Wasn't Boeing ****ing and moaning while losing their ass on the KC46 because it was one of, if not their first, first ventures with an FFP contract? Is the government no longer pursuing FFP contracts?

Yes there was a lot of Llama Drama :rolleyes:

.gov and DoD use FFP extensively, but typically for things which are very quantifiable... ie a truckload of potatoes.

FFP doesn't work well at all for big military systems, because in addition to complexity those tend to spiral development as they take years, and many things change over years... adversaries, technology, geopolitics.

The challenge with FFP for big weapon systems is that the buyer has to detail *very* precisely every requirement and specification. If you miss something (you will) or requirements change (they will) then you have to negotiate change orders. Both sides tend to dig in to opposite corners on that.

Cost Plus allows for flexibility and spiral development, but of course it's also well suited for FW&A.

I'd hazard that a tanker like KC-46 was in the grey area for suitability for FFP. One one hand it's not an offensive combat system with bleeding-edge performance... basically a flying gas station. But OTH, it does operate in a tactical environment, with important systems and capes for that.

A good example is the Navy P-8 and C-40. P-8 was Cost Plus, because it's an offensive combat system. C-40 was FFP because it's a non-tactical logistics transport. Both are based on the 737.

I think you are underestimating the importance of the decline of engineering expertise and can-do know how at some of the major defense contractors - like Boeing. For many years they avoided hiring employees for short term (or at least non guaranteed long term) projects by subcontracting engineering out to temps while having their own long term employees supervise. But when those contractors finished their personnel took the experience they had gained on the job with them and when the long term employees retired themselves a lot of the knowledge left with them. Yeah, they could hire new engineers, but there was a dearth of knowledgeable middle managers to bring them along. To an extent that was even the case with the machinists.

For historical comparison, the C-97 entered service in 1947. The tanker derivative, the KC-97, became operational only three years later. The 767 was FAA certified in 1982 and the contract was awarded in 2011 for 18 aircraft to be delivered by 2017. The first kc-46 wasn’t accepted (still with half a dozen deficiencies to be corrected later) until 2019. Eight years to convert an aircraft they had been manufacturing with FAA approval for 29 years seems a little excessive.

From Initial contract (1954) to delivery of the first KC-135s was only three years, an aircraft that had previously existed only as the dash 80 prototype.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk

But to me you seem much too accepting of the disaster that is the military procurement system. If it isn’t fixed, we will forever be 20 years behind where we could be in our military equipment technologically and paying twice as much as we ought to be paying.

It can't ever be "fixed". It's been that way since the dawn of civilization. Our system is quite a bit more functional than say Russia's, or China's for that matter. Better than most (but not all) of our allies too.

The nature of the mil industrial complex is that it requires constant vigilance and regular tuneups.

In the case of boeing specifically, it got so bad (just on the defense side) that it became common public knowledge and the pendulum had to swing. It didn't help them that they had very high visibility problems at the commercial and space units as well.

Well the wave was cresting and things were dying down and Trump had to open up his mouth again.

How so? If you ask me, any reasonable person could see this was far from over. I expect action this weekend if I was a betting man.

I think it's fairly obvious that this administration expected Iran to crumble entirely under the current assault, and has been improvising ever since it was realized that Iran isn't Venezuela. That isn't a partisan comment, it's just an assessment of the fact that the constantly-changing rationales and statements from various admin officials that continually contradict each other, make it clear that while we may have had a target list and while we may have destroyed much of what was on that list, there was very little contingency planning or forecasting around what might happen if we didn't achieve swift victory.

Despite everything, Iran still retains the current regime. It retains the ability to close the SoH, and to strike our allies in the Gulf, not to mention our own bases in the region. If this is "winning," I'd hate to see what losing looks like.

Probably a successful nuclear test.

Probably not the way you think.

It would be IL conducting a successful nuclear test on multiple IR nuclear facilities.

There is always a deep geopolitical undercurrent to this problem set that amounts to giving IL enough leash and help with conventional measures to dissuade them from the solving the problem their own way. That undercurrent is largely invisible.

Remember that IL ends if Tel Aviv goes away... they aren't taking any chances.

Could be, although it is equally likely that it would have happened with a successful test by Iran. I'm not saying with a specific time table. It would happen eventually without intervention.