19 ms·

On Costliest U.S. Warship Ever, Navy Can’t Get Munitions on Deck

172 points by perfunctory 7y ago

speeder 7y ago
Usually military wants cutting edge and precision-ly made tech, that often is also very expensive... Yet... I keep seeing stories like this coming from US, why? What changed between the construction of A-10 and the F-117 and the F-35 for example?
- amerine 7y ago
  The War on Terror
  - jandrese 7y ago
    Overpriced weapon system syndrome predates 9/11 by quite a lot. IMHO it's a peacetime problem. There's no enemy to fight today, so the motivation to finish the system ASAP and start pumping copies out the door goes away. In fact these protracted construction delays can be seen as a minor cost savings, since if they actually delivered what they promised the military would have to maintain hundreds of vehicles that are really only useful in a war that is not likely to happen soon. People say the US is fighting the last war, and that's maybe more true than they think. The Cold War was won mostly by convincing the Soviets to outspend on military hardware by spending huge sums on our own military hardware. But then the Soviet Union collapsed and the US failed to draw down production to true peacetime levels and we're stuck with a military that is way too big and too expensive to just keep the peace.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  A specific scenario to optimize for. The A10 was designed to swiss cheese just enough Russian tanks and to buy the time for C5s (designed to transport main battle tanks) full of M1s (meant to kill Russian tanks) to make it to France before the Russians could steamroll Germany. The F117 was designed to slip past and strike infiltrate Russian air defense systems so our bombers could make it to the target. All the weapons systems of the cold war era were built to fight a specific peer adversary first and needed to fit into that portfolio. Capability to handle other tasks was pursued (especially during and after Vietnam) but at the end of the day systems had to be able to fit into a strategy in which we fight the Russians or if not they had to have some other specific and narrowly tailored purpose (e.g. AC130). Right now the armed forces are in this weird state where they have to be able to handle anything from some rowdy poppy farmers to WW3 in no particular order of priority and that manifests itself as poorly thought out feature bloat.
  - theseadroid 7y ago
    You could say in some degree that not only the military needs a purpose. The deteriorating of infrastructure, the lack of vision of politicians, the increasing inequality are probably all the result of a lacking of a purpose.
    - vincent-toups 7y ago
      Maybe absent the purpose, we don't need quite this much military. Its a rather frightening prospect, the other way round.
    - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
      The purpose is jobs. Well functioning results aren't a requirement.
  - greedo 7y ago
    While the C5A has the ability to carry a single M1, it's not really intended for ferrying armored vehicles that large. REFORGER relied largely on both pre-positioned stocks of arms as well as merchant vessels to carry the heavy gear.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      You're right. Air is a terrible way to move tanks around because you have to do it one at a time. Being able to do it in a pinch is very important. It won't be cheap or without risk (which you care about for exercises) but when there's T72s pouring through the Fulda gap you pull out all the stops because you don't get a do-over.
      - greedo 7y ago
        In that case I'd be flying over Apache AH-64s (three at a time) instead of a tank with no supporting equipment, fuel or ammo.
  - yborg 7y ago
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  Cold war ended. When you have no real competition, you are less driven to succeed/improve.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    I wonder why the military doesn't add "it works or else you don't get paid" clauses in these lucrative contracts they award? The vendor can't say no to that without admitting their products suck. especially since our nation may actually need one of these things to work in order to survive. 99% of the time they're expense toys. Until that one time they're not.
    - magduf 7y ago
      Well, if that happens, then the vendor just inflates the cost of other things you're buying from them. If you don't like that, what are you going to do, go to another vendor? There aren't very many of them left now, only 2 usually.
    - checktheorder 7y ago
      >I wonder why the military doesn't add "it works or else you don't get paid" clauses in these lucrative contracts they award? Any general or admiral who pushed hard for strict performance-based deliverables in procurement contracts would never get a cushy job at a defence contractor after retiring from the military.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      > I wonder why the military doesn't add "it works or else you don't get paid" clauses in these lucrative contracts they award? Because the contract is in reality supposed to provide X jobs for Y time in electoral district Z, not to provide X equipment until deadline Y.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > I keep seeing stories like this coming from US, why? The availability heuristic [1] plays a role, given the (reasonably) increased media attention given to failures over successes. The F-22 [2] is an amazing plane. The X-37 program challenges the line between plane and spacecraft. The V-22 [4] and V-280 [5] are similarly successful programs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor
- btilly 7y ago
