Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Defense News)   Air Force General sits down with venture capitalists to "pick some winners" of future defense contracts. Apparently you can just do this publicly now   (defensenews.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, United States Department of Defense, Gen. CQ Brown, smaller number of companies, Booz Allen Hamilton, Karen Dahut, United States Secretary of Defense, advantage of the needed capabilities, Pentagon offices  
•       •       •

1609 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Dec 2022 at 4:05 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



39 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-12-05 1:45:22 PM  
Ike must be spinning in his grave.
 
2022-12-05 1:57:40 PM  
Shark tank.with coke and hookers
 
2022-12-05 4:07:00 PM  
images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.comView Full Size
 
2022-12-05 4:07:03 PM  
Can the cash value of the losers be taken out of his pension?
Just curious.
 
2022-12-05 4:07:24 PM  
Reagan National Defense Forum

🙄
 
2022-12-05 4:08:56 PM  

vudukungfu: Shark tank.with coke and hookers


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-05 4:09:30 PM  
As a defense contractor I'm sure I'll get a real kick out of this thread.
 
2022-12-05 4:11:27 PM  
FTA: While he didn't identify specific firms, he said he "learned a lot this past week on semiconductors and artificial intelligence."

That sounds like the military-industrial complex version of the standards sports quote like 'we win as a team, we lose as a team' or 'We're just taking it one day at a time and not trying to look past our next game'
 
2022-12-05 4:15:33 PM  
Yes, that's how bidding works.
 
2022-12-05 4:15:53 PM  

AxiomJackson: As a defense contractor I'm sure I'll get a real kick out of this thread.


*Kicks AxiomJackson.*
 
2022-12-05 4:17:55 PM  
you mean like SOLYNDRA!!!?!?!!!!oneoneoneeleven
 
2022-12-05 4:18:18 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Maybe I can sell them a tree translator.
 
2022-12-05 4:20:38 PM  

mistahtom: Reagan National Defense Forum

🙄


What did you expect? They even name a farking airport in DC after the guy that fired the ATC personnel.

The whole capital city will be soon known as Reagan, DC.
 
2022-12-05 4:23:12 PM  
This is how it has always worked, it was probably even way worse more corrupt in the olden days.  Companies have live and die based on contracts signed with the DOD.

In modern times it is way more open and  basically everyone has access to outcomes.  Before they'd just get filed away and if anyone wanted to dig into it they'd have to file for FOIA requests and get inundated with every doc months or years after it closed and way too late to do anything about it.

These days you can go online and look into it with little to no issues and real time.

That's not to say there aren't a lot of issues with the process, there absolutely are.  But this is nothing new.  DoD contracts have always picked winners and losers.
 
2022-12-05 4:23:40 PM  
Remember Abscam?
 
hej
2022-12-05 4:25:24 PM  
I wonder why Fark cares about this...

SpaceX

Oh, I see...
 
2022-12-05 4:25:43 PM  
I dunno. What if DIDN'T let people gamble on whether other people's hard work will fail, while also leaning on the scale the whole time to ensure that it does?
 
2022-12-05 4:27:28 PM  
It would probably be smarter to just fund university research and not plow money into proprietary black boxes.
 
2022-12-05 4:35:12 PM  
I'd like a contract.  What's the general's bank account and routing number?
 
2022-12-05 4:37:37 PM  
Great if venture capitalists are involved they'll be cutting hours, delaying supply orders and making DOD staff ask enemy countries to sign up for a rewards card.
 
2022-12-05 4:38:10 PM  

Scoobie: Ike must be spinning in his grave.


That RINO?  He'd never be allowed anywhere near the GOP these days.
 
2022-12-05 4:41:53 PM  

hej: I wonder why Fark cares about this...

SpaceX

Oh, I see...


Space X and Elon Musk are just the most blatant illustration of why having a bloated, overfunded defense budget being thrown at a bunch of self-declared tech geniuses might have some problems.
 
2022-12-05 4:42:19 PM  

dkulprit: This is how it has always worked, it was probably even way worse more corrupt in the olden days.  Companies have live and die based on contracts signed with the DOD.

In modern times it is way more open and  basically everyone has access to outcomes.  Before they'd just get filed away and if anyone wanted to dig into it they'd have to file for FOIA requests and get inundated with every doc months or years after it closed and way too late to do anything about it.

These days you can go online and look into it with little to no issues and real time.

That's not to say there aren't a lot of issues with the process, there absolutely are.  But this is nothing new.  DoD contracts have always picked winners and losers.


