# Why does the U.S government buy weapons from private corporations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 22, 2014, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005 "2014-05-22T14:22:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/21 "2014-05-22T20:56:23Z")
Weapons will always be made by weapon-manufacturing companies. What you’re proposing is basically for the government to own a weapon-manufacturing company. Even if you call it a government department or whatever, that’s what it’s going to be. And then you have to ask what the benefit is to the government owning the company instead of it being privately owned. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/22 "2014-05-22T22:16:24Z")
> [@bump](#): > > The point wasn’t that we don’t sell arms, but that say… Lockheed Martin can’t just go sell Paveway II bombs and Javelin missiles to just anyone whenever they want, since the government regulates those sales. Ultimately the decision of who or who not to sell to is a political one, not a business one, and that’s what makes the difference. That’s true and therefore arms sales to ‘undesirable’ countries is a pretty weak argument against the existence of private sector arms making companies. The argument isn’t 100% false though because in some cases lobbying with respect to the local economic benefit of manufacturing the arms is at least one factor getting controversial arms sales over the political finish line (major arms sales by the US to Saudi Arabia would be an example). However even in those cases, a lot of the political pressure and lobbying comes from the people who work in the arms factories or the localities which indirectly benefit from those jobs. It’s not just coming from the managers or shareholders of the companies which run the factories. One can be as cynical as one wants about elective politics but the fact is that in the end votes talk most loudly. Money talks mainly insofar as it relates to using it to get votes via campaign ads, except where politicians are just literally paid money in paper bags for their personal use, which happens in the US but is the exception rather than the rule. It’s a real problem to get re-elected if you were the guy whose policies shut down the plant by eg. not extending the production run of the F-15 with the recent sale to Saudi Arabia. That political calculus wouldn’t entirely change for Missouri lawmakers just because the US govt owned and ran the plant. It might change partially in that politicians would have additional leverage to say, demand that a govt owned plant keep all its workers even though it didn’t need them because the sale was cancelled…which gets around to the very real reasons it would cost even more to buy weapons if the government made them itself. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/23 "2014-05-22T22:42:10Z")
I don’t agree with the idea that the government isn’t capable of building weapons that are just as good as private businesses build. The idea that private businesses automatically do everything better is just a article of faith with some people. But there are good reasons to contract out weapons building. It allows the government to act as an impartial arbiter without having a stake in the outcome. The government can look at fighter jet prototypes developed by various companies, for example, and buy the best one. If one fighter jet was being build by the government itself, it would have an unfair advantage over competitors. And, yes, I realize in the real world the process often gets complicated by factors that have nothing to do with the quality of the product and falls short of the ideal. But at least the problems aren’t institutionalized into the system. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/24 "2014-05-23T01:17:47Z")
Because the government recognizes that competition is the best and most efficient way to get something built. You see, if the government was responsible for building something, the job would be left to a bunch of lazy, government engineers who have little incentive to produce a quality product in a timely manner. _The government knows this_, so it instead utilizes a competitive acquisition and procurement process to get stuff built. It puts out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the world to see, and allows anyone to submit bids. Proposals will come in, and the government will select the best proposal based on cost, performance, risk, etc. This is an gross oversimplification, and I’m glossing over a _lot_ of details, but this is essentially how it’s done. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/25 "2014-05-23T01:58:10Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Because the government recognizes that competition is the best and most efficient way to get something built. What competition? How many companies could realistically be trusted to build a cutting edge drone, or to do a number of other things? There is almost no competition, and very little accountability because of that fact. Even if I could personally design the best tank or radar system that ever existed, there is almost no chance I could get the government to buy it even if I had billions of dollars to make it. Additionally, there are a [number](http://www.newsweek.com/us-government-paying-through-nose-private-contractors-224370) [of](http://ourfuture.org/20140108/horror-stories-show-how-privatization-loots-taxpayers) [studies](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html?