Lockheed CEO Pitches Pentagon on Subscription Software (usni.org) 29
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. From a report: Jim Taiclet, Lockheed's CEO, said the idea behind this approach is similar to allowing a customer to buy a 5G phone in Seoul and have it operate with new applications as needed in Washington. Although "digital insertion" in this manner "hasn't caught on yet" inside the Pentagon, across the tech industry or the broad industrial base, Taiclet said it has the potential "to move that deterrence goal post every three to six months."
Traditionally, the Defense Department and defense industry think in big contracts for platforms that take years to design, build and manufacture and service. Taiclet, however, sees large defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin as a bridge from the subscription-based tech sector to the big-contract Pentagon acquisition process. "We have to get our expertise together." He added this approach "is starting to get some traction" among large investors in the tech sector.
DRM for war? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooooo.... just like Musk turning off Starlink service to Ukriane?
Nothing like putting your country's survival into corporate hands. Hmmm...
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing like putting your country's survival into corporate hands. Hmmm...
Uh, last I checked the Military Industrial Complex isn't the Military. It's the corporate arm that's been feeding it for several decades now, and thus technically responsible for a country's survival.
Ford assisted in making bombers at one point, as an example of how that works even beyond the MIC.
Re: (Score:2)
Ford assisted in making bombers at one point, as an example of how that works even beyond the MIC.
That kind of mobilization required an actual war. We haven't fought one of those since WW2. We've fought under AUMFs [house.gov], which may seem like a distinction without a difference when people are dying, but read through the texts [wikipedia.org] of actual declarations of war. Most contain something like this, lifted from the declaration against Japan after Pearl Harbor [wikipedia.org], "all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States"
If, $deity help us, something on that level was ever repeated, POTUS
Re: (Score:2)
If, $deity help us, something on that level was ever repeated, POTUSes war powers backed by that sort of language would compel Lockheed to surrender any pretense at DRM, other companies and private citizens to contribute to the war effort, whole of country mobilization.
I'd suggest we start hiring technically competent lawmakers then, because getting the 'intertubes' gang to understand even something like DNS is quite difficult. Let alone the concept of removing DRM forcefully from all manner of "AI-enhanced" products a decade from now because some $diety-level event finally triggered the 'right' kind of war declaration in a NATO world.
POTUS influence could hardly compel companies to manufacture face masks for hospital personnel during a global pandemic back when no one ha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Starlink was never "turned off in Ukraine". Please do some basic intelligent searching before reposting this drivel.
Starlink *never was* active in the Crimea. It was never "turned off" there, by Musk or anyone else, because you can't "turn off" something that was never on in the first place.
Also SpaceX is the sole contractor chosen to supply StarShield to the US. Do you have a problem with that as well? Which side of the fence are you going to ride on today?
Re: (Score:2)
oh Jesus Christ, at least try to tell the whole story.
>give ukies access to starlink for civilian purposes
>ukies want to use it to target russkie assets
>HMMM
Musk (smartly) didn't want to get further entangled in war.
For all the teeth gnashing and pearl clutching about 'misinfo' you nutty, naïve, childish progs whine about, you're just as bad as the MAGA crowd (if not worse).
Re: (Score:3)
You subscription for this missile has expired. Please enter your credit card number to enable detonation.
Re: (Score:3)
Sooooo.... just like Musk turning off Starlink service to Ukriane?
Nothing like putting your country's survival into corporate hands. Hmmm...
No to the first one, yes to the second.
This is about securing a continuing income stream from the US govt (and presumably from other governments) to Lockheed for doing next to nothing. Basically paying rent on the stuff you've already bought. Similar to Microsoft licensing. This is different to Musk turning off Starlink to Ukraine as that was turning off a service he was being paid for (by the US and other governments ironically) because he wanted to help the Russians, I think Lockheed are vicious, immor
top secret network must be able to talk to our ser (Score:2)
top secret network must be able to talk to our servers over the internet and we need an lot of ports open.
Battle field devices now have sat and cell link and Lockheed mobile plans roam all you want with NO slow down, NO speed caps, NO data cap and no mark up on roaming fees billed by other systems.
FOX-3 ! (Score:2)
"Your current configuration does not have the drivers for a FOX-3 launch. Lockheed Martin suggests an upgrade to release 135.122.15.117."
Re: (Score:3)
"Your current configuration does not have the drivers for a FOX-3 launch. Lockheed Martin suggests an upgrade to release 135.122.15.117."