  One big factor is that defense contractors have been consolidating. With fewer and fewer contractors that they can go to, and a revolving door where the people approving purchases today get plushy jobs tomorrow with the company that they approved, the incentives are to approve giant projects for lots of money that require a lot of integration, and turn a blind eye towards failure. The result is that we are spending more, but getting less for our money.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    > The result is that we are spending more, but getting less for our money. You're getting jobs in electoral districts somewhere in the outback, which means that the politicians passing the funds in the first place get to keep re-elected. Cut the shitshow off its lifeline and suddenly you have a lot of representatives with a riled up suddenly job-less workforce.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  It goes back a long way. Look up "The Battle Of Wichita". They had enormous difficulty with the B-29 back in World War II.
maximente 7y ago
> “I am concerned overall that the Navy is under-equipped in key areas,” the Oklahoma Republican said in a statement. if there was any - any doubt at all - that this machine feeds itself, this hilarious statement should remove all of it
- vidanay 7y ago
  The only thing the US Navy is under-equipped for is something along the scale of the aliens from Battleship. And just as likely to actually occur.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    China is likely to be our major rival (and God forbid, possible adversary) and they're arming quickly.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine. On the last 60 years, China don't tend to get involved in international conflicts either. Vietnam, Tibet, Korea - that's about it.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        It’s only recently that China had had the economic power to challenge the US in the international stage.
        azinman2 7y ago
        And it's making such statements with the artificial islands that they're building, the increasing military spending, the stealing of military secrets by hacking subcontractors, demonstrating their anti-sat missiles, etc. And that's just military. With their new one belt, one road initiative, they're trying to split the world into countries that use all Chinese tech w/Chinese standards, trading with china to build infrastructure by Chinese laborers.
mjevans 7y ago
The article seems to claim the issue is with fabrication tolerances. Two issues come to mind. 1) How to fabricate to those tolerances reliably? (Robots come to mind). 2) How easy is it to operate these shafts in a degraded capacity if there is physical damage to the vessel during operations? The first issue probably should be solved by improving automated construction tech. The second issue... these things need to operate well under worst case load scenarios, not just right out of the dry-dock... and it sounds like they can't even get the ideal scenario working.
- formercoder 7y ago
  Ships also bend and flex. I wonder how these elevators will work out in the rolling ocean.
- larrydag 7y ago
  I wonder if this has anything to do with the decrease of blue collar skilled labor. Many skilled trade labor has decreased especially in VA. https://www.dailypress.com/business/newport-news-shipyard/dp-nws-defense-labor-daytwo-20170514-story.html https://www.dailypress.com/business/newport-news-shipyard/dp... https://www.dailypress.com/business/newport-news-shipyard/dp-nws-tcc-kaine-academy-20181205-story.html https://www.dailypress.com/business/newport-news-shipyard/dp...
- appleiigs 7y ago
  Robots do not come to mind when you are producing custom pieces.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    You're thinking assembly line robots. I'm thinking more general purpose machines that are designed to move independently and automatically adjust themselves to the correct position relative to a design and perform the task. Alternatively, at least something that a set of humans can move in to place, bolt on, and have it do the above.
  - Mvhsz 7y ago
    Right - Part complexity is a big reason and so is volume. We're building carriers at a rate of 1 ship every 3 to 4 years. There's just no value proposition for automation on a lot of these parts.
sramsay 7y ago
From the article: "The elevators aren’t the only issue plaguing the ship, which has had problems with two other core systems -- the electromagnetic system to launch planes and the arresting gear to catch them when they land." So let's see, the only the problem with this aircraft carrier is that it has trouble with airplanes taking off. And landing. And carrying, you know, bombs.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  “But other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
- el_benhameen 7y ago
  This all seems fine to me, then. They can't get the bombs to the planes, but that's fine because the planes can't take off, which is fine because they couldn't land anyway.
  - weego 7y ago
    Seems like a pretty decent take on an MVP to me. Ship it.
    - thunderrabbit 7y ago
      Oops! Wrong industry! /s
    - iseanstevens 7y ago
      Literally, a ship.
  - Havoc 7y ago
    Hey if you're ever sick of programming I've got a government job for you. Chief widget surveyor.
    - penagwin 7y ago
      READ: Docker Container Enthusiast
Animats 7y ago
Amazingly, this seems to be a software problem.[1] [1] https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/02/21/after-carrier-fords-elevators-failed-navy-building-new-test-site.html https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/02/21/after-carrie...
hirundo 7y ago
