A Satellite Navigation and Global Positioing Systems forum. Sat Nav Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Sat Nav Banter forum » GPS and Sat Nav Newsgroups » sci.geo.satellite-nav (Global Satellite Navigation)
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

sci.geo.satellite-nav (Global Satellite Navigation) (sci.geo.satellite-nav) Discussion of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). Topics include the technical aspects of GNSS operation, user experiences in the use of GNSS, information regarding GNSS products and discussion of GNSS policy (such as GPS selective availability).

Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III Satellite Buy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 3rd 13, 07:10 AM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
miso
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III SatelliteBuy

Just look at the discussion between the US Army and Congress, where the US Army states they have more Abrahms tanks
than they need for another 4+ yrs, but Congress won't allow tank production to stop, even though there's a huge
stockpile of new tanks with no use.



Also congress mandated C-17s that the USAF didn't want.

I don't know about the F-35, but the F-22 has parts made in all 50
states. It was a tough to kill its production simply due to the
congressional pork.




  #12  
Old May 3rd 13, 08:10 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III SatelliteBuy

On 2013.05.03 03:05 , miso wrote:
On 5/2/2013 3:03 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.05.02 17:20 , wrote:
Em quarta-feira, 1 de maio de 2013 04h08min26s UTC-3, miso
escreveu:
I thought technology gets cheaper as time goes on. What am I
missing here?

Military projects almost never get cheaper, because: - pork&barrel
politics (spread the cost throughout congressional districts instead
of lowest possible cost) - lack of real competition (only a duopoly
of suppliers) - the US military always worked with make it the best
in the world, cost don't matter - there's huge improper cozyness
between congress and defense contractors - people outside the game
that ask really hard questions are always outcasts like me -
demanding cost savings isn't sexy, and is very unpopular

If it were up to me, all projects would be fixed cost, PERIOD, if
necessary, have a design competition competition first as a fixed
cost project, then the winner gets a fixed cost project to do the
main work.


That's how the F-35 was borne. First the government paid Boeing and
Lockheed to design their respective versions of the ATF. They selected
Lockheed.

In the real world, esp. where there are a lot of unknowns going into the
program, no contractor would commit to fixed cost and the government
would not get what it wants or needs.



But you didn't mention how badly the F-35 is over budget.


Why mention it? It's such a well known fact. The F-35 is cancel-proof.
One of the best write ups on it was in the WashPost about 2 months
back. .... he
http://tinyurl.com/b2xbefz

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton
  #13  
Old May 5th 13, 05:01 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
miso
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III SatelliteBuy

Why mention it? It's such a well known fact. The F-35 is cancel-proof.
One of the best write ups on it was in the WashPost about 2 months
back. .... he http://tinyurl.com/b2xbefz


Pierre Sprey was part of the fighter mafia and one of Boyd's acolytes.

Note the F35 lacks much of a bubble top in the canopy. No problem if all
the electronic gizmos work. Big problem if you need to look behind you.

This is a good collection of videos critical of the program, with number
5 being short and sweet. Number 6 could use some subtitles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh2Gnxa_fTw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojPnp2hwqaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhGIglwmFB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS7O14nzrzE



Unfortunately, the opponents to the program are gray and balding. Nobody
will listen.






  #14  
Old May 5th 13, 07:53 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Marcelo Pacheco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III Satellite Buy

Em quinta-feira, 2 de maio de 2013 19h03min30s UTC-3, Alan Browne escreveu:
On 2013.05.02 17:20 , Marcelo Pacheco wrote:

Em quarta-feira, 1 de maio de 2013 04h08min26s UTC-3, miso


escreveu:


I thought technology gets cheaper as time goes on. What am I


missing here?




Military projects almost never get cheaper, because: - pork&barrel


politics (spread the cost throughout congressional districts instead


of lowest possible cost) - lack of real competition (only a duopoly


of suppliers) - the US military always worked with make it the best


in the world, cost don't matter - there's huge improper cozyness


between congress and defense contractors - people outside the game


that ask really hard questions are always outcasts like me -


demanding cost savings isn't sexy, and is very unpopular




If it were up to me, all projects would be fixed cost, PERIOD, if


necessary, have a design competition competition first as a fixed


cost project, then the winner gets a fixed cost project to do the


main work.




That's how the F-35 was borne. First the government paid Boeing and

Lockheed to design their respective versions of the ATF. They selected

Lockheed.



In the real world, esp. where there are a lot of unknowns going into the

program, no contractor would commit to fixed cost and the government

would not get what it wants or needs.



Also in the real world, when programs last 5, 10, 20 years, there are

inevitably scope changes over the course of the program. These drive up

the costs further. There are many things that happen over the course of

these programs - the classic being the reduction in production quantity

and rate of build thereby resulting in higher unit costs.