If you upgrade now, you'll also receive access to the "Heated Seats" package for 3 months at no charge.*
(*Credit card required, package monthly subscription auto-renews after introductory period unless canceled.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Your current configuration does not have the drivers for a FOX-3 launch. Lockheed Martin suggests an upgrade to release 135.122.15.117."
This AIM-120 AAMRAM Air-to-Air Missile cannot be paired with that combat aircraft, unless a tech rep from Lockheed Martin pairs the two devices using a proprietary programming cable. Sorry, you'll be going out with only heaters and guns today.
AMRAAM... (Score:2)
It's the pedant in me - Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile.
Subscriptions suck (Score:3)
And now, they're trying to infect the military
The military needs reliable, well documented systems that can be repaired in the field and can operate when the net is unavailable
I can imagine a pilot during air to air combat receiving a "subscription expired" error
Re: (Score:3)
Used to make the same joke about Ada in the '80s and '90s.
INCOMING ICBM DETECTED... PREPARING TO LAUbeginning garbage collection.... completeNCH INT... KaBoom!!!!!
Already happened (Score:2)
All this push for Agile and cloud in the government has resulted in the software becoming exactly what you would expect. Literally worse than before, and I didn't think it possible.
First to go when the beancounters come knocking... (Score:2)
...heated seats. Going to be cold Januarys!
Deterrence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me see if I have this straight. Lockheed CEO says that adding layers of purchasing complications and nickel+dimming is a deterrence to US' enemies because they'll be bamboozled by... what exactly?
Is this kind of like the US punching itself in the face repeatedly, in an effort to confuse the enemy? They'll be so busy wondering what you're doing, that they'll fail to join in the punching?
Honestly, I've never heard so much spin coming out of a CEO's mouth in an effort to justify spending more money with the military complex.
Re: (Score:3)
"Aw shit, we where going to invade Taiwan, but it looks like the americans have a subscription to creative cloud.
We will never be able to live with the humiliation of terrible memes."
Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
He added this approach "is starting to get some traction" among large investors in the tech sector.
Just like Adobe and Microsoft, one can make a ton more money by forcing people to buy subscriptions. Just raise the price each year and people will pay becaue if they don't, they lose access to the software.
What better way to milk even more money from taxpayers than having the Pentagon, and others, use subscription software.
put him on a real budget... (Score:2)
then make him do a project that requires adobe creative suite and expire it while he's doing it.
Great idea! (Score:1)
Software from defense contractors has such a good record for being delivered on-time, on-budget and without flaws. Surely this will all end well.
if the contract (Score:2)
If the contract is written in such a way that Lockheed is 100 % responsible for bugs, security breaches (including phishing) and all else why not. I would also want any deaths or injuries associated due to defects in all their products, they pay too, up and including liquidation of them and all their parents and subsidiaries.
That is the only way I would say OK. But we know these contracts probably have some graft built in and no responsibilities for the Company.
Slashdot sucks (Score:1)
Now they're getting it! (Score:2)
Everyone in the software biz knows that the subscription model far outpaces the licensed version model in terms of collected revenue. This is so true that you can charge 50% your typical full-featured license fee per annum and still walk away with your pockets bulging by the end of year 2.
So, looks like the military industrial complex finally figured out the game. Welcome to the money party, late comers. Now get to work fleecing the American people like you know you've wanted to for all these past years.
Sur
Probably true, but one problem (Score:2)
"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, "
Yeah, but how do we get the enemy to buy the stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I laughed out loud. Best retort to the story so far.
Aligning interests (Score:3)
I found this section interesting.
I'm going to respond here assuming 'reasonable positive intention'. I'm by no means under any illusion that some people are just greedy and want money. But let's assume for minute reasonable positive intention.
The problem with 'buying' software is always that there is no recurring revenue, unless you can lock people into support contracts or force/encourage them to buy the software again because of security holes, not being kept up to date, interoperability issues...
In my first few years out of school developing software, I was so often disappointed with the quality. But then I spent some time with business and sales. I don't quite know where the balance lies, but it's almost in their interest to NOT write perfect software because then no one would buy it again. When the 'cloud' model became more popular, I genuinely wondered if this would actually increase the quality of software.
Now the business is aligned with technology to not have to rebuild software all the time... It would be in the business interest to write good and reliable software so they have minimal spending on technology and they can just rely on the subscriptions for money. Even user-friendly features like interoperability and what not become less of a problem.
Anyways, reading Lockheed CEO's statement reminded me of that. If the industry can move to a subscription model, everyone can know they will be paid properly and sustainably, then everyone can work together to actually build better products instead of being paranoid about vendor lockin and this and that to secure their business future.