
Is the $400B F-35's 'brain' broken? - TravelTechGuy
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/f-35-software-system-gao-report/index.html
======
TravelTechGuy
I especially like the discussion of lack of software tests, the lack of
roadmap, and the fact it all feeds into a single computer, with no planned
backup.

If it were up to me, I'd title the article "Healthcare.gov in the sky".

Side note: imagine what else we could've achieved with a trillion dollars.

~~~
cylinder
Obamacare premiums reported today to be going up 9%-30% next year. A breaking
point is coming soon.

~~~
TravelTechGuy
Actually, my comment was not a political opinion of the ACA, more about the
web site's development/testing/maintenance cluster#$%k.

It is my opinion that if any government tech project management is outsourced
completely (i.e. no little functionaries who enjoy spending OPM, or messing
with a project based on politics), we'll have better technology, cheaper and
faster.

That's why I mentioned that site. It was a rolling disaster that everyone knew
would happen from the get go.

Now imagine being a pilot required to climb into one of those "5th generation"
aircrafts, being told "nah, we don't really need software testing. If it
doesn't start, tap it several times, or just reboot".

~~~
Grishnakh
>It is my opinion that if any government tech project management is outsourced
completely, we'll have better technology, cheaper and faster.

No, you won't. The problem is that the government will only outsource these
projects to proven companies which are already in the business of handling
government contracts. This means it's just the same crappy companies which do
ALL their business this way, and are experts at bilking the government out of
tons of money for little productivity. Other companies won't bother bidding,
because the government bidding and procurement rules are so byzantine that
they just don't bother. The government itself already recognizes that this is
a big problem (that lots of commercial companies refuse to do business with
it), but they have no real solutions for it other than trying to brainwash
these companies into changing their minds.

The other problem as far as some projects, like weapons systems, is that if
the contractor develops the technology all on their own and has complete
ownership of it, the cost to the government is even higher than when the
government gets involved and drives development costs up. The dev cost might
be lower when the contractor does it all themselves, but then the per-unit
cost is through the roof because they get the government to standardize on it,
but now they're the sole supplier, so after it's designed-in, they jack up the
prices. When the government has partial ownership of the IP, they have more
freedom in getting different suppliers to compete, but then the development
costs are high, plus with the consolidation in the defense industry there
aren't many bidders so again costs are high.

There really isn't any way to win AFAICT. The government needs to completely
revamp its broken systems in many areas, including procurement, and in
hiring/firing/HR, and other areas like how various agencies are managed and
what they're allowed to do with their money. For instance, government office
facilities are a disaster in many places: the buildings are WWII-era old and
falling apart, but that's because they're not allowed to build a new building
without an Act of Congress (literally). Of course, this stuff isn't going to
change; there's too many chefs in the kitchen.