Just look at the SpaceX case, they're offering space launches at less


than half price of Boeing / Lockheed Martin launches. Boeing /


Lockheed Martin / DOD got so cozy with their relationship they


created the United Launch Aliance, essentially a launch cartel.




True they are more expensive. They also lift heavier and larger

payloads into higher orbits. The SpaceX current booster is considered a

medium booster whereas the ULA have medium and heavy capability.



There is also the scope of work that needs to be considered. SpaceX

scope is much narrower in a contractual sense than the scope taken on by

ULA.



I won't do a blow by blow comparison. Who has the time. But you're

comparing apples and pumpkins.



Now it has to be acknowledged that GPS satellite functionality has


skyrocketed throughout GPS I ... II ... IIA ... IIR ... IIR-M ... IIF


... IIIA. The obsession with stuffing each generation with a mission


impossible of more technical features cuminating with the fiasco of


GPS IIF (huge delay and cost overrun).




Finally the military chain of command mentality doesn't lead to


individual initiatives to make things better, most times the junior


officers know exactly what to do, with almost zero leeway in carrying


their orders, not to mention actually thinking of something better


along the way.




GPS design and contracting is mainly civilians, not military personnel.





--

"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."

-Pierre Berton


In any non fixed cost project there's no true incentive to control costs. The overruns are almost for sure. Isn't it time to change it once and for all ?

Obviously Boeing, Lockheed Martin and gang are private sector companies, but GPS, F35, ... projects are subject to military oversight and control, those that would actually be in a position to incentivise cost savings are the majors and Lt Cols that are the liasons talking to the contractors on a more regular basis.

There should be a maximum cost overrun percentage, once the overrun exceeds that much, that extra cost should be the burden of the contractor and not the customer (USAF in this case), this would incentivise a much more realistic cost projections, without pipe dream economics like it's done today. Additionally, changes in requirements should be essentially forbidden.

There are over 3000 new/refurbished to new condition M1A Abrahms tanks, aparently more tanks than are deployed in active units worldwide, and congress won't allow production to shutdown, thanks that to General Dynamics bribing lots of US congress members (US$ 5.3 million in bribes), the US Army wants to at least stop refurbishing old tanks, using the new ones instead, receiving couple US$ billion/yr in that activitity, also overruled by the US Congress.

The vast majority of the world population don't want to understand issues well enough to have an actually informed point of view, they just don't care..
  #15  
Old May 5th 13, 09:12 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III SatelliteBuy

On 2013.05.05 15:53 , Marcelo Pacheco wrote:

In any non fixed cost project there's no true incentive to control
costs.


Since you obviously ignored the key point that I wrote above, I'll do
you the same courtesy.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton
  #16  
Old May 8th 13, 05:31 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III Satellite Buy

Em domingo, 5 de maio de 2013 18h12min48s UTC-3, Alan Browne escreveu:
On 2013.05.05 15:53 , Marcelo Pacheco wrote:



In any non fixed cost project there's no true incentive to control


costs.




Since you obviously ignored the key point that I wrote above, I'll do

you the same courtesy.



--

"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."

-Pierre Berton


The key point to your answer is you're not interested in discussing a way to reduce the cost of DoD development projects, you're interested in defending the status quo.

Perhaps you have skin in the game.

It's rather easy to just poke small holes into an idea you don't like. And it's very unsettling to sugest changes that will bother a boatload of people that has been profiting from the Cold War mentality of the DoD.

The simple fact that the F-35 is a cancel proof project in your mind shows your mindset. In my opinion, the F35 cancellation should be completely on the table as a means to force Lockheed Martin and gang to get their act together and ensure there will be zero extra cost overruns and instead that costs will come down at least a bit. The alternative: UCAVs, UCAVs, UCAVs and a little more UCAVs. The base tech is ready. The bloated functionality mindset needs to stop. That's perhaps the largest F35 issue. And in the case of UCAVs, make sure there will be at least 3 of them being developed for fixed runway / carrier usage, without any mass production award until they have fulfilled all tecnical and cost requirements. Make sure 90% of profits come from mass production, so it's effectively a competition until mass production is awarded, much like the idea to let the X32 and X35 be developed (however they intended to split production between Boeing and Lockheed) and give 75-100% production to the company that comes with the lowest cost product.
  #17  
Old May 8th 13, 09:17 PM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III SatelliteBuy

On 2013.05.08 13:31 , wrote:
Em domingo, 5 de maio de 2013 18h12min48s UTC-3, Alan Browne
escreveu:
On 2013.05.05 15:53 , Marcelo Pacheco wrote:



In any non fixed cost project there's no true incentive to
control


costs.




Since you obviously ignored the key point that I wrote above, I'll
do

you the same courtesy.



