One Reason the US Military Can't Fix Its Own Equipment 85
Manufacturers can prevent the Department of Defense from repairing certain equipment, which puts members of the military at risk. Elle Ekman, a logistics officer in the United States Marine Corps, writes: In the United States, conversations about right-to-repair issues are increasing, especially at federal agencies and within certain industries. In July, the Federal Trade Commission hosted a workshop to address "the issues that arise when a manufacturer restricts or makes it impossible for a consumer or an independent repair shop to make product repairs." It has long been considered a problem with the automotive industry, electronics and farming equipment. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have even brought it up during their presidential campaigns, siding with farmers who want to repair their own equipment; while the senators are advocating national laws, at least 20 states have considered their own right-to-repair legislation this year.
I first heard about the term from a fellow Marine interested in problems with monopoly power and technology. A few past experiences then snapped into focus. Besides the broken generator in South Korea, I remembered working at a maintenance unit in Okinawa, Japan, watching as engines were packed up and shipped back to contractors in the United States for repairs because "that's what the contract says." The process took months. With every engine sent back, Marines lost the opportunity to practice the skills they might need one day on the battlefield, where contractor support is inordinately expensive, unreliable or nonexistent. I also recalled how Marines have the ability to manufacture parts using water-jets, lathes and milling machines (as well as newer 3-D printers), but that these tools often sit idle in maintenance bays alongside broken-down military equipment. Although parts from the manufacturer aren't available to repair the equipment, we aren't allowed to make the parts ourselves "due to specifications."
I first heard about the term from a fellow Marine interested in problems with monopoly power and technology. A few past experiences then snapped into focus. Besides the broken generator in South Korea, I remembered working at a maintenance unit in Okinawa, Japan, watching as engines were packed up and shipped back to contractors in the United States for repairs because "that's what the contract says." The process took months. With every engine sent back, Marines lost the opportunity to practice the skills they might need one day on the battlefield, where contractor support is inordinately expensive, unreliable or nonexistent. I also recalled how Marines have the ability to manufacture parts using water-jets, lathes and milling machines (as well as newer 3-D printers), but that these tools often sit idle in maintenance bays alongside broken-down military equipment. Although parts from the manufacturer aren't available to repair the equipment, we aren't allowed to make the parts ourselves "due to specifications."
Re: (Score:2)
AC's are back on? Damn.
Sounds familiar (Score:4, Funny)
In other words, the Apple defense.
Re:People don't have the skills to repair stuff, d (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you can't repair most stuff with average tools. The average user trying to fix an iPhone is like a surgeon trying to do open heart surgery with a scythe and a ballista bolt.
A-Why is the thing designed to require a scalpel to change a lightbulb? Are you seriously claiming that they don't design bolts with unique heads just so they can claim that you need to buy their special tool?
B-If you break it, you bought it.
Then, there are lawsuits. Someone opens the device, sticks their tongue across the capacitor leads, gets hurt, and blammo... product injury lawsuit. This is why it would be a good thing if Apple just had their stuff stop working, and not work again until it was reflashed at an authorized Apple depot.
So your argument is that people aren't smart enough to not stick their fingers in light sockets, so they need you, with your superior intellect, to watch over them. Don't walk in the rain. With your nose held that high, you're likely to drown. The correct fix here is to fix tort law so that a manufacturer isn't responsible for you being retarded.
Same with DoD stuff. Think an E1 fresh out of boot will know how to fix a vehicle with an interference engine that if the timing chain is misaligned, or the ECU is not 100% working, the engine will destroy itself in milliseconds? Doubt it. If they did fix stuff in the field, and it broke, it would be the DoD' supplier's fault.
Ahh! Now you give away the fact that you rarely get out of your mom's basement. E1's, fresh out of boot, don't get to work on anything. They get to go to school. There, they learn about zero interference engines and verifying the operation of ECU's. And if they broke the device in the field, it would be the fault of the fact that things break when things explode near them.
The right to repair might have made sense back in the days where everything is mechanical, but not these days. Let people who know what they are doing fix/replace stuff, and not clueless hacks in the field who think they can fix anything with a soldering iron and Dremel tool.
How about you worry about your stuff, and let me worry about mine. The fact that you're too ignorant to know the proper use of a soldering iron or Dremel tool does not mean the rest of the world is likewise afflicted.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, and more so an opportunity for another business to swoop in with their open-repair products. Kind of the way open-source said, you stick with your ways, and we'll show everyone how it's really done.
Re: (Score:3)
So your argument is that since you are a klutz and can't fix things, everyone is a klutz and can't fix things?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Think an E1 fresh out of boot will know how to fix a vehicle with an interference engine that if the timing chain is misaligned, or the ECU is not 100% working, the engine will destroy itself in milliseconds? Doubt it. If they did fix stuff in the field, and it broke, it would be the DoD' supplier's fault.