I can't build a little software app without going over schedule by approximately double, if I'm lucky. And if I get it wrong the consequence is my boss looks sad. These guys are building one of the largest most complex gizmos in human history. And if they get it wrong sailors die. So personally I'll cut them a little slack. So it's probably a good thing that I'm not their project manager.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I'll cut them this slack: They don't need the Ford. If it never works right, it was wasteful, and embarrassing, and, sure, they really could have used it. But they don't need it the way we needed, say, the Essex class carriers in World War II. The time to experiment with new stuff is precisely when you don't have to have something that works. So throwing all the new razzle-dazzle techniques into one ship, letting them be ironed out or rejected... that's actually not all that crazy.
- pmontra 7y ago
  The USA built 4 to 6 carriers and their fleet per year during WW2 [1] [2]. They were complex gizmos too back at the time. Ok, the whole county was fully committed to that so it could be an unfair comparison but it shows the difference between wanting to ship a product that works on a tight schedule and trying to build the dream project. Plenty of examples on the history of IT. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence-class_aircraft_...
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    I have a theory that on the rise of a civilization soon after comes the rise of career bureaucrats who proceed to strangle the civilization and this has been going on since at least the Sumerians.
chewz 7y ago
https://youtu.be/IKQlQlQ6_pk?t=82 https://youtu.be/IKQlQlQ6_pk?t=82
chewz 7y ago
German Engineering Yields New Warship That Isn’t Fit for Sea > ”There’s a whole generation of German engineers who haven’t worked on a major defense project,” said Mr. Mölling, the defense expert. “It’s not that they lost this skill; they never learned it.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-engineering-yields-new-warship-that-isnt-fit-for-sea-1515753000?mod=rsswn https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-engineering-yields-new-w...
- Havoc 7y ago
  So they would have you believe...
nimbius 7y ago
The question Ive been wondering is not whether the Ford is a total dud, but were its changes even reasonable? or were they just tacked on as some misplaced future-chasing value-add. For example, the electromagnetic launcher. Why have a launcher at all? the USSR's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier solved the aircraft launching problem ages ago and for far cheaper. just slope the deck. and Magnetic elevators? why? was there a specific concern or reason behind using magnets instead of tried-and-true cables? why were we redesigning doors and hatches when the old ones ostensibly performed fine?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Why have a launcher at all? the USSR's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier solved the aircraft launching problem ages ago and for far cheaper. just slope the deck. Catapults permit heavier payloads, higher takeoff rates, aircraft that wouldn't be able to take off under their own power from such a short runway, and a number of other major benefits. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/32828/what-is-the-benefit-of-a-curved-up-flight-deck https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/32828/what-is-t...
  - chaosbutters 7y ago
    should've gone with trebuchets for optimal performance
- thunderbird120 7y ago
  STOBAR[1] carriers like the Kuznetsov are vastly less capable than CATOBAR[2] carriers, they're the budget option. Using a ramp rather than a catapult means that the types of aircraft you can operate are more limited and the weapons and fuel loads they can actually get into the air with are significantly reduced. As for the new systems in the Ford class. The EMALS system replaces conventional steam powered catapults because it can be more finely tuned to individual aircraft types. This means less stress on airframes which translates to longer operational lifespans. It also allows for easier launching of a wider variety of aircraft weights. In the case of both the catapult and the elevators, the new systems are mechanically much simpler than the old ones leading to reduced operating costs. All of the changes mentioned exist for a good reason, the issue is that they weren't implemented competently. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATOBAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATOBAR
Causality1 7y ago
Cost+ needs to die. These massive companies should be required to deliver on budget or bankrupt themselves trying.
readams 7y ago
It's worth noting that problems like this are pretty normal for new weapons systems. Th V-22 Osprey is a good example here: it seemed like a disaster when it came out, but it's now got its kinks worked out and is performing really well.
- kwindla 7y ago
  If you're interested in big engineering projects and how they work culturally/politically as well as technologically, Richard Whittle's book about the V-22 Osprey is really worth reading. _The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey_
  - ware_am_i 7y ago
    Thanks for the recommendation! I'm in the midst of a big and culturally/politically challenging engineering project and eager to learn... so much so that I signed up for a library card and checked out the ebook from the LA Public Library!
    - JBlue42 7y ago
      That library card comes with tons of other benefits too. Free streaming on Kanopy, NYT membership, museum discounts / passes (https://www.lapl.org/explorela https://www.lapl.org/explorela).
- SkyMarshal 7y ago
  It also seems to be pretty normal in these cases for the media to report on it as if it's not normal. And worse, to sometimes use language like "can't", implying an unsolvable problem. In this particular case it appears that two of the elevators are working, and the rest have hit snags due to mismeasurements that can be fixed with some re-welding. Behind schedule, but the tech appears to be fundamentally viable.
- neurobashing 7y ago