And being the military they like to buy a crap ton of components at once then sit on them for 20 years. What happens to the smaller  companies is the government buys a lot at once, then they don't need any more for years and the original company goes out of business. Then they have to find a new company willing to make a similar product for another big order. So you end up on older ships with a whole mishmash of very similar hard components that take slightly different soft parts (mostly o-rings) to repair. Hard to overstate how many times that's bit me in the ass.
 
2022-12-05 4:42:37 PM  

Ragin' Asian: Remember Abscam?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-12-05 4:42:52 PM  

Rapmaster2000: It would probably be smarter to just fund university research and not plow money into proprietary black boxes.


Yep.

But since that isn't happening, and this might be an unpopular opinion, if it give some startup with an innovative technology the capital to bring it in to production, I'm ok with that.

Usually those little minnows are eaten by the Raytheon's of the world.
 
2022-12-05 4:43:53 PM  

MattytheMouse: hej: I wonder why Fark cares about this...

SpaceX

Oh, I see...

Space X and Elon Musk are just the most blatant illustration of why having a bloated, overfunded defense budget being thrown at a bunch of self-declared tech geniuses might have some problems.


That being said: I saw a hilarious tweet the other day where somebody was like "I'm backing NASA over Space X now. I cannot condone an entity that supports Nazis," and I was like "oh, you poor innocent child. Who's gonna tell them?"
 
2022-12-05 4:54:53 PM  

GoodDoctorB: I dunno. What if DIDN'T let people gamble on whether other people's hard work will fail, while also leaning on the scale the whole time to ensure that it does?


Ok, it seems people don't really understand what this process is. If the military puts out specs for a component or technology they want then they generally will get more than one company trying to get the contract to build it, it's generally in the best interest for
Military that they 1. Get a good deal, 2. Get the correct product, and 3. Be able to buy more from that company in the future. I don't understand why people think that's a bad thing. The military does buy crap all the time they just want to try out and if it doesn't work they (hopefully) kill the contract which might put the company entirely out of business. That's not a bad thing overall.
 
2022-12-05 5:02:56 PM  

Mail Order American Husband: GoodDoctorB: I dunno. What if DIDN'T let people gamble on whether other people's hard work will fail, while also leaning on the scale the whole time to ensure that it does?

Ok, it seems people don't really understand what this process is. If the military puts out specs for a component or technology they want then they generally will get more than one company trying to get the contract to build it, it's generally in the best interest for
Military that they 1. Get a good deal, 2. Get the correct product, and 3. Be able to buy more from that company in the future. I don't understand why people think that's a bad thing. The military does buy crap all the time they just want to try out and if it doesn't work they (hopefully) kill the contract which might put the company entirely out of business. That's not a bad thing overall.


Exactly. The general is not going out and arbitrarily deciding which companies succeed and fail based on his mood or what is in it for him. He is trying to judge the capabilities of the companies and the practical military applications of the companies' products.
 
2022-12-05 5:11:34 PM  
This is an outrage.  Why introduce the potential for grift in an otherwise flawless procurement process?
 
2022-12-05 5:17:02 PM  

heavymetal: Mail Order American Husband: GoodDoctorB: I dunno. What if DIDN'T let people gamble on whether other people's hard work will fail, while also leaning on the scale the whole time to ensure that it does?

Ok, it seems people don't really understand what this process is. If the military puts out specs for a component or technology they want then they generally will get more than one company trying to get the contract to build it, it's generally in the best interest for
Military that they 1. Get a good deal, 2. Get the correct product, and 3. Be able to buy more from that company in the future. I don't understand why people think that's a bad thing. The military does buy crap all the time they just want to try out and if it doesn't work they (hopefully) kill the contract which might put the company entirely out of business. That's not a bad thing overall.

Exactly. The general is not going out and arbitrarily deciding which companies succeed and fail based on his mood or what is in it for him. He is trying to judge the capabilities of the companies and the practical military applications of the companies' products.


And the privileged money class is right there to guide that decision and immediately invest in those companies which are selected. It's basically risk free for the time of the first contract.

What happened to the model of these venture capitalists investing in a company because they believed it can win business rather than getting the government to tell them first who are the winners
 
2022-12-05 5:19:57 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


"What do you mean we can't win contracts with hookers and blow?  That's how it's ALWAYS been done!"
 
