Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

How does this happen?
Quote | Reply
http://www.bloomberg.com/...or-warfare-memo-says

Seriously, $13B and the goddamn thing can't launch and recover aircraft?
Quote:

“Unless these issues are resolved, which would likely require redesigning” of the aircraft launch and recovery systems “they will significantly limit the CVN-78’s ability to conduct combat operations,”
Quote Reply
Re: How does this happen? [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your govt at work. By all means, let's put them in charge of all aspects of our lives, cause they're so good at what they do.

I miss YaHey
Quote Reply
Re: How does this happen? [justgeorge] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
justgeorge wrote:
Your govt at work. By all means, let's put them in charge of all aspects of our lives, cause they're so good at what they do.

Well, our govt and private industry, obviously. The systems that are troublesome are all built by private industry.

Our ship building process is in disarray. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I see a way back from it, other than wholesale change by scrapping it and starting over, which will simply not happen for various economic and political reasons.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How does this happen? [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is not that untypical for advanced technology being deployed for the first time. For example, the Ford is using an electromagnetic launch system vice the normal steam catapults for launching aircraft; I'm not sure what the difference in the arresting gear is. The problem with this and much of our acquisition system (like the F-35) is that we cram a bunch of untested and exotic technology into the requirements for a major weapon system, which makes it really, really hard to accurately estimate cost and schedule. And, when inventions don't happen on time, as is often the case with cutting edge technology, schedule (and thus cost) slips to the right.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: How does this happen? [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spot wrote:
This is not that untypical for advanced technology being deployed for the first time. For example, the Ford is using an electromagnetic launch system vice the normal steam catapults for launching aircraft; I'm not sure what the difference in the arresting gear is. The problem with this and much of our acquisition system (like the F-35) is that we cram a bunch of untested and exotic technology into the requirements for a major weapon system, which makes it really, really hard to accurately estimate cost and schedule. And, when inventions don't happen on time, as is often the case with cutting edge technology, schedule (and thus cost) slips to the right.

A) You'd think before pissing away 13B dollars they'd test the stuff, maybe do a proof of concept.
B) Curious about the redesign comment, don't they have virtual CAD etc. to simulate things before pissing 13B?
C) Apollo seemed to turn out okay as did the Manhattan Project (hyperbolic, but both infinitely more complex and both worked).
Quote Reply
Re: How does this happen? [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windywave wrote:
spot wrote:
This is not that untypical for advanced technology being deployed for the first time. For example, the Ford is using an electromagnetic launch system vice the normal steam catapults for launching aircraft; I'm not sure what the difference in the arresting gear is. The problem with this and much of our acquisition system (like the F-35) is that we cram a bunch of untested and exotic technology into the requirements for a major weapon system, which makes it really, really hard to accurately estimate cost and schedule. And, when inventions don't happen on time, as is often the case with cutting edge technology, schedule (and thus cost) slips to the right.


A) You'd think before pissing away 13B dollars they'd test the stuff, maybe do a proof of concept.
B) Curious about the redesign comment, don't they have virtual CAD etc. to simulate things before pissing 13B?
C) Apollo seemed to turn out okay as did the Manhattan Project (hyperbolic, but both infinitely more complex and both worked).

First, it's not like they are going to have to scrap the ship. And, they have until 2021 before the Ford enters active service...plenty of time to fix the issues that are being reported, and I'm pretty confident they will. So, it's not anywhere near "pissing away 13B dollars." They'll spend more money than planned fixing and testing the stuff that isn't working quite right, but they aren't going to lose a $13B ship.

Second, CAD stuff is great for making sure things fit, not so much at determining reliability, which is the issue.

Lastly, Apollo did have issues...perhaps you remember the Apollo 1 spacecraft fire? And, they did a long, careful buildup to test out new technologies (the entire Gemini program was designed to test out space rendezvous, space walks, longer space flight, etc). The first 10 Apollo launches tested out systems in a methodical way. That sort of careful buildup tends to drag schedule out to the right, and thus cost, and so is difficult to do in a military acquisition environment. The Manhattan Project succeeded because of the enormous resources thrown at it...it cost $26B in today's dollars and employed 130,000 people.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply