On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive
devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force
trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want
not.


It may be a dumb plan but it is how the military operates. This comes
down to chemistry more than politics. Explosives definitely have a
shelf life and beyond that they become unreliable. They may just be
less effective but they can also become more sensitive and that is a
worse problem. The exudate that oozes out of shells loaded with TNT
can be very dangerous.
Military explosives generally have longer shelf lives than commercial
explosives but that is simply more than a few years out to 20 or so.


You keep saying that and I don't disagree with you when it comes to
cheap, WWII era ordnance or .45 rounds that you apparently had some
experience in disposing of in 1965. But, what makes you think or what
evidence do you have that today, 52 years later (half a century) that
the same policy exists for $15M a pop weapons?

Because TNT is still TNT?
I did a lot of reading on this but I can't find anything like the CG
"282" manual online that defined storage and classification of
ordinance. I did see references to explosives like Semtex and RDX
saying they were only at their prime for 10 years. (by a company
selling a replacement)
I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just
demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be
cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too
so it is likely to be chucked.

This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are
talking about real money. (Proxmire)
Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand?

How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were
designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot
in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes)

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:27:05 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive
devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force
trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want
not.


It may be a dumb plan but it is how the military operates. This comes
down to chemistry more than politics. Explosives definitely have a
shelf life and beyond that they become unreliable. They may just be
less effective but they can also become more sensitive and that is a
worse problem. The exudate that oozes out of shells loaded with TNT
can be very dangerous.
Military explosives generally have longer shelf lives than commercial
explosives but that is simply more than a few years out to 20 or so.


You keep saying that and I don't disagree with you when it comes to
cheap, WWII era ordnance or .45 rounds that you apparently had some
experience in disposing of in 1965. But, what makes you think or what
evidence do you have that today, 52 years later (half a century) that
the same policy exists for $15M a pop weapons?

Because TNT is still TNT?
I did a lot of reading on this but I can't find anything like the CG
"282" manual online that defined storage and classification of
ordinance. I did see references to explosives like Semtex and RDX
saying they were only at their prime for 10 years. (by a company
selling a replacement)
I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just
demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be
cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too
so it is likely to be chucked.

This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are
talking about real money. (Proxmire)
Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand?

How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were
designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot
in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes)

Read the link I posted about MOAB costs. Washington Post, Times, and even Harry got it all wrong.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:48:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:


I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just
demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be
cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too
so it is likely to be chucked.

This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are
talking about real money. (Proxmire)
Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand?

How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were
designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot
in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes)

Read the link I posted about MOAB costs. Washington Post, Times, and even Harry got it all wrong.

This is what I have gotten out of several articles on the bomb
although the numbers wiggle around a few percent but not enough to
matter.

The actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built.
It all depends on if you want the incremental cost of one more bomb at
$170k or if you take the total program cost and divide it by the
number built to date.
I paid for the total program and so did you.
It is like saying it only costs a dime to make a pill and ignoring the
development, testing, regulatory, insurance and distribution cost.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:23:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:48:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:


I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just
demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be
cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too
so it is likely to be chucked.

This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are
talking about real money. (Proxmire)
Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand?

How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were
designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot
in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes)

Read the link I posted about MOAB costs. Washington Post, Times, and even Harry got it all wrong.

This is what I have gotten out of several articles on the bomb
although the numbers wiggle around a few percent but not enough to
matter.

The actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built.
It all depends on if you want the incremental cost of one more bomb at
$170k or if you take the total program cost and divide it by the
number built to date.
I paid for the total program and so did you.
It is like saying it only costs a dime to make a pill and ignoring the
development, testing, regulatory, insurance and distribution cost.

Oh, bull****. I posted the facts about the MOAB cost, but apparently you decided to overlook them.
He

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...-cost-calamity

On 4/16/2017 5:27 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:20:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 10:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:37:05 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive
devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force
trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want
not.