2022-12-05 5:25:41 PM  
Deal of the Century (1983) A-10 commercial
Youtube 3FtaM8qflrs
 
2022-12-05 6:20:29 PM  

Meatsim1: heavymetal: Mail Order American Husband: GoodDoctorB: I dunno. What if DIDN'T let people gamble on whether other people's hard work will fail, while also leaning on the scale the whole time to ensure that it does?

Ok, it seems people don't really understand what this process is. If the military puts out specs for a component or technology they want then they generally will get more than one company trying to get the contract to build it, it's generally in the best interest for
Military that they 1. Get a good deal, 2. Get the correct product, and 3. Be able to buy more from that company in the future. I don't understand why people think that's a bad thing. The military does buy crap all the time they just want to try out and if it doesn't work they (hopefully) kill the contract which might put the company entirely out of business. That's not a bad thing overall.

Exactly. The general is not going out and arbitrarily deciding which companies succeed and fail based on his mood or what is in it for him. He is trying to judge the capabilities of the companies and the practical military applications of the companies' products.

And the privileged money class is right there to guide that decision and immediately invest in those companies which are selected. It's basically risk free for the time of the first contract.

What happened to the model of these venture capitalists investing in a company because they believed it can win business rather than getting the government to tell them first who are the winners


Because the military does a lot of their own research and takes feedback from people using their equipment to get a good idea of what they want. I've submitted dozens of Feed Back Reports on Maintenance Requirements I have to do suggesting ways to make it better. I don't think many of them get a real close look because they go mostly to engineers that have never had to deal with the systems or components outside a laboratory environment, if that (and I sometimes think they fark with us intentionally), but I put them in all the same because if enough people spread across the fleet do the same then the engineers might actually rethink things. If vultures want to swoop in and invest in that company that can do it right then good for them, I'd do the same thing, I'd even support those people doing it because it makes a more viable company that can deliver good products.
 
2022-12-05 7:13:21 PM  

Mail Order American Husband: Meatsim1: heavymetal: Mail Order American Husband: GoodDoctorB: I dunno. What if DIDN'T let people gamble on whether other people's hard work will fail, while also leaning on the scale the whole time to ensure that it does?

Ok, it seems people don't really understand what this process is. If the military puts out specs for a component or technology they want then they generally will get more than one company trying to get the contract to build it, it's generally in the best interest for
Military that they 1. Get a good deal, 2. Get the correct product, and 3. Be able to buy more from that company in the future. I don't understand why people think that's a bad thing. The military does buy crap all the time they just want to try out and if it doesn't work they (hopefully) kill the contract which might put the company entirely out of business. That's not a bad thing overall.

Exactly. The general is not going out and arbitrarily deciding which companies succeed and fail based on his mood or what is in it for him. He is trying to judge the capabilities of the companies and the practical military applications of the companies' products.

And the privileged money class is right there to guide that decision and immediately invest in those companies which are selected. It's basically risk free for the time of the first contract.

What happened to the model of these venture capitalists investing in a company because they believed it can win business rather than getting the government to tell them first who are the winners

Because the military does a lot of their own research and takes feedback from people using their equipment to get a good idea of what they want. I've submitted dozens of Feed Back Reports on Maintenance Requirements I have to do suggesting ways to make it better. I don't think many of them get a real close look because they go mostly to engineers that have never had to deal with the systems or components outside a laboratory environment, if that (and I sometimes think they fark with us intentionally), but I put them in all the same because if enough people spread across the fleet do the same then the engineers might actually rethink things. If vultures want to swoop in and invest in that company that can do it right then good for them, I'd do the same thing, I'd even support those people doing it because it makes a more viable company that can deliver good products.


I don't see how this example relates to a USAF general and a bunch of venture capitalist firms sitting down together to decide simultaneously which of these up and coming tech companies gets a DoD contract and which don't.

It seems to defy the traditional procurement process of putting out a requirement and soliciting bids, which may have been backed by venture capitalists hoping their company wins, but still involves risk on their part.

I mean I don't have venture capitalist money but I would certainly love to be hand held by a general to a slice of DoD money instead of having to figure out on my own which company is making the best thing for the DoDs request for proposal.

And it's not like these companies have made a product yet according to this article they just have potential.
 
2022-12-05 7:24:29 PM  

Meatsim1: Mail Order American Husband: Meatsim1: heavymetal: Mail Order American Husband: GoodDoctorB: I dunno. What if DIDN'T let people gamble on whether other people's hard work will fail, while also leaning on the scale the whole time to ensure that it does?

