US Navy Backs Right To Repair After $13 Billion Carrier Crew Left Half-Fed By Contractor-Locked Ovens (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0178034607
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/06/13/0332208/us-navy-backs-right-to-repair-after-13-billion-carrier-crew-left-half-fed-by-contractor-locked-ovens
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/11/us_navy_repair/
> US Navy Secretary John Phelan has told the Senate the service [1]needs the right to repair its own gear , and will rethink how it writes contracts to keep control of intellectual property and ensure sailors can fix hardware, especially in a fight. Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Phelan cited the case of the USS Gerald R. Ford, America's largest and most expensive nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which carried a price tag of [2]$13 billion . The ship was struggling to feed its crew of over 4,500 because six of its eight ovens were out of action, and sailors were barred by contract from fixing them themselves.
>
> "I am a huge supporter of right to repair," Phelan told the politicians. "I went on the carrier; they had eight ovens -- this is a ship that serves 15,300 meals a day. Only two were working. Six were out." He pointed out the Navy personnel are capable of fixing their own gear but are blocked by contracts that reserve repairs for vendors, often due to IP restrictions. That drives up costs and slows down basic fixes. According to the Government Accountability Office, [3]about 70 percent [PDF] of a weapon system's life-cycle cost goes to operations and support. A similar issue plagued the USS Gerald Ford's weapons elevators, which move bombs from deep storage to the flight deck. They reportedly took more than four years after delivery to become fully operational, delaying the carrier's first proper deployment. "They have to come out and diagnose the problem, and then they'll fix it," Phelan said. "It is crazy. We should be able to fix this."
"Our soldiers are immensely smart and capable and should not need to rely on a third party contractor to maintain their equipment. Oven repair is not rocket science: of course sailors should be able to repair their ovens," Kyle Wiens, CEO of repair specialists iFixit told The Register.
"It's gratifying to see Secretary Phelan echoing our work. The Navy bought it, the Navy should be able to fix it. Ownership is universal, and the same principles apply to an iPhone or a radar. Of course, the devil is in the details: the military needs service documentation, detailed schematics, 3D models of parts so they can be manufactured in the field, and so on. We're excited that the military is joining us on this journey to reclaim ownership."
Further reading: [4]Army Will Seek Right To Repair Clauses In All Its Contracts
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/11/us_navy_repair/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pu76QQ_obc
[3] https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-678.pdf
[4] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/05/01/2132224/army-will-seek-right-to-repair-clauses-in-all-its-contracts
Re: (Score:3)
> I agree this is a bad look, but throwing out all subscription/service contracts is not the way.
What does that have to do with this? That is not being proposed or considered.
Re:Before we go bonkers (Score:5, Informative)
> I agree this is a bad look, but throwing out all subscription/service contracts is not the way. Also, this is a terrible look for the contractor and the Navy. Some things need this type of treatment (complex missile and warhead maintenance would be 2 examples). However, connected ovens are not a tech the Navy needs. And ovens used to be considered part of the ship. This should have been killed at the review stages, but will be fixed now. I don't think this is the smoking gun for R2R. A bullet to support the cause, but this is going to be like the McDonald's icecream machines. Another blip.
I don't think you RTFS muchless RTFA. They weren't allowed to repair because the contract flat out states that only the company's techs can repair it:
> "I went on the carrier; they had eight ovens -- this is a ship that serves 15,300 meals a day. Only two were working. Six were out." He pointed out the Navy personnel are capable of fixing their own gear but are blocked by contracts that reserve repairs for vendors , often due to IP restrictions.
(emphasis mine).
Re: (Score:2)
What if the warhead is erroneously armed and liable to explode when there is no communication? IMO whoever is in charge should be able to give techs access to schematics and manuals for almost any weapon system.
china masters will not let them have the source co (Score:2)
china masters will not let them have the source code and other tools needed to build an DRM free firmware.
But the Navy can hack them with armed forces ready repel any repo men
Can't Repair in Peace time? (Score:3)
If they have these troubles getting it repaired during "peace time", imagine the problems if the equipment is actually in a theater or war.
Re: (Score:2)
"imagine the problems if the equipment is actually in a theater or war."
I don't know where the Ford is stationed right now, but at least a couple of the Navy's CVN's are in areas where they could get into combat (Eastern Med, Red Sea)
(There is a war on you know)
Re: (Score:2)
CVNs are a high value target. They are always in theater, even at dock.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Whoever let that into the contracts should face a court-martial for sabotaging service readiness.
Re: (Score:2)
Military. Industrial. Complex.
whoever added that clause got a sizeable bonus.
Their Trumpian replacement will double the subscription fee
Re: Can't Repair in Peace time? (Score:2)
Strange 6 fail all at once but 2 continued to work. 1 sure, 2 perhaps , 3 a stretch. Find a more reliable oven. Yeah repairable as well if more then 1 fails out at sea.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that's more a commentary on the fact that the, "Service Contractor," was taking so long to get out there and do the repairs.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that finding out the hard way would suck; but I'd honestly be a little curious what the breakdown would be between "it's been decades since we sold this stuff with the expectation of more than toy use; it's bad for margins to have more than bare minimum service techs and spares" where you'd basically be screwed; and "we jerk you around because we can; but if you just conscripted our contractors and Defense Production Act-ed our production priorities it would actually work fine".
