrong size specifications to Company B. Guess what happened? The government had to pay to retrofit the design so the LRU would fit. We simply had no stick to make them pay for their mistake. The company said if they had to pay for it, they wouldn't have enough money for the rest of testing. And also guess what? no one in the government wants to be in charge of a failed program.
When you made a lemon, surely it's then cheaper to replace with a current product than it is to go to court; and being a military supplier would be a high status indication so don't companies (any making products that aren't adjective crap) should still want to make money through creating good products?
What we need is some kind of universal pass for articles that you pay a monthly fee for, and then as you read the articles from the sites it supports, it pays that publisher.
Additionally, the poster asked for a workaround - not to be lambasted for their choice to do so. :)
They still are doing it - the issue of course is blendle wants me to be the portal from which I read all my news - and I want to read it from wherever, my account bring debited when I read a blendled page.
Bahaha, yeah, no. That’s not what I’m talking about.
Imagine we could also pay a generic monthly fee for e.g. access to Netflix, Disney+, etc, and the profits go to the services we are watching at the time.
All this celebration of Disney+ is honestly sad af, and shows just how out of touch people are.
We are in days worse than cable television, except that it’s on demand.
I think we want the same thing.
Tested it on a VPN to make sure, even.
I think ‘quality journalism’ can do without stopping to this level.
Nothing should be pirated.
Or pay for the subscription.
Works pretty reliably across the board, unless maybe you have lightning fast Internet. Maybe there's a plugin to selectively disable JS that would make this easier.
Copy/paste url
Doesn't work 100% of the time but usually does.