
One Reason the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Its Own Equipment - dsr12
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/opinion/military-right-to-repair.html
======
gambler
In the 60s science fiction we had all those advanced aliens who had artifacts
that were nearly indestructible, worked forever and could output tons of
energy. That was our vision of "high-tech". In the 80s we got the idea that
maybe advanced aliens would have "smart" devices that could adapt to their
environment, repair themselves and be incredibly versatile.

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.

~~~
merpnderp
Nothing stopping you from making your own brickish phone thingy that connects
to lte, runs a powerful processor and has a huge battery. You could do it from
commodity parts and it would be trivially reparable by slapping in bits you
cheaply order off Amazon/New Egg. And compared to 1980, it would still be mind
bogglingly sci-fi - it just wouldn't be as sleek and svelte as your new
iPhone.

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.

~~~
lostgame
>> Nothing stopping you from making your own brickish phone thingy that
connects to lte, runs a powerful processor and has a huge battery

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.

~~~
merpnderp
I was envisioning basically and ultrabook set of hardware, so your favorite
flavor of Linux would be the answer.

------
Spooky23
I think that it made sense to do make the contract changes back in the 90s, as
technology was moving super-fast on the hardware side.

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.

------
Ididntdothis
I always wonder what they will do if there is a big war (maybe one that
affects the homeland which is something the US is not used to) and the
contractors decide fighting in this war is not good for business or they just
want more money? Are they going to suspend IP laws and other contracts? It
seems really weird that to have a military that’s dependent on other parties
they can’t control.

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?

~~~
jlawson
They'll just nationalize the factories.

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.

~~~
marcoseliziario
Exactly. That's what happened in the WWII. This nice tesla factory? Well, we
need some nice silent patrol vehicles mr Musk, but we need you to come out
with some kind of composite armor for it in 60 days. If you can't do it, don't
worry, we will take care of your factory for the duration, and when this is
over you can have it again.

------
opwieurposiu
In the heat of battle, even the can openers stop working.

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.

------
dsalzman
I worked on a predictive maintenance project on the Bradley Infantry Fighting
Vehicle in a previous job. It was eye opening to say the least.

~~~
Ill_ban_myself
There's a whole movie about it if you haven't seen it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA)

unless this was an intentional reference, then, _whoosh_

------
mothsonasloth
The British military have the same problems.

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.

~~~
pjc50
The fundamental problem is that it's not actually required to work because
it's not a defensive war, it's an overseas adventure.

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.

~~~
captainredbeard
> At the rate things are going, the technicians will simply be bought out by
> the Russians.

s/Russians/Chinese (FTFY)

------
noahmbarr
In addition to right to repair, couldn’t the military contract based
durability / SLA standards?

~~~
rtkwe
It talks about the exact transition that caused them to go towards not doing
that a few paragraphs in... Corporate consolidation and an move away from
developing their own equipment meant the DoD had to become a better customer
and accept terms from a corporate supplier.

> 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.

~~~
vonmoltke
Known in government circles as Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS). It's the
military's attempt to avoid redesigning the wheel when they need something
that the civilian market also needs.

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.

~~~
rtkwe
What I'm a little afraid of is the congress will just carve out a warranty
exception for the military as a bandaid to fix this specific issue without
addressing right to repair on the whole. I could easily see them passing a law
that basically says 'warranties shall not be considered void due to repairs
made as part of a military mission' or something similar (wrapped in way more
legalese) and leaving it at that or giving the full right to repair, ie:
suppliers must provide CAD, board schematics, and make available replacement
parts, but only for the military.

------
bitlax
What is the workaround for the New York Times paywall?

~~~
ProAm
Paying for content you want to read. Good journalism isn't cheap, this is one
of those things you shouldnt pirate.

~~~
lostgame
If I could pay somehow on a per-article basis, for the articles I stumbled
upon - I would. I don’t regularly read NYT and would have no use for a monthly
subscription as HN is the only place I see (unfortunately) regularly posting
from NYT.

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. :)

~~~
Cthulhu_
Dutch startup Blendle tried to do this, working with national newspapers to
sell articles on a per-article basis. NY Times was one of their investors.

~~~
Aloha
[https://launch.blendle.com](https://launch.blendle.com)

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.

~~~
lostgame
>> the issue of course is blendle wants me to be the portal from which I read
all my news

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.

~~~
Aloha
I want the digital equivalent of a coin slot I insert money into when I'm on
the nyt's website I can insert money into to read.

I think we want the same thing.