Ok, it seems people don't really understand what this process is. If the military puts out specs for a component or technology they want then they generally will get more than one company trying to get the contract to build it, it's generally in the best interest for
Military that they 1. Get a good deal, 2. Get the correct product, and 3. Be able to buy more from that company in the future. I don't understand why people think that's a bad thing. The military does buy crap all the time they just want to try out and if it doesn't work they (hopefully) kill the contract which might put the company entirely out of business. That's not a bad thing overall.

Exactly. The general is not going out and arbitrarily deciding which companies succeed and fail based on his mood or what is in it for him. He is trying to judge the capabilities of the companies and the practical military applications of the companies' products.

And the privileged money class is right there to guide that decision and immediately invest in those companies which are selected. It's basically risk free for the time of the first contract.

What happened to the model of these venture capitalists investing in a company because they believed it can win business rather than getting the government to tell them first who are the winners

Because the military does a lot of their own research and takes feedback from people using their equipment to get a good idea of what they want. I've submitted dozens of Feed Back Reports on Maintenance Requirements I have to do suggesting ways to make it better. I don't think many of them get a real close look because they go mostly to engineers that have never had to deal with the systems or components outside a laboratory environment, if that (and I sometimes think they fark with us intentionally), but I put them in all the same because if enough people spread across the fleet do the same then the engineers might actually rethink things. If vultures want to swoop in and invest in that company that can do it right then good for them, I'd do the same thing, I'd even support those people doing it because it makes a more viable company that can deliver good products.

I don't see how this example relates to a USAF general and a bunch of venture capitalist firms sitting down together to decide simultaneously which of these up and coming tech companies gets a DoD contract and which don't.

It seems to defy the traditional procurement process of putting out a requirement and soliciting bids, which may have been backed by venture capitalists hoping their company wins, but still involves risk on their part.

I mean I don't have venture capitalist money but I would certainly love to be hand held by a general to a slice of DoD money instead of having to figure out on my own which company is making the best thing for the DoDs request for proposal.

And it's not like these companies have made a product yet according to this article they just have potential.


Good potential is better than no potential. They'll pick what they think they want now and pick a company that looks headed in the right direction. That's how things get done today. This idea of having a mostly developed product and selling it is kinda outdated as the cost of development has gone up. It's not worth developing multiple ways to do essentially the same thing and then picking the one you want anymore. It would be a good idea to pick the best a let the top companies share the patent and produce the same thing, but outside of wartime production that just isn't going to happen.
 
2022-12-05 7:34:58 PM  
On Monday we pick the winners, on Tuesday we pick the grading criteria.
 
2022-12-05 9:49:22 PM  

AxiomJackson: As a defense contractor I'm sure I'll get a real kick out of this thread.


You mean kickback?
 
2022-12-05 11:30:39 PM  
Pick wi... OH, you mean a "downselect."

Project TALENT ORAL needs something developed, so the DOD gives $125K to each of 8 possible suppliers for phase-one idea-fluffing.

The results are evaluated and there is a "downselect" and the best 4 ideas each get another $250K for phase 2 proposal-turgidizing.

The results of that are evaluated and there is another "downselect" and the best 2 ideas each get another $500K for phase 3 scale-model-test-tickling.

And after the final "downselect," whichever scale model test-tickles best is best gets another $1M for a full-on prototype.

(Multiple all figures by appropriate amounts if you're designing something more complicated than a crescent wrench, of course.)
 
2022-12-06 6:47:31 AM  

MattytheMouse: MattytheMouse: hej: I wonder why Fark cares about this...

SpaceX

Oh, I see...

Space X and Elon Musk are just the most blatant illustration of why having a bloated, overfunded defense budget being thrown at a bunch of self-declared tech geniuses might have some problems.

That being said: I saw a hilarious tweet the other day where somebody was like "I'm backing NASA over Space X now. I cannot condone an entity that supports Nazis," and I was like "oh, you poor innocent child. Who's gonna tell them?"


To be fair there's a little bit of a difference between Nasa's "so we rounded up a bunch of engineers formerly employed by Nazis to set up our rocket program because they basically invented rockets and we wanted a head start, but those guys have been dead for a while now," and Musky's "we actively promote the kinds of people who go around sneaking 14 and 88 into everything they can, some of whom go so far as to proudly proclaim that Hitler did nothing wrong. Also we make rockets sometimes so that we can ultimately establish a colony on Mars for the 'chosen' people."

Small differences, but differences nonetheless.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.