If the problem i
Who approved that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who exactly approved a design/contract that prevents repairs during deployment? That's quite literally insane for a fighting vessel.
Someone needs to be fired/investigated and held accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be the opposite. At some point in the deregulation, some companies looked at military supply chains to find those components for which there was only one manufacturer. These manufacturers were then bought for the sole purpose of jacking up the prices. So it might well be that everything was fine when the deal was struck, but that some other company altered the deal afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
"[S]ome other company altered the deal afterwards."
Pray they do not alter it any further.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any identification of the vendor in anything I have read about this issue. Who is the vendor?
Re: (Score:1)
Sadly, military procurement is famously one of the most broken parts of the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
'broken' depends on which side of the wrench you're holding
Re: (Score:2)
I do wonder if it is bespoke (in which case the IP just needs transferred) or if it is a commodity item (say professional/institutional cooking appliance) that was used to save money but normally sold with service contracts. In which case the IP can probably still be transferred but the manufacturer and the vendor/contractor that installed it may be distinct and it may be news to GE or whoever that they even have ovens on aircraft carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't read contracts for their purchases any more than you do.
There ain't no Sanity Clause (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't need a "right-to-repair" clause. Right to repair needs to be a basic part of the law - a right of any owner of any thing, not just on a one-off contractual basis.
The DMCA and WIPO treaty should be fixed or done away with unless we all can repair what we buy.
Re: (Score:3)
And calling it right to repair is sort of a misnomer because it limits scope. Right to ownership is the real issue. You buy it, it's yours. Period.
Ahahahahahaha (Score:2)
That contractor obviously got wayyyy too greedy. Nice how at least some of these cretins eventually kill their own repulsive business model.
Re: Ahahahahahaha (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's not a completely unreasonable contract provision, in theory at least. Allowing a customer to service their own stuff while still being responsible for the maintenance contract is a potential nightmare. Suppose a Navy monkey makes a mistake and causes more damage in trying to fix it. Then you have to get contract managers involved and try to calculate and negotiate on how broke it was before (vendor responsibility) vs how broke it became due to the Navy's mistake. Given the bureaucracy involved and the
Re: Ahahahahahaha (Score:5, Insightful)
> Allowing a customer to service their own stuff while still being responsible for the maintenance contract is a potential nightmare.
No, it is not. You write the contract so that if the customer fucks it up it's their problem, and if you have to undo things that they did when you get there, they have to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
And that works about as well in practice as the Magusson-Moss warranty act. Electronics makers still put the little sticker on the bottom of devices saying "warranty void if opened" and denying warranty claims. Because who is the authority on the cause of the problem? The maker. Supposedly they should know better than anyone and to say otherwise you have to say so in court.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the difference between a lease/subscription type contract and a support contract. Frankly the former where it comes to something like ovens on a navy ship should not really be under consideration.
It should be sell the government the equipment, installation, and training. Second sell them a support contract that states things like, we will have any parts required availible at on of the following locations withing X hours (Navy more likely to be able more things around world effectively than anyone
The Navy and McDonald's (Score:2)
Sounds like the Navy has the same problem with their ovens as McDonald's franchisees have with their ice cream machines... These restrictive service contracts due to IP is ridiculous these days.
Who ever approves... (Score:2)
Anyone who has approved even a single piece of military hardware that has a lock on the military repairing it themselves should not be allowed to approved military hardware, This is a ridiculous situation.
I deal with this all the time with our ships (Score:2)
We install software on Navy ships, and a big problem we have is the ship crew is not trained how to maintain their systems. They are so reliant on someone else coming onboard to fix issues. They are so excited when we show them how to do it. Very willing to learn, just lacking training and experience.
Enterprise attempts to fire phasers: (Score:2)
"We're sorry, your subscription to your phaser service has expired." .
Do you remember when you got (Score:2)
a schematic with every radio or television you bought? Manufacturers used to print the schematics as a sticker inside the cabinet or in the back pages of the user manual. That was a different epoch than today. Back then, it was possible to diagnose and repair your electronics if you had the proper knowledge and tools.
Now due to surface mount parts, you would need more specialized tools to repair modern electronics and you might have trouble locating parts custom designed for that radio or TV.
We throw a lot
Re: (Score:1)
You can still usually get the schematics.
I think the overall shift has been towards making things smaller and cheaper, which includes putting as much as possible onto a small and not-feasibly-repairable PCB - not to intentionally make products harder/more expensive to repair. Though that is one of the results.
Re: (Score:2)
> Now due to surface mount parts, you would need more specialized tools to repair modern electronics
Fine, I can't replace a chip or capacitor. So where can I order an entire motherboard for my TV after a power surge takes out the HDMI port? Still have to buy a new TV for a lot more money.
That's hypothetical (for me), but my last TV I threw out because the LEDs had the [1]"purple lights" issue [scientificamerican.com]. I actually did find the right LED light strips. But the disassembly process would have been a nightmare of layers. I would have wished the LEDs were held in with adhesive instead of whatever clips that would most c
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/streetlights-are-mysteriously-turning-purple-heres-why/
Re: (Score:2)
Far back in the mists of ancient time, I used a PDP11/05 at work. This machine came with a full set of manuals including a schematics and commented listing of the microcode. It also had a comprehensive write-up of the principles of operation. There was enough information there to replicate the entire computer apart, perhaps, from the metalwork.
In terms of understanding how a computer worked, reading that set of manuals was probably more valuable than many college courses.
These days you get almost nothing. I
Two steps (Score:2)
1) absolutely demand right to repair - the idea that units which may be in FUCKING COMBAT need to call a service tech is unbelievably stupid.
2) find out who approved this contract AND FIRE THEM.
The contract needs to go away, and anyone in the DoD who agreed to this is literally not doing their job in a way that could ostensibly cost lives. This level of incompetence not only can't be tolerated, there have to be actual consequences.
Not just R2R (Score:2)
In the modern world, Right to Repair doesn't mean a whole lot without access to the parts necessary to do so.
Access to the parts doesn't mean a whole lot without access to the diagnostic, calibration, and other hardware/software tools necessary to make the unit work after installing the parts.
There is no way in hell that the US Government, and especially the DOD, should be buying any bespoke equipment WITHOUT getting a full delivery of the software and hardware necessary to repair the equipment. That doesn
Geez, total BS they can'y fix it themselves ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right to repair should be universal on everything you buy !
Yes, but not for the reason you think (Score:4, Interesting)
Its the military - just fscking repair the thing. What are the oven company going to do, sue the US Navy or try and reclaim the ovens? Good luck with that. Perhaps its time someone in navy command grew a spine.
Re: (Score:2)
In wartime I bet that'd happen, but today the vendor would be able to sue.
Re:Yes, but not for the reason you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if our military unilaterally exercised a 'right to repair' for commercially available items, soon enough they would find that no manufacturer that relied on service revenue would offer them to the military, and if they did, likely for substantially higher costs, to 'recover' that lost service revenue.
Beyond the simple 'we bought it, we own it, we need to fix it', there is the somewhat simpler imperative - in war, you succeed or fail. Failure is costly. Unable to feed your crew, do you withdraw? And what are the consequences of that withdrawal? Failure is not an option, and that is not a platitude.
It's a failure of our military that they permit such things to occur at all. Not perhaps the Navy, but other branches, and for the Navy perhaps onshore, too much has been delegated to civilian contractors. Food service is one obvious example. And a common explanation I have heard is that enlistment is so challenged that there are not enough personnel to do 'all that'. Oh, downstream of failed leadership, I think. Leadership is crucial.
If you've paid attention, you know that McDonalds has had trouble keeping ice cream machines running, being hostage to the manufacture and software. For a frikin ice cream machine. Stupid.
And if you're aware of that, you might also be aware of John Deere masking every effort to prevent farmers form repairing their equipment, which during harvest can result in hours waiting for a technician, and lost crops. Lost money. Inexcusable. And again, software.
Right To Repair is going to be essential going on, the simplest things are becoming complex. Home automation suffers from vendor lock-in, and when the support revenue stream dries up, they capriciously 'end of life' items, and that's that, you're abandoned. No promise prevents this.
Our military needs to require this and enforce such contracts. To do otherwise is to risk their troops' lives, and ours.
Re: (Score:2)
> soon enough they would find that no manufacturer that relied on service revenue would offer them to the military, and if they did, likely for substantially higher costs, to 'recover' that lost service revenue.
The military would sign the check tomorrow and twice on Sundays.
Re: Yes, but not for the reason you think (Score:2)
They already do. As we know, however, there are no promises. Software support can be withdrawn in a moment. Spare parts, not in inventory. It's really not even about money I'm afraid, the military will pay. But will the vendors even honor their contracts, or just say 'but a new one'... If a new one exists.
I think I'm making this seem as complicated as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why it should be demanded that the software involved be open source. There is absolutely no excuse for some application failing silently (i.e., almost everything on Windows) or throwing out some inane error message. At least with something like a Linux application I can {s,l}trace the thing and have some vague idea where it might be failing. In Windows, stuff just goes tits up and says something stupid like "This program has stopped working..."
Imagine being under fire and dealing with this. "Vampire
Re: Yes, but not for the reason you think (Score:2)
Do you actually know the connection between open source software and random inexplicable and enigmatic error messages? No you don't, there isn't one. Open source software for military systems has a great deal of appeal and makes a lot of sense. You must not get out much if you think open source software has better error messages or even error handling necessarily. As with all software, it's only as good as those who develop it. If not open source, at least the military should have access to the source.
Re: (Score:2)
> Its the military - just fscking repair the thing.
What if it's in the software/firmware? Navy techs got locked out because the controller detected a hardware failure and put the oven in a "safe" mode. Now you need vendor expertise and/or special tools to reset it. Because it's a modified civilian version and they can't afford the liability of some h.s. dropout stoner "fixing" an oven at Papa Johns and burning the place down.
Re: (Score:2)
You can waive just about any right by signing a contract.