_r=0) that conclude that, in general, government contracting costs MORE money. Please explain why you think those studies are wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/26 "2014-05-23T03:10:08Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > You see, if the government was responsible for building something, the job would be left to a bunch of lazy, government engineers who have little incentive to produce a quality product in a timely manner. That’s the kind of unexamined assumption I spoke of. Why assume that engineers working for the government are any lazier than engineers working for private businesses? Why assume that engineers in private businesses have greater incentives to do good work? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/27 "2014-05-23T05:35:33Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > (Emphesis added) > > Do you live in the same world as the rest of us, or in some alternate universe in which “government workers” are “highly skilled”? Seriously, nearly every complex system or product developed for use by the Department of Defense (conventional weapons and equipment, strategic civil works), Department of Energy (nuclear weapons, enrichment facilities), Department of Transportation (domestical logistical and management systems), Department of Commerce (satellites and survey systems for NWS, OAR, NOAA, NESDIS, National Geodetic Survey, et cetera) has all been produced by private manufacturers, and it is the exception rather than the rule that the United States government has run any kind of production fabrication capability. > > Aside from the Manhattan Project and the follow-on “Super” (thermonuclear weapon development) the only major government production facility I can think of off the top of my head is the Springfield Armory, which was closed in 1968, and even then was largely a final assembly house for components sourced elsewhere from private fabricators. Even the large government labs like Sandia, Fermilab, LANL, and LLNL are managed by private contractors at the behest of the DoE. Nearly all systems in aerospace (aircraft, missile and weapon systems, space launch vehiucles) have been developed, built, and largely integrated by private contractors working for the government. For instance, while the Saturn system was integrated and operated by NASA, all of the stages and Command/Service/Lunar Modules were fabricated by Boeing, Chrysler, Douglas, Grumman, and North American Aviation. Ditto for the Space Transportation System (“Shuttle”), manufactured by NAA (later Boeing) for the Orbiter Vehicle, Chrysler (later Martin Marietta, then Lockheed Martin) for the External Tank, and Morton Thiokol (later Alliant Techsystems) for the Solid Rocket Boosters, and integrated and operated by the United Space Alliance (USA), a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed from 1995 until the Shuttle program was retired in 2011. USA is also largely responsible for running ISS operations and maintenance, running the now-defunction Constellation program, and is bidding to be the prime integrator and operator on the SLS program. > > The US government and its executive organs have neither the capability nor expertise to manufacture or even perform cradle-to-grave engineering support and secondary maintenance on complex weapon and warfighting systems. If you want examples of government-operated manufacturing industries, you can look no further than the Soviet-era weapons bureaus (in which production was dominated by political power rather than need or quality, resulting in the largely craptastic products) > or companies like British Leyland Motor Corporation, legendary for building some of the worst automobiles available on this side of the Iron Curtain. By procurement of systems and support services from private contractors, the goverment can focus on the contract management and system-level requirement management, which they also suck at, but at least it doesn’t involve maintaining physical facilities or maintaining inventory. > > Stranger Did’nt Mare Island Navy yard make a few nuclear attack and missile submarines at one time? ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/28 "2014-05-23T11:14:06Z")
Going back to the premise of highly skilled government workers: If they were really an expert in designing firearms or aircraft or whatever, for what possible reason would they choose to work for the government? ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/29 "2014-05-23T11:52:29Z")
I think there’s a significant degree of back-justification going on here. For example, while weapons systems are farmed out to private contractors by default, signal intelligence is an area which is mostly run inside of the government. As the Snowden leaks have revealed, the NSA has had no problem 1. Sourcing, recruiting and utilizing talent effectively. 2. Establishing research programs that are at or above the state of the art in industry. 3. Developing systems that deliver value on a relatively cost effective basis. Sure, some things are run poorly and there’s massive amounts of waste and stupidity but that’s universal across all programs of this size, whether public or private. In an alternate universe, the government could have established a National Weapons Agency that has a sole monopoly on developing weapons systems and we could be arguing on this board about why that’s better than farming weapons out to private contractors, with the same lazy stereotypes applied in the opposite direction. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/30 "2014-05-23T12:01:19Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Additionally, there are a [number](http://www.newsweek.com/us-government-paying-through-nose-private-contractors-224370) [of](http://ourfuture.org/20140108/horror-stories-show-how-privatization-loots-taxpayers) [studies](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html?_r=0) that conclude that, in general, government contracting costs MORE money. And over the long run we would be paying even _more_ money if things were designed and built directly by the government. I’ve worked with the federal government and contractors over my entire professional career. This is a gross oversimplification, but the process goes something like this: When the government wants something done, they put an RFP out on the street. Companies will bid on it, with the idea being that the lowest bidder who promises to meet all the deliverables will be given the contract. Once work has started, the contractor must submit progress reports that contain very detailed data on technical progress and expenditures. If there are problems, the contractor must fix them or else they don’t get paid. If there are cost overruns, the company will incur penalties. There are frequent face-to-face meetings. If the equipment doesn’t meet spec or doesn’t pass qualification testing, it is the company’s responsibility to fix the problem. And the company must stand by a warranty after its delivered. It’s a _ **business** _ and _ **legal** _ arrangement. Now contrast that with the government directly building something. The government tells its engineering group, “Go build this.” What incentive is there for the engineers to roll up their sleeves and get the job done? None, really. You can’t hold their feet to the fire; it’s next to impossible to fire a federal worker. The government has nothing to go back on if the project is way behind schedule or there are cost overruns. What’s the government going to do when things go wrong? Penalize _itself_? Lots of laughs. Competition during the bidding process, along with a wall of separation between the government and contractors, is the only practical way for the government to get “big” things done. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/31 "2014-05-23T13:15:22Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > I think there’s a significant degree of back-justification going on here. For example, while weapons systems are farmed out to private contractors by default, signal intelligence is an area which is mostly run inside of the government. > > As the Snowden leaks have revealed, the NSA has had no problem > > 1. Sourcing, recruiting and utilizing talent effectively. > 2. Establishing research programs that are at or above the state of the art in industry. > 3. Developing systems that deliver value on a relatively cost effective basis. I haven’t been following every little twist and turn of the story, but wasn’t one of the major issues with the leaks the fact that most of the actual data analysis for the program was being done by independent contractors? It sounds like it was partly the poor coordination of security measures between the NSA and the various contractors that enabled Snowden to get away with as much classified material as he did. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/32 "2014-05-23T13:21:32Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Did’nt Mare Island Navy yard make a few nuclear attack and missile submarines at one time? Yes. Under management by General Dynamics, a private defense contractor which designed the vessel, employed most of the actual workers, and was paid handsomely for the work. > [@Shalmanese](#): > > I think there’s a significant degree of back-justification going on here. For example, while weapons systems are farmed out to private contractors by default, signal intelligence is an area which is mostly run inside of the government. > > As the Snowden leaks have revealed, the NSA has had no problem > > 1. Sourcing, recruiting and utilizing talent effectively. > 2. Establishing research programs that are at or above the state of the art in industry. > 3. Developing systems that deliver value on a relatively cost effective basis. You do realize that Edward Snowdon, like much of the intelligence service workforce, worked for a private contractor (Booz Allen Hamilton in his case), right? Stranger ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/33 "2014-05-23T13:30:56Z")
“The federal government is less efficient” is a political idea, not a factual statement. Then again, I’m not sure this question can really have a factual answer unless we can find some citation explaining why the government says they buy from private corporations. Hence I reported this thread to be moved. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/34 "2014-05-23T13:47:14Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > “The federal government is less efficient” is a political idea, not a factual statement. We are really talking about two things: _efficiency_ and _accountability_. If the government writes a RFP that contains a list of hard requirements that _must_ be met, and three qualified contractors submit bids, then it can be assumed that the lowest bidder has the most _ **efficient** _ approach for meeting the deliverables. This is a good thing for the taxpayers. After this contractor wins the contract, the contractor is then legally _ **accountable** _ to deliver the goods. This is also a good thing for the taxpayers. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/35 "2014-05-23T13:50:45Z")
