I think some in this discussion mis-understand my points.
We need good program people, at defense contractors, that are paid fairly from investments made by the Contractor AND its own stockholders. If the contractor wants to fund big salaries and benefits, then that’s on their OWN dime.
I don’t think defense contractor employees are BAD people. But I do think the way they operate, as organizations, IS and has been bad for a loooong time. Some General says; “I need a missile defense shield”. The contractor suit says; “great! I can make one of those”. The General gives him $100 Million development contract and says; “go make me a prototype”. That’s a BAD PLAN.
The Pentagon should NEVER concurrently fund projects using the “other peoples money” principle. If a contractor thinks he has great people and can build a successful system, then let him do it and PROVE it with his OWN MONEY. If it works then they get a performance bonus equal to REASONABLE development costs AND a production contract to reach profit.
The Contractor should NEVER be given endless chances that go on and on, using “development funds” to make these things work. If a start-up company fails to produce results with venture capital then you know what happens.
The venture capital gets cut off.
The size and duration of contracts has shrunk in recent times. The old three- to five-year contracts seem to be a thing of the past, and we're seeing 3-month and 6-month contracts instead. It makes it much more challenging for a large organization to operate and plan ahead when you can't be certain your highly-talented employees will be able to be paid six months hence.