It may be a dumb plan but it is how the military operates. This comes
down to chemistry more than politics. Explosives definitely have a
shelf life and beyond that they become unreliable. They may just be
less effective but they can also become more sensitive and that is a
worse problem. The exudate that oozes out of shells loaded with TNT
can be very dangerous.
Military explosives generally have longer shelf lives than commercial
explosives but that is simply more than a few years out to 20 or so.


You keep saying that and I don't disagree with you when it comes to
cheap, WWII era ordnance or .45 rounds that you apparently had some
experience in disposing of in 1965. But, what makes you think or what
evidence do you have that today, 52 years later (half a century) that
the same policy exists for $15M a pop weapons?

Because TNT is still TNT?
I did a lot of reading on this but I can't find anything like the CG
"282" manual online that defined storage and classification of
ordinance. I did see references to explosives like Semtex and RDX
saying they were only at their prime for 10 years. (by a company
selling a replacement)
I also heard the actual production cost of the MOABs was $170k or so
and you get to $16 million by dividing the $340m program cost by the
21 bombs they built. If you recycled the guidance package and just
demilled the barrel bomb it guides, no doubt that would still be
cheaper but I bet there is a better guidance package out there now too
so it is likely to be chucked.

This is DoD, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon we are
talking about real money. (Proxmire)
Do you really think they are worried about a couple hundred grand?

How many multi billion dollar weapons systems have we built that were
designed, built, deployed and then scrapped without ever firing a shot
in anger? (and I don't just mean ballistic missiles and nukes)



Heh. And they call me Luddite. :-)

I can give you some first hand, much more contemporary examples of what
it's like to be under contract directly with the DoD or as a second tier
sub to major DoD contractors, but it would take a book and bore the hell
out of anyone. Let's just say that they are not as free spending as you
might like to believe and there are reasons for it.

I am not saying you are wrong Greg. It's just that things have changed
over the years.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:54:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Heh. And they call me Luddite. :-)

I can give you some first hand, much more contemporary examples of what
it's like to be under contract directly with the DoD or as a second tier
sub to major DoD contractors, but it would take a book and bore the hell
out of anyone. Let's just say that they are not as free spending as you
might like to believe and there are reasons for it.

I am not saying you are wrong Greg. It's just that things have changed
over the years.

Nobody ever said they treat small contractors fairly. Too bad you
weren't Raytheon but that still does not excuse the inefficiency of
the whole appropriation, development, deployment and scrapping
process.
How many times did they change the specs on you and expect you to eat
the cost? Did you?

On 4/16/2017 7:26 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:54:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Heh. And they call me Luddite. :-)

I can give you some first hand, much more contemporary examples of what
it's like to be under contract directly with the DoD or as a second tier
sub to major DoD contractors, but it would take a book and bore the hell
out of anyone. Let's just say that they are not as free spending as you
might like to believe and there are reasons for it.

I am not saying you are wrong Greg. It's just that things have changed
over the years.

Nobody ever said they treat small contractors fairly. Too bad you
weren't Raytheon but that still does not excuse the inefficiency of
the whole appropriation, development, deployment and scrapping
process.
How many times did they change the specs on you and expect you to eat
the cost? Did you?


I had many contracts with Raytheon's DoD division and with other major
DoD contractors. Also had a few contracts directly with the DoD.

No, I wasn't expected to "eat" a change in spec that affected our work
but there really were not that many of them. I did a pretty good job at
responding precisely to their RFQ's, because our proposal usually became
part of the contract. Any technical issues or requirements that might
be subject to "interpretation" were ironed out before the contract was
signed. I had learned the hard way in another company. The company
lawyer I had told me I would have made a good corporate contracts
lawyer. No thanks.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 7:26 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:54:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Heh. And they call me Luddite. :-)

I can give you some first hand, much more contemporary examples of what
it's like to be under contract directly with the DoD or as a second tier
sub to major DoD contractors, but it would take a book and bore the hell
out of anyone. Let's just say that they are not as free spending as you
might like to believe and there are reasons for it.

I am not saying you are wrong Greg. It's just that things have changed
over the years.

Nobody ever said they treat small contractors fairly. Too bad you
weren't Raytheon but that still does not excuse the inefficiency of
the whole appropriation, development, deployment and scrapping
process.
How many times did they change the specs on you and expect you to eat
the cost? Did you?


I had many contracts with Raytheon's DoD division and with other major
DoD contractors. Also had a few contracts directly with the DoD.

No, I wasn't expected to "eat" a change in spec that affected our work
but there really were not that many of them. I did a pretty good job at
responding precisely to their RFQ's, because our proposal usually became
part of the contract. Any technical issues or requirements that might
be subject to "interpretation" were ironed out before the contract was
signed. I had learned the hard way in another company. The company
lawyer I had told me I would have made a good corporate contracts
lawyer. No thanks.

You were either very good or very lucky. I had lots of customers with
DoD contracts (My office was called "Washington Defense" until they
changed it to GEM Government, Education and Medical).
They were always complaining about trying to hit moving targets.

On 4/16/2017 10:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:39:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 7:26 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:54:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Heh. And they call me Luddite. :-)

I can give you some first hand, much more contemporary examples of what
it's like to be under contract directly with the DoD or as a second tier
sub to major DoD contractors, but it would take a book and bore the hell
out of anyone. Let's just say that they are not as free spending as you
might like to believe and there are reasons for it.

I am not saying you are wrong Greg. It's just that things have changed
over the years.

Nobody ever said they treat small contractors fairly. Too bad you
weren't Raytheon but that still does not excuse the inefficiency of
the whole appropriation, development, deployment and scrapping
process.
How many times did they change the specs on you and expect you to eat
the cost? Did you?


I had many contracts with Raytheon's DoD division and with other major
DoD contractors. Also had a few contracts directly with the DoD.

No, I wasn't expected to "eat" a change in spec that affected our work
but there really were not that many of them. I did a pretty good job at
responding precisely to their RFQ's, because our proposal usually became
part of the contract. Any technical issues or requirements that might
be subject to "interpretation" were ironed out before the contract was
signed. I had learned the hard way in another company. The company
lawyer I had told me I would have made a good corporate contracts
lawyer. No thanks.

You were either very good or very lucky. I had lots of customers with
DoD contracts (My office was called "Washington Defense" until they
changed it to GEM Government, Education and Medical).
They were always complaining about trying to hit moving targets.



I learned to write very detailed technical proposals that not only
indicated acceptance of the RFQ stated requirements but also described
in detail *how* we would meet them. Usually that sort of detail wasn't
spelled out until the critical design review after you were under
contract. Putting that effort into the proposal avoided
"interpretation" disputes later.

I also earned a reputation for stating what RFQ requirements I felt we
could *not* meet and why. That approach won us a $750K contract when
the company was only 8 months old and nobody had ever heard of it. The
program manager called me after getting our proposal and told me they
didn't think the requirement could be met either and we were the only
respondent who took exception to it. Everyone else had simply accepted it.

I didn't take exception due to arrogance. I knew that accepting a
questionable contractual requirement could put me out of business. :-)

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:26:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 10:49 PM, wrote:

You were either very good or very lucky. I had lots of customers with
DoD contracts (My office was called "Washington Defense" until they
changed it to GEM Government, Education and Medical).
They were always complaining about trying to hit moving targets.



I learned to write very detailed technical proposals that not only
indicated acceptance of the RFQ stated requirements but also described
in detail *how* we would meet them. Usually that sort of detail wasn't
spelled out until the critical design review after you were under
contract. Putting that effort into the proposal avoided
"interpretation" disputes later.

I also earned a reputation for stating what RFQ requirements I felt we
could *not* meet and why. That approach won us a $750K contract when
the company was only 8 months old and nobody had ever heard of it. The
program manager called me after getting our proposal and told me they
didn't think the requirement could be met either and we were the only
respondent who took exception to it. Everyone else had simply accepted it.

I didn't take exception due to arrogance. I knew that accepting a
questionable contractual requirement could put me out of business. :-)

I have always believed you were smarter than the average bear ;-)