More info here: [FAR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Acquisition_Regulation) > [@](#): > > The purpose of the FAR is to provide “uniform policies and procedures for acquisition.” Among its guiding principles is to have an acquisition system that satisfies customer’s needs in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness; minimize administrative operating costs; conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and fulfill other public policy objectives. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/36 "2014-05-23T17:03:47Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > After this contractor wins the contract, the contractor is then legally _ **accountable** _ to deliver the goods. This is also a good thing for the taxpayers. Except they aren’t, because defense contractors never get sued. The government doesn’t want its multibillion dollar procurement failure publicized, and it _certainly_ doesn’t want the development process in the public record. The same factors that keep the government from laying off its own (hypothetical) weapons manufacturing personnel also keep it from having any real control over the private process. The procurement may be merit-based at the outset, but we all know programs only get killed if their local senators aren’t influential enough to prevent it. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/37 "2014-05-23T18:18:57Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > And over the long run we would be paying even _more_ money if things were designed and built directly by the government. > > I’ve worked with the federal government and contractors over my entire professional career. This is a gross oversimplification, but the process goes something like this: > > When the government wants something done, they put an RFP out on the street. Companies will bid on it, with the idea being that the lowest bidder who promises to meet all the deliverables will be given the contract. Once work has started, the contractor must submit progress reports that contain very detailed data on technical progress and expenditures. If there are problems, the contractor must fix them or else they don’t get paid. If there are cost overruns, the company will incur penalties. There are frequent face-to-face meetings. If the equipment doesn’t meet spec or doesn’t pass qualification testing, it is the company’s responsibility to fix the problem. And the company must stand by a warranty after its delivered. > > It’s a _ **business** _ and _ **legal** _ arrangement. > > Now contrast that with the government directly building something. The government tells its engineering group, “Go build this.” What incentive is there for the engineers to roll up their sleeves and get the job done? None, really. You can’t hold their feet to the fire; it’s next to impossible to fire a federal worker. The government has nothing to go back on if the project is way behind schedule or there are cost overruns. What’s the government going to do when things go wrong? Penalize _itself_? Lots of laughs. > > Competition during the bidding process, along with a wall of separation between the government and contractors, is the only practical way for the government to get “big” things done. Pretty much none of what you said actually happens. But I would love to be wrong about that. Please provide a cite that demonstrates outsourcing is cheaper. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/38 "2014-05-23T18:33:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Except they aren’t, because defense contractors never get sued. > **[Boeing sued over B-1 bomber part](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-sep-03-fi-briefs3.s4-story.html)** > > Boeing Co. was sued by the U.S. over claims that the company unlawfully inflated the price it charged the Air Force for missile-decoy systems for the B-1 bomber. This isn’t true in the general sense. There are contract penalties that often come into play - often for significant money. But the reality is that once the contracts like these are signed both sides have made a major commitment and can’t easily back out. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/39 "2014-05-23T18:47:34Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > If the government writes a RFP that contains a list of hard requirements that _must_ be met, and three qualified contractors submit bids, then it can be assumed that the lowest bidder has the most _ **efficient** _ approach for meeting the deliverables. This is a good thing for the taxpayers. The lowest bidder does not always get the contract. The current contracting process is to return _ **the best value** _ to the taxpayers. So says my contracting officer with a personal contracting authority in excess of eight figures. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005/40 "2014-05-23T20:05:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Except they aren’t, because defense contractors never get sued. You’re correct that’s it’s rare. But the government _will_ use the contract to withhold milestone payments. And if the equipment turns out to be a piece of crap after it’s put into service, there will be warranty claims. Most importantly, though, if a contractor doesn’t meet its obligations, it will have a hard time getting its contract renewed, and will have a difficult time wining future contracts. Of course, this is how it’s _supposed_ to work. Reality is a bit different, obviously. No system is perfect. There will never be a perfect system. > [@Duckster](#): > > The lowest bidder does not always get the contract. The current contracting process is to return _ **the best value** _ to the taxpayers. Yes, I am aware of that. But I was trying to keep things simple. As I mentioned, my description of the process was a gross over simplification. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-u-s-government-buy-weapons-from-private-corporations/689005.md?page=3)