  I think the fear is that we don’t have 20 years to spend on this ship, the F-35, etc. Eg, fixing the problems with the M16 wasn’t that hard: chrome the chamber and change the training program fixed a lot for very little cost and without too many casualties (you can always pull m14s out of inventory!) Not so with an aircraft carrier, destroyer (rounds for the Zumwalt will never be made), and maybe the F35 will only occasionally decapitate it’s pilots
arethuza 7y ago
Well, at least you didn't build it to only be able to operate the F35B and no other fixed wing aircraft! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08)
- magduf 7y ago
  I see no indication that that ship can only operate the F35B. It's designed for VSTOL aircraft, so it doesn't have catapults like American carriers. This isn't new for the UK: they previously had carriers that only used the Harrier, another VSTOL jet. This new ship can surely use the Harrier, but of course the Harrier is pretty old at this point compared to the F35B, but if they needed to, they could go back to it. Or if someone built a different VSTOL jet, they could use that too. Maybe they could also buy some V-22s from the US. Building a carrier that only operates VSTOL aircraft is not an unreasonable thing to do. The US does it too, with their "amphibious assault ships" run by the Marines: these are basically mini aircraft carriers that are just like this ship in your link, and operate only VSTOL (F35B, V-22 Osprey) aircraft and helicopters. If it's good enough for the US Marines with their ships like this one[1], why is it a problem for the Brits? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assau...
  - nradov 7y ago
    There is actually no way to go back to the Harrier. Production was shut down years ago, the industrial base is long gone, and the UK sold off everything they had. There are no other V/STOL tactical aircraft in the development pipeline. The F-35B will be the only available choice for decades to come.
  - liability 7y ago
    AFAIK the ramp precludes anything other than rotary wing AEW, or at least it precludes the E-2 in particular. That seems like a bigger deal than which models of jump jet can be used. An E-2 can be flown an hour or two longer but twice as high as a Merlin HM2. At 4.5 km up the horizon is 241 km away. At 10.6 km it's 367 km. Translated to area covered up to the horizon, that's 18,000 km^2 vs 42,000 km^2. So because it has a ramp, the HMS Queen Elizabeth has less than half the AEW coverage.
duxup 7y ago
I'd like to know what the development cycle for new weapons is and how it usually works. It's not the same but all new code I write doesn't work at some point / needs to be reworked / etc. I guess what I'm saying is it is really hard to know what not working at this point really means. It's so easy to walk into any situation and throw up your hands and panic when you don't know.
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Decades. The JSF (F-35) program began in 1993, the first flight was in 2000, the first time in combat was in 2018, and they're currently shaking out production bugs on the few hundred which have been built. They're slated to be operational until 2070.
cosmodisk 7y ago
Looks like a perfect ship for peacekeeping operations: you can't start a war with a carrier that can't launch/land jet fighters or bring bombs from the storage facility below the deck.Perfect. As always, this boils down to three main things that have been valid since day one of the humanity: stupidity, corruption and negligence.
simonblack 7y ago
If it works, don't fix it.
- simonblack 7y ago
  "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." It's best to have a steam catapult that works, even if not so well than an electromagnetic catapult that doesn't work at all. Ditto for the elevators.
peterwwillis 7y ago
It's useful to remember, when we end up with incredibly expensive and totally ineffective weapons systems, that our military budget is more than double that of the next highest-spending nation, that it's about 3/4 of our federal discretionary spending, and the 3rd largest category of federal expenditure overall, at roughly 692 Billion dollars. We spend more on social security and health care, but far less on Veterans, Transportation, Food & Agriculture, Education, International Affairs, Housing, Energy, Science, and Labor.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
One of the key tools of the 9/11 attacks were box cutters. It's said the Russians influenced - and are still influencing (per Mueller) - our elections and (said) democratic processes with a few buckets of cash and some well placed internet misinformation. The threat of a cyber-attacked is very real. And we're still building multi-billion-dollar 20th century-minded war ships???
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > And we're still building multi-billion-dollar 20th century-minded war ships??? That's the thing that gets me. If the US is going to buy naval ships, at least get ones with a real purpose. The ships that are good against 3rd world nations are something like patrol boats. Cheap, small, fast boats with a shallow draft. The ships that are good against 1st world nations are submarines. Everything else will get sunk by ballistic missiles. One of the side effects of the second space race is that the knowledge to build medium range ballistic missiles is becoming increasingly more common. To a certain extent, it doesn't matter what the US builds; the last time it's been challenged militarily was the Korean War. It doesn't matter... until it does. And at that point, it'll be too late.
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    But it does matter what's being built if it's the wrong thing(s) for the wrong century. We're spending more and more, yet are less and less safe. The MIC makes out well. The rest of us less so __and__ we get to pay the MIC's tab.
  - wbl 7y ago
    What happened to Vietnam and Afghanistan?
    - nordsieck 7y ago
      > What happened to Vietnam and Afghanistan? My understanding of Vietnam is that the US was defeated politically, not militarily. Afghanistan poses even less of a military threat than Vietnam.
