So there is much more competition on the military top edge manufactory? Honest question
General CE Chat
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Thanks a lot. It is always great to read your explanation in military expertise
Commercial airlines = Boeing and Airbus. China has spent billions trying to make a competitor and it's gotten them nowhere.
Let's look at the current suppliers of the US air force:
F15 -> McDonnell (Acquiring by Boeing)
F16 -> General Dynamics
F-18 -> McDonnell + Northrop Gruman collab
F-18 Superhornet -> Boeing
F-22 -> Lockheed Martin
F-35 -> Lockheed Martin
A-10 -> Fairchild Republic -> (Acquired by M7 Aerospace)
AC-130 -> Lockheed
B-1 Lancer -> Rockwell
B-2 Spirit -> Northrop Gruman
B-52 -> Boeing
RC-135 -> L3 Tech
E-9 -> Bombadier
PC-12 -> Pilatus
C-12 -> Beechcraft
Drones like MQ-9 and MQ-1 -> General Atomics
12 Contractors, and I haven't named some of the other ones. The big 3 are Lockheed, Northrop and Boeing. Lockheed specialize in Stealth Fighters, Boeing in 4th gen and tankers, Northrop specialize in Strategic bombers. This is just for the air force.
Let's move to Helicopters because this is a great example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Vertical_Lift
If you look at the people who bid for this project, 7 different companies put forward a prototype for a helicopter to replace the Black Hawks.
Navy wise, there are so many contractors it's not worth me even listing them all but the big ones:
Arleigh Burkes are being built by two different contractors -> Ingalls and Bath Iron Works. The original program had 7 bids.
Constellation Class was won by an Italian Company -> 6 bids.
Aircraft Carriers is a bit of a monopoly, because the institutional knowledge required is gigantic and only one company really has the knowledge to build them- > Newport News Shipbuilding which is in partnership with Northrop.
Army Vehicles there are so many contractors of different nationalities it's not really worth me going into:
But even BAE have a big presence here.
This is ignoring other gigantic players in the market like Dassault, Raytheon, Leonardo, HII, Leidos, General Electric, Rhinemettal (Awkward one here) who build cheaper price per unit items (like MRAP's are built by Oshkosh which don't make the headlines but the US has ordered like 50,000 of them).
Last edited:
But they are all competing between them for the same projects constantly or they are niche? because probably helicopter suppliers they don't compete with fix wing projects (just assumptions based on no knowledge)
Also, reiterating on the civil planes. Sure there are other manufacturers besides Boeing and Airbus (being those the main ones) but they still have competition even if it is regional.
Wouldn't be the same case on military avionics? 3 for planes (and specialized) and other minors and civil major planes being 2 main ones and others minors
Actually, the FLV Helicopter program is a fantastic reason why private sector prototyping is so good.
Each bid went into a different direction with different pro's and cons and it gives the military shit tonnes of options to weigh out.
All these were competitors to win the same contract.
Each bid went into a different direction with different pro's and cons and it gives the military shit tonnes of options to weigh out.
All these were competitors to win the same contract.
Civilian airliners wise, commercial airlines have Airbus + Boeing cornering 99.1% of the market. The 0.9% is like aircraft in sanctioned countries.
Broader civilian airlines have slightly more competition in the form of bombadier but....that's about it.
Most are specialized, but even specialized subsets have huge competition. For example, the bid to win the MRAP contract had like 20 bids.
The DoD has their preferred option though in the most critical, advanced, important stuff. it's very unlikely that a 5th fighter jet competition will be won by anyone other than Lockheed or Boeing.
The Armed Forces cannot compete with the for-profit sector. That said, compensation has risen decently over the past two decades but still lingers behind the public sector. Civil service wages are low compared to the public sector, I'd say worse off than military who at least get non-taxable allowances, free health care, and less taxed deductions on wages.