Re-purposing a great quote: "I mean, you just can't expect a bunch of ignorant peons to understand a machine like some of our boys. And that's not meant as an insult..."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then, there are lawsuits. Someone opens the device, sticks their tongue across the capacitor leads, gets hurt, and blammo... product injury lawsuit
Is this a real concern? Is there any evidence that, say, folks are replacing power outlets and getting electrocuted and suing the outlet manufacturer? Or that folks are opening up dishwashers, hurting themselves, and suing the dishwasher manufacturer? Or just ANY statistics about product lawsuits from repair attempts?
Re: (Score:1)
USA is full with retarded product law suits. ...
The guy who used the lawn mower to cut a hedge and lost an arm.
The idiot lady who put a paper or styroform coffee put between her legs and burned her pussy when the driver started the car.
The lady who bathed her cat and tried to dry her in the microwave
This are just the simplest that spring to mind.
Re: (Score:3)
If that's the McDonald's case you're talking about, the car was parked at the time and the lady was the driver. McDonald's lost because they were already on notice that their coffee cups were flimsy and would easily collapse when the lids were taken off and they knew their coffee was served scalding hot, too hot to drink, so it would stay hot longer. They had settled out of court s
Re: (Score:1)
In Europe the coffee is supposed to be hot like that.
Puting the coffee between your legs is just plain stupid regardless how hot it is, and even more so when you are the driver.
Reagan's Legacy (Score:3)
When Reagan came in, he pushed for government functions be privatized include parts the military supply system. I don't know whether he had it in mind, but it did have the effect of paying off supporters of the Republicans. The Democrats weren't far behind when they realized a new gravy had been opened up.
Re: (Score:2)
Engines were routinely pulled, put in a clamshell and sent back to be fixed in the 70s. Most of the time, the repairs could have been repaired on site, easily, but contracts.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the military has been used as a cash cow for longer than the Republican party has existed. Connected companies or (far enough back) individuals use their politician friends to force contracts that drive business and profit to the company or individual, even when better alternatives are available.
The modern era, including the same Reagan that the GP is ignorantly attacking, have done more to reduce this sort of thing than anything except the removal of the spoils system in the 1880s.
Re: (Score:3)
Unhh...you must be talking about some other Regan than the one I was thinking about.
There may be some ways in which some Republicans have acted to allow "intellectual property" to be reclaimed for public domain, but I'm not familiar with any. Certainly not any of the Hollywood set, or their supporters. It's true the Democrats have been just as bad, or possibly worse, but that doesn't mean the Republicans deserve any praise.
If you want to contest this, be specific. It's not an area I've paid a great deal
Re: (Score:2)
Reagan's military spending was primarily focused on the active-duty military, with little increase in contractors. At the height, Reagan increased the military by several hundred thousand new troops, to a high of around 2.2 million vs 3.6 million contractors. Much of this spending was on the production and maintenance of equipment - about 40% went towards new equipment, and 25% O&M. For comparison, today, new equipment is 15% or so, while O&M is over 40%.
During the Clinton years, active duty drop
Re: (Score:2)
But the IP laws are what's behind this whole no-right-to-repair fiasco. And when I think of Regan and the military, I think of "Star Wars". Which was a big contractors project.
Re: (Score:2)
Military intellegence. (Score:2)
Need I say more :) *L*
Re:Military intellegence. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really, since you can't spell correctly.
Working as designed (Score:5, Interesting)
Those officers sitting on the procurement boards know they'll never have to worry about going into combat with non-working equipment and they secure themselves good jobs when they get out keeping the whole system going.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Those officers sitting on the procurement boards know they'll never have to worry about going into combat with non-working equipment and they secure themselves good jobs when they get out keeping the whole system going.
Ekman is a USMC captain. More than any of the other branches I deal with, the marines have an ethos of "never leave a fellow marine in the lurch," and view themselves as "always a marine." I'm guessing you don't know many marines, because I can't imagine any of the hundreds of USMC officers I've known intentionally setting up their fellow marines to go into combat with non-working equipment.
Well, that's easy to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Want our millions? ... Who am I kidding... billions!?
Then your products are open, and easily repaired. Even under fire. At night.
Or the competitor gets the contract.
I say, the reason that that isn't already the case, is some good old pork-barrel spending of lobbyist-politicians as part of their actual job for their actual bosses.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Even more: if you want the contract, the engineers who designed your product must personally demonstrate that reasonable repairs can be made under fire (simulated - we're not monsters) at night.
RFP (Score:1)
Make it a requirement and this problem goes away.