kalalala024 7y ago
The military got the best and brightest during WWII because the US was fighting Nazis ... and a foreign enemy who had attacked us on our own soil. https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasyfootball2019/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasyfootball2019/ For Vietnam, they had to draft because few believed in the cause and what they got where those too powerless to escape the draft
m0zg 7y ago
Sounds like the same problem Germans had during WW2: weapons are too advanced and as a result very easy to fuck up when they see action, expensive to make, and impossible to repair. Same with planes: all that nice anti-radar coating loses effectiveness after a just few combat sorties. Military gear needs to be simple as a shovel, and not require a PhD to operate and repair. It also needs to be cheap and easy to manufacture (for some definition of "cheap" and "easy", given that this is an aircraft carrier), so you could make more of it if needed, reasonably quickly. None of the stuff the US military industrial complex has been producing for the past several decades fits this description even remotely. What was wrong with the older, tried and true systems? Sure, they were slower, but nobody else in the world has anything that comes close anyway, and won't have it in the foreseeable future.
- Gustomaximus 7y ago
  Russia has an interesting solution. With much equiptment design an advanced model and a simplified monkey model. The monkey model is used for 1) export (to avoid sharing tech) and 2) so they have a verison they can manufacture quickly and cheaply in war. This under the theory wars tend to be won very quickly, or via attrition. So if both sides fail to blitz each other, Russia is well placed to churn out machinery fast for the attrition component. For the same reason they stack their army with officers (or used to) giving them the ability to bring in civilians and split officers into multiple groups if they want to ramp up man-power fast.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > Sure, they were slower, but nobody else in the world has anything that comes close anyway, and won't have it in the foreseeable future. China has a billion people combined with (thanks to spionage) modern aircraft. Give them a decade and they'll build their own aircraft carriers.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Yeah, and they could land people on the moon, too. One day. Maybe.
crb002 7y ago
Gone are the days of Grace Hopper.
ruytlm 7y ago
Relevant from 2017: https://warisboring.com/how-not-to-build-an-aircraft-carrier/ https://warisboring.com/how-not-to-build-an-aircraft-carrier...
anovikov 7y ago
No problem here really. It's best to debug the ship while it is already being used - issues come up more frequently. It's not a dangerous time in the U.S. history now - probably, safest time ever (no real enemies left since 1992 and nothing to fight for since the U.S. achieved oil independence recently). It's the best to do it in exactly the way it's done - spend another 5 years debugging the ship while it's being used in some sort of reduced capability mode, then another year to retrofit all fixes to the 2nd ship of class, and it will still be okay. People who see delays in major weapon programs as catastrophic, forget that the potential adversaries either protracted their equivalents for decades, or cancelled them altogether. F-22 looked like a mad dash to arrive to the 5th generation fighter ahead of Soviet Union, in 1991. It's been developed, all of them are built, fully learned by their crews and already start to age, and Russian 5th generation is still nowhere on the horizon - their abortion sort of project has even been discarded by the Indians as not matching their minimal requirements, and is in limbo since then. It's more or less the same with all similar projects.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > no real enemies left since 1992 and nothing to fight for since the U.S. achieved oil independence recently There is one big enemy on the horizon: China, which gets ever more and more aggressive. That trade war may very well escalate in a real war, with the Chinese holding an absurd amount of leverage since the US doesn't have much manufacturing at home any more. In addition, there is Africa - which is the only market that hasn't been saturated already and only needs a bit of kickstarting. China has seen this and massively invested, and they will sell to Africa and grow on that, not the US.
  - anovikov 7y ago
    What's the problem with that? How does rich and prosperous China threaten U.S. security? If anything, destitute and hopeless one does - they would have nothing to lose and would push through some radical agenda for the rulers to stay in power. If China becomes richer and more influential, there is nothing bad for the U.S. in that. World isn't zero-sum. Soviet Union was dangerous because it pushed through Communist ideas which threatened to uproot everything the Western world stands upon, starting with family and religion. China isn't going to do any of that shit, they are a super-pragmatic nation and they don't believe into any "ideas" themselves for that matter. If their way of government threatens Western democracy i'm more on the side of them rather than Western democracy: i strongly believe that market capitalism is incompatible with (universal) electoral democracy and for them to coexist, you have to turn one of them, or both, into fakes. It's time for West to get back republican model of government back to it's roots when only responsible, tax-paying immovable properly/production asset owners voted. If Chinese pressure will nudge them to do it sooner, good for them!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dwighttk 7y ago
I mean, they can, just at 2/11ths planned capacity.