The key point to your answer is you're not interested in discussing a
way to reduce the cost of DoD development projects, you're interested
in defending the status quo.


Obviously you didn't read or understand the key point I mentioned
earlier so it is pointless to answer your latest mindless barb.


Perhaps you have skin in the game.


Sure do.


It's rather easy to just poke small holes into an idea you don't
like. And it's very unsettling to sugest changes that will bother a
boatload of people that has been profiting from the Cold War
mentality of the DoD.


You still don't get it. I don't have an answer to the problem, to be
sure. But your suggestions are those of a 5th grader suggesting GUT
solutions to Einstein and Hawking.

The simple fact that the F-35 is a cancel proof project in your mind
shows your mindset.


It's not my mindset. The "cancel-proofness" is the subject of a
Washington Post article that I linked to in this thread. Read that.

I in fact hope that Canada cancels its current intent to buy the piece
of **** F-35 and instead re-up with the latest v. of the F-18.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton
  #18  
Old May 9th 13, 06:52 AM posted to sci.geo.satellite-nav
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III Satellite Buy

On May 8, 10:17*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2013.05.08 13:31 , wrote:









Em domingo, 5 de maio de 2013 18h12min48s UTC-3, Alan Browne
escreveu:
On 2013.05.05 15:53 , Marcelo Pacheco wrote:


In any non fixed cost project there's no true incentive to
control


costs.


Since you obviously ignored the key point that I wrote above, I'll
do


you the same courtesy.


The key point to your answer is you're not interested in discussing a
way to reduce the cost of DoD development projects, you're interested
in defending the status quo.


Obviously you didn't read or understand the key point I mentioned
earlier so it is pointless to answer your latest mindless barb.



Perhaps you have skin in the game.


Sure do.



It's rather easy to just poke small holes into an idea you don't
like. And it's very unsettling to sugest changes that will bother a
boatload of people that has been profiting from the Cold War
mentality of the DoD.


You still don't get it. *I don't have an answer to the problem, to be
sure. *But your suggestions are those of a 5th grader suggesting GUT
solutions to Einstein and Hawking.



Unlike the political,financial or medical institutions,there is
absolutely no regulation applied to empirical speculation and that is
astonishing given the influence this doctrine has in the wider
world.By merely mentioning Einstein,you set an artificial intellectual
standard that the wider community believes is superior to their own
understanding of things even when some members of the empirical
community realize the proposals of the early 20th century were
nonsense and especially those involved in the development of
timekeeping instruments for navigation purposes such as Louis Essen.

The vicious strain of empiricism inherited from Newton is fascinating
by all accounts,it uses the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec, which is
based on the 365/365/365/366 day calendar format, in an attempt to
bridge the divide between astronomy and science at a human scale.The
idea that a person can extrapolate the motions of the Earth from a
rotating celestial sphere framework and then make sense of the motions
of all other objects in the celestial arena or even the structure of
the celestial arena itself is intellectually bankrupt and always
was.They detested Newton's sterile clockwork solar system by the late
19th century but they had so endeared themselves to the dubious method
by which got his agenda to fly that when relativity came along,its
acceptance was a no-brainer.

The wholesale fraud is making it appear that explanations are being
given when the whole point of the exercise is keeping the genuine
reader off-balance with intentional distortions and obfuscations,it is
how Isaac managed to foist mathematicians above astronomers in the
scheme of things and set in motion the peer review process which is
the empirical answer to patronage,serving the peer reviewers's
reputation and salary rather than any productive or creative human
endeavor.The genius of the fraud is maintaining the reputations and
salaries through the education system where students are cannon fodder
for a small group of people who can chant voodoo and then pass it off
as an explanation.

Late 17th century Royal Society empiricism is the scourge of astronomy
and terrestrial sciences insofar as the connection between dynamics
and terrestrial effects has suffered heavily from the reckless attempt
to homogenize motions on a celestial scale with objects at a human
level, mathematicians might not care but the rest of world truly
should.

Fraud is fraud,it does not matter if there is only one person at the
moment who is capable of spotting the subtleties involved in the
empirical treatment of astronomy and terrestrial sciences,this fraud
is such that it is the only reality for its proponents who, in some
way, can be excused as their crime is almost unconscious as they
maintain the scam from one generation to the next through the anti-
competitive peer review process which gives no incentive to do
anything other than rubberstamp the reputations of those doing the
reviewing.

Einstein and Hawking indeed !.what a scam.






The simple fact that the F-35 is a cancel proof project in your mind
shows your mindset.


It's not my mindset. *The "cancel-proofness" is the subject of a
Washington Post article that I linked to in this thread. *Read that.

I in fact hope that Canada cancels its current intent to buy the piece
of **** F-35 and instead re-up with the latest v. of the F-18.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -Pierre Berton


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Sat Nav Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.