A few years ago, Congress shot down requests to raise reenlistment bonuses for special operators that would have paid 250-300k for reenlistment as the forces were losing quality personnel to defense contractors offering 150-300k in annual compensation. Currently, all enlisted are capped at 30k per year up to 180k over a 6-year reenlistment, but that's for critical career fields like special operators, linguists, etc. Many reenlistees do not qualify for a bonus based on a few factors while others receive amounts based on quotients that are less than the 30k max.
Some qualify for a decent initial enlistment bonus paid out over the first x years of their enlistment, but not all qualify and not all that do get the same rate. They also have to make it through their initial training platform to get the first bonus installment and complete the contract or potentially owe money back.
Meanwhile, aviators are still earning 25-50k per year in a flying bonus dependent on the branch of service; Air Force offers the highest rate. The Air Force recently offered upwards of 600k in career bonuses for pilots electing to commit additional years beyond the required commitment, at 50k per year; think it's 6 years minimum required but not sure. This is in addition to salary and allowances, they also receive rated or non-rated flight pay.
It's not easy to give an example of the average pay for each rank as factors such as residing in gov quarters or off-base, with or without dependents, location of assignment that may draw a higher/lower housing allowance, additional special pays based on career fields, etc. Housing and subsistence are non-taxable allowances. But here's sort of a glimpse...
An E-6 in Tampa, FL with 13 years service, off-base, married, per month pay - 4650 base pay, 2874 housing, 460 subsistence
An O-4 in Tampa, FL with 15 years service, off-base, married, rated pilot 11 years, per month pay - 9417 base pay, 3084 housing, 317 subsistence, 1000 fly pay
The housing rate changes based on assigned zip code; places like DC and LA pay much higher but Altus and Montgomery would be much lower.
For shits and giggles, an O-10 four-star general with 30 years service, married -- four-stars reside on the installation for security purposes so no housing allowance paid.
18492 base pay, 317 subsistence - I believe a four-star also receives a personal money allowance but it's peanuts, like a two-or-three hundred extra per month.
Note: this is available public info through any search engine so nothing classified is posted above.
Last edited:
Oh, and retired pay is very nice. For active duty, 20 years equals 50% of retired pay grade, 30 years equals 75% and is the max rate. So that four-star retires at let's say it's 20k/month by 2026 so that's about 15k/month in retired pay. And probably add some VA disability pay in there on top of it. And he/she will likely get some cushy exec, or consultant, or whatever gig paying 50-500k per year depending on full/part-time, industry, etc. Many of my colleagues are retiring in the E-8/E-9 tiers and immediately getting contract offers well over 100k, some over 150k.
I see. Thanks for the explanations
Which branch are you in?
AF, on the reserve side with a ton of active duty under my belt.
@AfonsoAlves
Just another note. I understand monopolistic situations that can bring Boeing to get quality issues. But I assume that the subcontractors from Boing probably are quite a lot that compete for the pieces that are not the best. And Boeing, as it has a responsibility with its stakeholders for benefits, goes to the lowest bidder and also quality checks. And that is more prominent in the private sector than the public sector
Just another note. I understand monopolistic situations that can bring Boeing to get quality issues. But I assume that the subcontractors from Boing probably are quite a lot that compete for the pieces that are not the best. And Boeing, as it has a responsibility with its stakeholders for benefits, goes to the lowest bidder and also quality checks. And that is more prominent in the private sector than the public sector
I interact with USSF quite a bit over here and the amount of housing money they get here in LA is absurd. There are young LTs who get into roommate situations in beach homes that go for 6k a month or more. It’s definitely changed a lot since I was in.
The problem with Boeing is not with the quality of their pieces, all the issues they have had have been quality with its internal systems (software) and their assembly and putting the parts together.
This is all great information and much appreciated. For me, I have no problems with his type of private sector involved with that military and don't argue that these are good examples of efficiency.
Where I personally have problems with too much privatization is not with advanced weapons production but other aspects of the military that are being outsourced to the private sector where the incentives don't end up aligning.
One example is what happened with Kellogg, Brown and Root with water treatment plants in Iraq. This task was outsourced to the Halliburton subsidiary but KBR never actually spent the resources to purify the water. They faked it at a drastically lower cost and then just billed the government. So here the private sector contractor never actually produced what they said they were producing and were basically defrauding the government (and taxpayers). Unfortunately Halliburton got off because the Carter vs Halliburton False Claims lawsuit (and here) was dismissed on a very shady technicality. So even though the whistleblower had the evidence to prove Halliburton through KBR was committing fraud, they never had to pay back all the money they essentially stole from taxpayers, let alone the problems in Iraq of never actually building water purifying plants.
Another more well known example from a different area of military contracting is the Blackwater war crimes case. So while I agree with your point above specifically about how the private sector is more efficient at advanced weapons production, there are many other areas where military activities should not be outsourced to the private sector because it can have bad (fraud) to disastrous (war crimes) results. There definitely is a place for private sector involvement in the military but there are also areas where private sector contracting needs to be stopped IMO, for the examples above.
AS far as I know the quality of the pieces too moving factories and the suppliers of these factories. Basically they cut corners everywhere because cost reductions
I almost moved out west to LA to room with a friend just to collect MHA on GIB, was considering apply for some local unis about a decade ago. The MHA was slightly more than the local BAH at the time, insane amounts.
This is a different problem in itself I feel. First of all, were KBR contracted by the DoD? Or the State department or another civilian department?
This isn't a case of private vs public for situations regarding water treatment plants.
Military forces should not be tasked with state building and infrastructure projects outside of menial work and security.
Need a ditch dug in some place outside Baghdad? Sure, gather a non-com and some enlisted to spend a day doing it.
Repairing a water treatment plant? That's well outside the purview of what the DoD should be imo which is why I asked who the task was subcontracted from.
KBR were largely DOD in Iraq and Afghanistan and one of the reasons companies like them exist is for the precise reason you've bolded above. Post cold war, the US military downsized substantially. Bases were closed, force numbers reduced by about 1m troops across all branches. This created a problem for Afghanistan because we were initially in a low intensity conflict with about 10k troops in country in 2002, and those troops needed everything from housing to food to laundry and sanitation services. KBR and a few other lesser known companies were instrumental in being able to deploy in theater as soon as conditions were safe, and set up everything that was needed. The company got a bad rap because it was part of Haliburton at the time, which was tied to Cheney since he was a former CEO.
On the other hand, KBR and others weren't adequately regulated during much of their time in combat zones, which is something that will need to be looked it if another war takes place in the future.
That reminds me of when Gen Shinseki told the Bush administration he'd need a far higher troop package for Iraq than Rumsfield had stated. Thin-skinned, big ego Rumsfield later said some shit about Shinseki in public and practically killed the general's power from there on.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq were planning disasters by the administration. Afghanistan was never meant to be an occupation, it was to be a smash-and-grab, we're out in 6-12 months max. Oh, and we'll build your infrastructure, deliver democracy, and fast-track you into modern first world stuff.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq were planning disasters by the administration. Afghanistan was never meant to be an occupation, it was to be a smash-and-grab, we're out in 6-12 months max. Oh, and we'll build your infrastructure, deliver democracy, and fast-track you into modern first world stuff.
It was DoD and it wasn't really state building or infrastructure, it was logistical support for the military.
It's a case where I feel the better model is something like the Corps of Engineers who are mostly civilian contractors but there is a structure and oversight in place that aligns the incentives much better to prevent the type of fraud we've seen with KBR and other military contractors.
For tasks assigned to Blackwater, on the other hand, those should have all been handled by the military itself rather than "cowboy jackasses with itchy trigger fingers" as one combat vet I know phrased it.
Well they got a bad rap because they were defrauding the government and tax payers as well. As I said above there needs to be a better model like the Corps of Engineers rather than just letting for profit entities with poorly aligned incentives have full reign.