172 points by perfunctory 7y ago

Usually military wants cutting edge and precision-ly made tech, that often is also very expensive... Yet... I keep seeing stories like this coming from US, why? What changed between the construction of A-10 and the F-117 and the F-35 for example?

amerine 7y ago
The War on Terror
- jandrese 7y ago
  Overpriced weapon system syndrome predates 9/11 by quite a lot. IMHO it's a peacetime problem. There's no enemy to fight today, so the motivation to finish the system ASAP and start pumping copies out the door goes away. In fact these protracted construction delays can be seen as a minor cost savings, since if they actually delivered what they promised the military would have to maintain hundreds of vehicles that are really only useful in a war that is not likely to happen soon. People say the US is fighting the last war, and that's maybe more true than they think. The Cold War was won mostly by convincing the Soviets to outspend on military hardware by spending huge sums on our own military hardware. But then the Soviet Union collapsed and the US failed to draw down production to true peacetime levels and we're stuck with a military that is way too big and too expensive to just keep the peace.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
A specific scenario to optimize for. The A10 was designed to swiss cheese just enough Russian tanks and to buy the time for C5s (designed to transport main battle tanks) full of M1s (meant to kill Russian tanks) to make it to France before the Russians could steamroll Germany. The F117 was designed to slip past and strike infiltrate Russian air defense systems so our bombers could make it to the target. All the weapons systems of the cold war era were built to fight a specific peer adversary first and needed to fit into that portfolio. Capability to handle other tasks was pursued (especially during and after Vietnam) but at the end of the day systems had to be able to fit into a strategy in which we fight the Russians or if not they had to have some other specific and narrowly tailored purpose (e.g. AC130). Right now the armed forces are in this weird state where they have to be able to handle anything from some rowdy poppy farmers to WW3 in no particular order of priority and that manifests itself as poorly thought out feature bloat.
- theseadroid 7y ago
  You could say in some degree that not only the military needs a purpose. The deteriorating of infrastructure, the lack of vision of politicians, the increasing inequality are probably all the result of a lacking of a purpose.
  - vincent-toups 7y ago
    Maybe absent the purpose, we don't need quite this much military. Its a rather frightening prospect, the other way round.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    The purpose is jobs. Well functioning results aren't a requirement.
- greedo 7y ago
  While the C5A has the ability to carry a single M1, it's not really intended for ferrying armored vehicles that large. REFORGER relied largely on both pre-positioned stocks of arms as well as merchant vessels to carry the heavy gear.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    You're right. Air is a terrible way to move tanks around because you have to do it one at a time. Being able to do it in a pinch is very important. It won't be cheap or without risk (which you care about for exercises) but when there's T72s pouring through the Fulda gap you pull out all the stops because you don't get a do-over.
    - greedo 7y ago
      In that case I'd be flying over Apache AH-64s (three at a time) instead of a tank with no supporting equipment, fuel or ammo.
- yborg 7y ago
dmitrygr 7y ago
Cold war ended. When you have no real competition, you are less driven to succeed/improve.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  I wonder why the military doesn't add "it works or else you don't get paid" clauses in these lucrative contracts they award? The vendor can't say no to that without admitting their products suck. especially since our nation may actually need one of these things to work in order to survive. 99% of the time they're expense toys. Until that one time they're not.
  - magduf 7y ago
    Well, if that happens, then the vendor just inflates the cost of other things you're buying from them. If you don't like that, what are you going to do, go to another vendor? There aren't very many of them left now, only 2 usually.
  - checktheorder 7y ago
    >I wonder why the military doesn't add "it works or else you don't get paid" clauses in these lucrative contracts they award? Any general or admiral who pushed hard for strict performance-based deliverables in procurement contracts would never get a cushy job at a defence contractor after retiring from the military.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    > I wonder why the military doesn't add "it works or else you don't get paid" clauses in these lucrative contracts they award? Because the contract is in reality supposed to provide X jobs for Y time in electoral district Z, not to provide X equipment until deadline Y.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> I keep seeing stories like this coming from US, why? The availability heuristic [1] plays a role, given the (reasonably) increased media attention given to failures over successes. The F-22 [2] is an amazing plane. The X-37 program challenges the line between plane and spacecraft. The V-22 [4] and V-280 [5] are similarly successful programs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor
btilly 7y ago
One big factor is that defense contractors have been consolidating. With fewer and fewer contractors that they can go to, and a revolving door where the people approving purchases today get plushy jobs tomorrow with the company that they approved, the incentives are to approve giant projects for lots of money that require a lot of integration, and turn a blind eye towards failure. The result is that we are spending more, but getting less for our money.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > The result is that we are spending more, but getting less for our money. You're getting jobs in electoral districts somewhere in the outback, which means that the politicians passing the funds in the first place get to keep re-elected. Cut the shitshow off its lifeline and suddenly you have a lot of representatives with a riled up suddenly job-less workforce.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
It goes back a long way. Look up "The Battle Of Wichita". They had enormous difficulty with the B-29 back in World War II.

maximente 7y ago

> “I am concerned overall that the Navy is under-equipped in key areas,” the Oklahoma Republican said in a statement. if there was any - any doubt at all - that this machine feeds itself, this hilarious statement should remove all of it

vidanay 7y ago
The only thing the US Navy is under-equipped for is something along the scale of the aliens from Battleship. And just as likely to actually occur.
- leereeves 7y ago
  China is likely to be our major rival (and God forbid, possible adversary) and they're arming quickly.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I wonder how much of China's arming is as a result of concern of the absurdly oversized US military machine. On the last 60 years, China don't tend to get involved in international conflicts either. Vietnam, Tibet, Korea - that's about it.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      It’s only recently that China had had the economic power to challenge the US in the international stage.
      - azinman2 7y ago
        And it's making such statements with the artificial islands that they're building, the increasing military spending, the stealing of military secrets by hacking subcontractors, demonstrating their anti-sat missiles, etc. And that's just military. With their new one belt, one road initiative, they're trying to split the world into countries that use all Chinese tech w/Chinese standards, trading with china to build infrastructure by Chinese laborers.

