The government pays for the development costs. They will not pay for a subscription unless the contractor takes the up front risk of developing the software.<p>Federal contracting rules also limit the profit that can be made selling to the government (you can argue this are not effective).<p>Some 'agile fans' have been promoted up a few notches at Lockheed, that is all this is.<p>The USG likes to pay for and own source code and weapon system designs.
> A parallel acquisition system – buying needed apps by monthly or yearly subscription to meet changing mission requirements – could improve deterrence by complicating an enemy’s war planning, Lockheed Martin’s top executive suggested Wednesday.<p>Bullshit alarms going off full blast on the first paragraph, that's some brazen BS. I didn't even read the rest of the article since they led with that.<p>This is management being absolutely horny for recurring payments. I don't know if business schools are really pushing this idea now or if it's in vogue for some other reason but everybody outside of management hates it.
I miss the old days in the 60's when Lockheed would produce a mach-3 capable spy plane in a few short months. Now they're pulling a BMW and selling subscription services for heated seats.
How does this make any sense?<p>Let’s assume that this isn’t some grift like “we hope they’ll pay more than what it costs us in maintenance” or “hope they forget to cancel”.<p>Don’t subscriptions only make sense if you have lots of customers? If you only have one customer, if they cancel their subscription, your product is dead. You also can’t amortize your fixed development costs across many subscriptions. How many customers can Lockheed have, realistically?<p>This just sounds like a Government contract with extra steps (read: extra $$$)
One thing to note is that the Pentagon and other DoD / three-letter federal agencies have <i>already</i> been purchasing per-seat and per-node subscription plans from FedRAMP certified vendors. The difference is that the annual budget is pre-allocated, so the threat/risk of cancellation is much lower compared to the rest of the private sector. I feel like the high cost of FedRAMP certification combined with the reduced cancellation pressure leads to stagnation / low competition in this space.
I think this is just moving the payment model from capex to opex.<p>Many govt contracts are upfront huge capital costs, and then long maintenance contracts which you are locked to that vendor for x years term even though you "own" the software.<p>Subscription just spreads those fees somewhat evenly across the term
One of the super super interesting things i've countered recently about .mil issues was specifically around the Freedom-class Lockheed Martin Litoral Combat Ship (LCS). <i>The inside story of heo the navy spent billions on the "little crappy ships".</i> Most of this is already well known but Propublica drew together the threads of the story well, with some additional references. <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-l...</a><p>Rarely have I seen such a portrayal of villainy. LM's efforts here seem nearly treasonous, with their attempts to thwart open .mil systems & to sell the American people permission or capability to use the technology they'd funded and purchased, by granting zero rights or control over that technology. The last couple of decades of Lockheed Martin retaining the technology &systems entirely should be a clear enough lesson in what America & (forgive me) anyone with an ounce of patriotic blood should never let happen again. Yet that sure sounds like what's happening here, again, even more boldfacedly.<p>> <i>General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin considered much of the data and equipment on the LCS proprietary — a problem that the GAO has identified throughout the military. As a result, only their employees were allowed to do certain repairs, former officers said. This sometimes meant that contractors would go overseas to help, adding millions in travel costs and often delaying missions. The Navy recently purchased some of the data. A Navy spokesperson would not disclose the price "due to proprietary reasons."</i><p>> <i>Watson and others spent much of their time escorting contractors while on board because so many areas on the ship were considered classified, reducing their ability to do their own jobs, according to interviews with multiple officers who had served on the LCS.</i><p>Never have I read such a corrupt inexcusable sad practice in military procurement ever. This is stagnant bullshit that prevents adaption, prevents proper response to situations. We <i>must</i> have open systems architecture, where the government decides how things interoperate, and acquired systems don't dictate down but provide upwards to the defenders.<p>And it seems like that lesson of what to never allow again has largely been learned & broadly accepted. Almost every faction of mil seems razor focused on open systems architectures, on intercompatible. It top down systems. On making sure this graft corruption & difficulty in doing anything without endless reams of permission & defense contractor hours never happens again. Not only should Lockheed not be able to charge a subscription, they should never own the software funded by & produced for American defense ever again. Open core should be the rule of the realm. It a core threat to American military might to let defense contractors own & keep the special sauce that makes weapons run, and to be the deciders for how defense technology is ongoingly used and adapted. If America pays for the development, America should own the output.<p>There's similar obvious revelations that have happened elsewhere in the American system. It's not always fully respected or done well. But in principle NIH for example has open access requirements. In principle Americans are entitled to the benefits of health research done by the state, and it's not just sold off or left to be controlled by whomever. Yet Lockheed Martin keeps wanting to be the owner, wants to be the decider, wants to interrupt right of first sale & be forever entailed to & in control of whatever happens next, after some defense tech hardware is purchased.
Of course, contractors have long known that much of the money is in this kind of model - the equivalent of sustainment or support contracts for the equipment they sell. Usually the sustainment contract for some kind of equipment can make a lot more profit than the contract to design and sell the equipment itself.