Maybe now we'll get right to repair (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing new.. (Score:5, Informative)
I worked with someone who was a Navy 'Chief' in a former life. He said that this sort of stuff happened all the time. Error codes would come up on equipment, call the mfgr, what do those mean? Couple of hours later you get a response, try that, then another error code would come up.. wash, rinse, repeat for a couple of days - until the last code - swap the unit out and send us the defective one. We don't have a spare! We'll send you a replacement as soon as we receive the defective unit. So, a fighter jet sits idle, on a carrier in the middle of the Pacific while the defective unit is sent to the mainland and a 'replacement' is sent back. Which, on more than one occasion, was the exact same unit they shipped out - still broken.
This isn't my broken down Honda by the side of the road while I call AAA.
He said, you really want to see folks get pissed? Have the vendor try this crap with the coffee maker!
Re:Nothing new.. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the vendor's side, it works something like this:
1. Receive old unit.
2. Ship out a replacement unit--wait, we don't have any in stock.
3. Received unit tests fine on our testbed. Put it back in stock.
4. Ok we have a unit in stock now so ship that out to the customer and close the RMA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He said, you really want to see folks get pissed? Have the vendor try this crap with the coffee maker!
They know better [youtube.com]
I have only one question... (Score:2)
"Although parts from the manufacturer aren't available to repair the equipment, we aren't allowed to make the parts ourselves 'due to specifications.'"
What kind of corrupt, treasonous, dicktard would sign a contract to tie the military's hands like this? The lives of soldiers could easily depend on the devices themselves, as well as familiarity with how to use them and repair them under field conditions.
Right to repair legislation is utterly vital, and the sooner the better. And heads should roll for th
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on the part.
Some stuff must have traceable certs on all material.
Some stuff uses exotic alloys and post-manufacture heat treatment that would make it highly unlikely a locally made replacement would meet the specs.
A lot of the stuff could be made locally, but not all of it.
I think full specs and repair guides should be part of the supply contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but stuff is accepted that's designed to be fragile and non-repairable, when that should never have been allowed. Sometimes you really do need exotic alloys...but often that just means it's been designed so that only the manufacturer can fix it. And *that* means it's inferior to a device with lesser specs, but which can be easily fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of corrupt, treasonous, dicktard would sign a contract to tie the military's hands like this?
You're assuming the point of the US military is to project American power overseas, or protect the Homeland, or something like that, but it is not.
The US military's entire existence is to make some wealthy people even more wealthy.
Oh, and to get some politician re-elected. Dont't forget that part.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well in THAT case. Bring everyone home, sit 'em somewhere, and keep the meter running. Everyone happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point.
Re: (Score:1)
The mission is the next sale.
Cant repair? No hope to repair? Replace everything and buy in again.
Thats work in Germany, France, the UK.. work for US lawyers, staff to approve the "sale" into the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of corrupt, treasonous, dicktard would sign a contract to tie the military's hands like this?
Right to repair legislation is utterly vital, and the sooner the better. And heads should roll for this.
And that's where I was going with this. If it's a problem, we ought to be signing contracts which include maintenance training and an explicit clause allowing soldiers to work on their gear. I don't see it requires legislation, just enough zeros on the contract.
solution found (Score:2)
just force the repair people to the front lines to do repairs a few times and I guarantee you they will teach the military to repair their own equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, put the owners and their lawyers there.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's one way for the farmers to get labor, and it's cheaper than hacking through a wall.
Re: (Score:2)
LRU (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
...it feels like the manufacturers are getting blamed for the whole problem....
The manufacturers should be blamed, as it's a problem they created. None of the factors you mentioned (contracting delays, shipping delays, parts availability, and myriad other issues that slow down the process) would exist if not for the manufacturers' insistence that only they can fix things.
Re: (Score:3)
The manufacturers should be blamed, as it's a problem they created.
It takes two to tango. Someone at DoD agreed to a contract saying it was OK for certain repairs to only be done by the manufacturer. Presumably, as notea42 points out, some of these make a ton of sense: you might not have a vibration-isolated clean room on the battlefield.
If there are shipping delays and the like, I'd also like to know why the DoD doesn't stock a sufficient number of spares at local(ish) depots. If they're signing the contract saying parts need to be shipped to the factory, well then they a
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I feel that "right to repair" is valid and needs to be enacted, I would tend to agree with you on certain points. If it's not a life-critical device, just about everything about it should be designated "field repair". But when you start talking about aircraft parts, I wouldn't want my sons riding around in a helicopter held together by a "jesus nut" that Jim-Bob just fabbed up last night. As you said, it's just not feasible to have EVERYTHING be a field repair.
The shipping delays, parts availab
Re: (Score:3)
training them to properly fix every piece of gear is not cost effective or reasonable.
Tell that to the guy on an aircraft carrier in the south pacific, where working equipment is a matter of life or death. The USS Yorktown was repaired in 3 days [sportsmansguide.com], en-route to battle, just in time for her to participate in the Battle of Midway [wikipedia.org]. They literally had people welding steel beams in place while the ship was on its way to the battle. Every piece of military equipment must be repairable on-site.