mjevans 7y ago

The article seems to claim the issue is with fabrication tolerances. Two issues come to mind. 1) How to fabricate to those tolerances reliably? (Robots come to mind). 2) How easy is it to operate these shafts in a degraded capacity if there is physical damage to the vessel during operations? The first issue probably should be solved by improving automated construction tech. The second issue... these things need to operate well under worst case load scenarios, not just right out of the dry-dock... and it sounds like they can't even get the ideal scenario working.

formercoder 7y ago
Ships also bend and flex. I wonder how these elevators will work out in the rolling ocean.
larrydag 7y ago
I wonder if this has anything to do with the decrease of blue collar skilled labor. Many skilled trade labor has decreased especially in VA. https://www.dailypress.com/business/newport-news-shipyard/dp-nws-defense-labor-daytwo-20170514-story.html https://www.dailypress.com/business/newport-news-shipyard/dp... https://www.dailypress.com/business/newport-news-shipyard/dp-nws-tcc-kaine-academy-20181205-story.html https://www.dailypress.com/business/newport-news-shipyard/dp...
appleiigs 7y ago
Robots do not come to mind when you are producing custom pieces.
- mjevans 7y ago
  You're thinking assembly line robots. I'm thinking more general purpose machines that are designed to move independently and automatically adjust themselves to the correct position relative to a design and perform the task. Alternatively, at least something that a set of humans can move in to place, bolt on, and have it do the above.
- Mvhsz 7y ago
  Right - Part complexity is a big reason and so is volume. We're building carriers at a rate of 1 ship every 3 to 4 years. There's just no value proposition for automation on a lot of these parts.

sramsay 7y ago

From the article: "The elevators aren’t the only issue plaguing the ship, which has had problems with two other core systems -- the electromagnetic system to launch planes and the arresting gear to catch them when they land." So let's see, the only the problem with this aircraft carrier is that it has trouble with airplanes taking off. And landing. And carrying, you know, bombs.

smacktoward 7y ago
“But other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
el_benhameen 7y ago
This all seems fine to me, then. They can't get the bombs to the planes, but that's fine because the planes can't take off, which is fine because they couldn't land anyway.
- weego 7y ago
  Seems like a pretty decent take on an MVP to me. Ship it.
  - thunderrabbit 7y ago
    Oops! Wrong industry! /s
  - iseanstevens 7y ago
    Literally, a ship.
- Havoc 7y ago
  Hey if you're ever sick of programming I've got a government job for you. Chief widget surveyor.
  - penagwin 7y ago
    READ: Docker Container Enthusiast

Animats 7y ago

Amazingly, this seems to be a software problem.[1] [1] https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/02/21/after-carrier-fords-elevators-failed-navy-building-new-test-site.html https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/02/21/after-carrie...

hirundo 7y ago

I can't build a little software app without going over schedule by approximately double, if I'm lucky. And if I get it wrong the consequence is my boss looks sad. These guys are building one of the largest most complex gizmos in human history. And if they get it wrong sailors die. So personally I'll cut them a little slack. So it's probably a good thing that I'm not their project manager.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I'll cut them this slack: They don't need the Ford. If it never works right, it was wasteful, and embarrassing, and, sure, they really could have used it. But they don't need it the way we needed, say, the Essex class carriers in World War II. The time to experiment with new stuff is precisely when you don't have to have something that works. So throwing all the new razzle-dazzle techniques into one ship, letting them be ironed out or rejected... that's actually not all that crazy.
pmontra 7y ago
The USA built 4 to 6 carriers and their fleet per year during WW2 [1] [2]. They were complex gizmos too back at the time. Ok, the whole county was fully committed to that so it could be an unfair comparison but it shows the difference between wanting to ship a product that works on a tight schedule and trying to build the dream project. Plenty of examples on the history of IT. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence-class_aircraft_carrier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence-class_aircraft_...
- mythrwy 7y ago
  I have a theory that on the rise of a civilization soon after comes the rise of career bureaucrats who proceed to strangle the civilization and this has been going on since at least the Sumerians.

chewz 7y ago

https://youtu.be/IKQlQlQ6_pk?t=82 https://youtu.be/IKQlQlQ6_pk?t=82

chewz 7y ago

German Engineering Yields New Warship That Isn’t Fit for Sea > ”There’s a whole generation of German engineers who haven’t worked on a major defense project,” said Mr. Mölling, the defense expert. “It’s not that they lost this skill; they never learned it.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-engineering-yields-new-warship-that-isnt-fit-for-sea-1515753000?mod=rsswn https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-engineering-yields-new-w...

