Oshkosh JLTV

One senior DOD Acquisition guy explained government contracting as not just the cheapest. But instead the best value. Part of that value is making sure your contractors make enough profit to support your purchase long term. Another part is the philosophy that we are spending US tax payer money usually with companies that employee US citizens. What kind of government would penny pinch it's own? So he said the laws that allow the US government to purchase things were put in place long ago with the expectation of fair profitable work for US citizens.

Advan046 wrote: So he said the laws that allow the US government to purchase things were put in place long ago with the expectation of fair profitable work for US citizens.

Now if it was a modern law, THEN they'd penny-pinch their own

Guess teachers, emergency responders, infrastructure and national health are things that can be justifiably penny pinched.

The price doesn't surprise me. It's a fairly limited volume, specialized, heavy duty vehicle that has to be reliable. Price a fire engine or a bus.

Teachers don't have to deal with IEDs (yet.)

Appleseed wrote: Teachers don't have to deal with IEDs (yet.)

Apparently the San Diego school district took a little too long to figure that out.

One comment I'd heard about military cost overruns was, "Everybody talks about the Pentagon being charged $600 for a toilet seat. What they leave out was that it had six pages of specifications for firmness." I haven't verified if that was true, but if so - no wonder they had cost overruns.

The infamous toilet seat was for a military aircraft. It had to survive combat maneuvers, be fire-safe and of course highly durable, and was a very low-volume part. A lot of people think it's a myth, but it was real, I wish I could find info on it now. It sounds stupid as all hell but considering the work that went into it, it's understandable. I have a $200 custom aluminum ring on my Corolla's crank pulley (Thanks a lot T3, for not checking if the trigger wheel fits on a redtop!).

My sister works in a high-end furniture/decorating shop, if a $600 military aircraft toilet seat disgusts you, the things rich idiots put in their houses these days would give you a stroke.

You do realize that black projects are often funded with padded white projects.

Appleseed wrote: You do realize that black projects are often funded with padded white projects.

So it was a padded toilet seat? Those are often more expensive.

Appleseed wrote: You do realize that black projects are often funded with padded white projects.

Well then what are the black project funds for? This is a joke from MiB 1.

Also a line from "Independence Day". When they first see the alien ship we keep in area 51.

Appleseed wrote: Teachers don't have to deal with IEDs (yet.)

That's a good reason to supply our military with the best parts they possibly can.

But not a reason that the companies who make it should get extra profits, over, say teacher pay.

If it costs $240k to build so that it sells for $250k, that's great. But if it costs $125k per to build/develop and sell for $250k, that's a problem. I don't know the specifics of this project, so...

The point of this is the NEED for a new vehicle. I am sure that if politicians were unable to influence the project, it could maybe come under budget with new found capabilities of the delivered system.

The price and profit are not unknown entities in Government contracts. One of the fascinating things I learned once I got into Government was that few companies actually want Government contracts. So to prevent a monopoly and entice more competition we try to encourage more profit margin. Or contract terms that benefit swift successful completion of the project on a sliding scale where they get more profit from doing what is best for the taxpayer.

Unfortunately political influence and weak leadership leads to contracting that leaves lots of loop holes and encourage maximum delays for maximum profit. See the F35 project. The Acquisition method chosen give every incentive to fail timing and cost targets for maximum profit to the contractors.

If someone had the guts to cancel the program 5 years ago we would have several dozen extra billions of dollars less federal debt. It was obvious that neither demonstration vehicle would meet the requirements. Basically the government could not get what it requested. Not enough technological knowledge to do it. So the government should have cancelled the project rescoped the requirements and started again. But politics pushed forward a bad contract.

Right now we have the biggest contract in the world making fighters that can't do what we wanted. And no one in congress or DOD is stopping it.

This Oshkosh vehicle will hopefully go off without a hitch. The price is cheap and given the 20-30 year gap between new contracts a lot of profit seems fair if it keeps Oshkosh around until the next replacement is needed.

Advan046 wrote: ...One of the fascinating things I learned once I got into Government was that few companies actually want Government contracts....

A combination of federal regulations and my employer being difficult to deal with helped drive several companies out if bus building. Now we are stuck buying from the companies that are left and none of them are really well suited for the abuse they see here and they don't seem to eager to do business with us due to the number of problems we see when they get delivered. We have factory techs pretty much living here to do warranty work to keep some of them running. I assume some of the high price tag the military is paying is so they get better electronics than we get where the computers get confused going over potholes and lock the buses down in the middle of the road, need to be reprogrammed when they forget the start button should engage the starter motor, ect.

I hope this JLTV thing doesn't interfere with the bib overall production.

I'm waiting for a combat ready cement mixer.