Re: (Score:3)
Technology was a lot simpler too. You want progress? Deal with the side-effects.
Re: (Score:3)
In some cases, it's not frustrating, it's lethal.
Charge them for downtime? (Score:2)
Could you put something in your contract so that you charge them for downtime -- so they either have to make them reliable or field serviceable, or they start owing you money?
I mean, in the IT industry, you have SLAs -- if the company didn't give us a spares kit, then they'd be on the hook to have a service person with the part in hand within 24 hours of us notifying them there was a problem. (which often meant they had to get the person there to diagnose the problem before that, in case they had to get th
Re: (Score:2)
in the IT industry, you have SLAs
Exactly. That should be included in bid opportunities for any sort of equipment that would be considered mission critical.
what are we saying here? (Score:1)
that Politicians first create problems and then campaign against them?
Looks like Charley Reese was right on target. It does look like you can, in fact, fool most of the people most of the time. Government in general stands as a lasting testament to how much people will put up with before they finally say... we have had it... and start the clock again.
I think Warren is just saying what people want to hear... does she have a past record on this that shows she actually gave a damn? She has been on the Banki
Re: (Score:2)
Warren showed her true colors when after all her bluster about regulating Wall St. and restoring Glass-Steagall, she throws in her lot with the Goldman Sachs candidate [washingtonpost.com] instead of Sanders who had been campaigning on that very thing.
Cute... but what about a real war? (Score:1)
The thought goes through my mind that these repair restrictions are cute in peacetime -- where it is feasible to pack it up, leave the field operation down for a while, and airlift it back to the nearest global repair depot. But in the event of a real war, not the localized rumbles like Iraq and the 'stan, broken equipment will be a real problem. Imagine Normandy...
One suspects in the best tradition all the right people got paid off. But IMHO this is building a serious combat handicap into military procurem
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's a royal PITA even when not in the military.
I worked for NASA, and when a unit had to be sent in for repairs, we'd have to wipe the disks of anything that might be SBU/ACI (sensitive but unclassified / administratively controlled information).
Then you had to get the machine taken off of the inventory control (as they didn't depreciate anything, ever, so if it went missing, you had to pay the full original cost). Then you had to get it crated up, and shipped back to the company. .... then what
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping secretes like the military. Now we'll never know about those aliens out there. :-D
Come on .... whatever (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The DoD is the one that writes the contracts
Specifically, people on the DoD acquisitions staff. Who will soon be working* for the various suppliers.
*I'm not certain they actually make them come in to pick up their paychecks anymore. Although they do have nice offices. Complete with a receptionist ready to explain to you that the person you wish to speak to is unavailable on that particular day. Or any other day you might choose.
Never on my ship, Captain (Score:3)
All I know is that Scotty would never put up with this shit.
Military spending (Score:2)
But let's keep increasing the military budget.
Some say this is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Right to repair issues aside... isn't it kinda awesome that our military has to submit and obey civilian law?
Not the only ones (Score:5, Funny)
The German army couldn't use their trucks in Afghanistan because their mandatory pollution test could only be done in Germany.
And obviously you can't drive around with a truck with a pollution test certificate that's expired, in a war zone, that would be nuts.
Required by law (Score:2)
Sounds like government contracting officers not doing their jobs. Also sounds like someone in government rubber-stamping waivers.
10 U.S. Code Section 2464 "(4) The Secretary of Defense shall assign Government-owned and Government-operated depot-level maintenance and repair facilities of the Department of Defense sufficient workload to ensure cost efficiency and technical competence in peacetime, while preserving the ability to provide an effective and timely response to a mobilization, national defense con
I am glad to see this problem (Score:4, Insightful)
This may help make "right to repair" into a bi-partisan issue.
Here's the problem with this (Score:2)
Okay, there are several problems with this:
1) What happens when some sh*t-for-brains tries to repair the thing themselves and then either further breaks the unit or worse, gets injured or killed? The finger-pointing will be epic.
2) Steve Jobs said that hardware is easy to copy, software is not. So, if you can make new parts yourself, what's to stop a competitor from copying everything you do?
Don't get me wrong here. I think it's dumb for Apple to glue the batteries into their laptops thus requiring you t
Not quite adding up. (Score:2)
In a prolonged war... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe every major commercial airport has vehicles to clean the runways for that very reason, although a quick google shows that they're mostly concerned with removing rubber left from the tires skidding at landing. I know for a fact that contractors working on runways have to clean off all debris as part of their contracts. But, yeah, it would be good if military jets were more toleran
MIL-SPEC (Score:2)
None of this is MIL-SPEC, and should never be counted on, or treated as such. That's really all there is to it.