Yeah that was definitely a problem as most of military intelligence fully agreed with Shinseki and felt, off record, that Rumsfeld was a moron.
I don't see this as feasible. The Armed Forces were already stretched to the max with two wars to support and deployment dwell ratios shrank to 1:1 for many career fields. People were getting out when they could due to continuous deployment tempos. The Army was so stretched thin they were extending deployments to 12-15 months at a time, unheard of since Vietnam.
The government just needs to do a better job of oversight. USACE don't do the same type of work that the likes of KBR did in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that is a non-starter. Its up to the government to monitor this stuff so if a contractor isn't delivering at a level of quality they should be, then its up to the gov to correct it.
Last edited:
Add to this, USACE are usually busy doing important things like building structures to rehabilitate transportation and economic growth in countries. There's simply no getting around the reality that private companies are going to be heavily relied on for basic services so the military can fight instead of having to peel potatoes in DFACs.
In hindsight, sure, but ideally in the future, the US wouldn't engage in a second, completely unnecessary action based on false pretenses that everyone knew was BS at the time. Had the US just stuck to Afghanistan, the Army would never have been stretched so thin. Ultimately, the US should not have for-profit mercenary companies like Blackwater involved in the future the way they were as its just a recipe for fraud and war crimes as the entire disaster of the Iraq war showed.
That's a bit of an understatement at best. I'm not saying the ACE in it's current form do the same type of work as KBR, I'm saying that ACE provides a more efficient model that would be far better at aligning incentives for that type of work than just paying a premium to get defrauded by the likes of KBR and Blackwater. What should be a non-starter is ever getting into such a stupid, ego driven war again based on premises that we all knew were total BS from the start
Just got sent a link to a subreddit called r/lesscredibledefense
Holy crap there are some monstrous opinions on there.
Holy crap there are some monstrous opinions on there.
thanks, i think that answers all my questions.
Cool. Glad you're happy.
More to the point, you asked some loaded questions, and I did my best to answer them without responding in kind, and I even provided documentation to support what I was saying. You chose to ignore that and make a snarky comment, which is another reason discussion is dead on the internet. I'm arguing in good faith, trying to explain my view, and you're taking cheap shots. Bravo.
Last edited:
What do you call parents encouraging their children to be martyrs and suicide bombers, then? That's what the quote refers to. What do you call it when they celebrate their children's death/martyrdom because they killed Jews in the process?
Golda Meir died in 1978. The first Palestinian suicide attack occurred in the 90s.
The quote is still used today, by other people. Ignore the date and the quote, and answer the question: what do you call it when Palestinian parents encourage their children to die if they kill Jews at the same time?
1989 is credited as the first palestinian suicide bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks
Isn't generalizing about ethnic groups the definition of racism?
That's off topic. I'm specifically asking what one calls the act of encouraging and celebrating the death of one's children - via suicide attacks - as long as it kills Jews in the process? To me, that equates to the "Palestinians hating our [Jewish] children more than they love their own."
I think it’s extremely fecked up, and the product of a range of factors of which the context of the occupation is an obvious (though not the only) major element.
That was a case where a Palestinian steered a bus off the road, by its nature it’s a bit different from the wave of suicide bombings that started in earnest during the mid-90s.
agree
In the last 20 years, how many suicide attacks?
Is your point that the Palestinians no longer believe these things? Because if that's your point, I think you're wrong.
It's a very simple question.
You're using suicide attacks as a way to make claims about Palestinians. There are currently around 5 million Palestinians. I'm sure we could do some math to arrive at a ballpark figure of how many Palestinians there have been during the last 20 years, but I'm sure you get the picture. How many suicide attacks?
Their critique is that you are conflating all Palestinians into one camp when its more likely those who actually believe in that sort of thing are in a minority. So maybe change your framing to Hamas/PIJ (or similar) as opposed to every Palestinian.