Havoc 7y ago
So they would have you believe...

nimbius 7y ago

The question Ive been wondering is not whether the Ford is a total dud, but were its changes even reasonable? or were they just tacked on as some misplaced future-chasing value-add. For example, the electromagnetic launcher. Why have a launcher at all? the USSR's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier solved the aircraft launching problem ages ago and for far cheaper. just slope the deck. and Magnetic elevators? why? was there a specific concern or reason behind using magnets instead of tried-and-true cables? why were we redesigning doors and hatches when the old ones ostensibly performed fine?

ceejayoz 7y ago
> Why have a launcher at all? the USSR's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier solved the aircraft launching problem ages ago and for far cheaper. just slope the deck. Catapults permit heavier payloads, higher takeoff rates, aircraft that wouldn't be able to take off under their own power from such a short runway, and a number of other major benefits. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/32828/what-is-the-benefit-of-a-curved-up-flight-deck https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/32828/what-is-t...
- chaosbutters 7y ago
  should've gone with trebuchets for optimal performance
thunderbird120 7y ago
STOBAR[1] carriers like the Kuznetsov are vastly less capable than CATOBAR[2] carriers, they're the budget option. Using a ramp rather than a catapult means that the types of aircraft you can operate are more limited and the weapons and fuel loads they can actually get into the air with are significantly reduced. As for the new systems in the Ford class. The EMALS system replaces conventional steam powered catapults because it can be more finely tuned to individual aircraft types. This means less stress on airframes which translates to longer operational lifespans. It also allows for easier launching of a wider variety of aircraft weights. In the case of both the catapult and the elevators, the new systems are mechanically much simpler than the old ones leading to reduced operating costs. All of the changes mentioned exist for a good reason, the issue is that they weren't implemented competently. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATOBAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CATOBAR

Causality1 7y ago

Cost+ needs to die. These massive companies should be required to deliver on budget or bankrupt themselves trying.

readams 7y ago

It's worth noting that problems like this are pretty normal for new weapons systems. Th V-22 Osprey is a good example here: it seemed like a disaster when it came out, but it's now got its kinks worked out and is performing really well.

kwindla 7y ago
If you're interested in big engineering projects and how they work culturally/politically as well as technologically, Richard Whittle's book about the V-22 Osprey is really worth reading. _The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey_
- ware_am_i 7y ago
  Thanks for the recommendation! I'm in the midst of a big and culturally/politically challenging engineering project and eager to learn... so much so that I signed up for a library card and checked out the ebook from the LA Public Library!
  - JBlue42 7y ago
    That library card comes with tons of other benefits too. Free streaming on Kanopy, NYT membership, museum discounts / passes (https://www.lapl.org/explorela https://www.lapl.org/explorela).
SkyMarshal 7y ago
It also seems to be pretty normal in these cases for the media to report on it as if it's not normal. And worse, to sometimes use language like "can't", implying an unsolvable problem. In this particular case it appears that two of the elevators are working, and the rest have hit snags due to mismeasurements that can be fixed with some re-welding. Behind schedule, but the tech appears to be fundamentally viable.
neurobashing 7y ago
I think the fear is that we don’t have 20 years to spend on this ship, the F-35, etc. Eg, fixing the problems with the M16 wasn’t that hard: chrome the chamber and change the training program fixed a lot for very little cost and without too many casualties (you can always pull m14s out of inventory!) Not so with an aircraft carrier, destroyer (rounds for the Zumwalt will never be made), and maybe the F35 will only occasionally decapitate it’s pilots

arethuza 7y ago

Well, at least you didn't build it to only be able to operate the F35B and no other fixed wing aircraft! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08)

magduf 7y ago
I see no indication that that ship can only operate the F35B. It's designed for VSTOL aircraft, so it doesn't have catapults like American carriers. This isn't new for the UK: they previously had carriers that only used the Harrier, another VSTOL jet. This new ship can surely use the Harrier, but of course the Harrier is pretty old at this point compared to the F35B, but if they needed to, they could go back to it. Or if someone built a different VSTOL jet, they could use that too. Maybe they could also buy some V-22s from the US. Building a carrier that only operates VSTOL aircraft is not an unreasonable thing to do. The US does it too, with their "amphibious assault ships" run by the Marines: these are basically mini aircraft carriers that are just like this ship in your link, and operate only VSTOL (F35B, V-22 Osprey) aircraft and helicopters. If it's good enough for the US Marines with their ships like this one[1], why is it a problem for the Brits? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assau...
- nradov 7y ago
  There is actually no way to go back to the Harrier. Production was shut down years ago, the industrial base is long gone, and the UK sold off everything they had. There are no other V/STOL tactical aircraft in the development pipeline. The F-35B will be the only available choice for decades to come.
- liability 7y ago
  AFAIK the ramp precludes anything other than rotary wing AEW, or at least it precludes the E-2 in particular. That seems like a bigger deal than which models of jump jet can be used. An E-2 can be flown an hour or two longer but twice as high as a Merlin HM2. At 4.5 km up the horizon is 241 km away. At 10.6 km it's 367 km. Translated to area covered up to the horizon, that's 18,000 km^2 vs 42,000 km^2. So because it has a ramp, the HMS Queen Elizabeth has less than half the AEW coverage.

duxup 7y ago

I'd like to know what the development cycle for new weapons is and how it usually works. It's not the same but all new code I write doesn't work at some point / needs to be reworked / etc. I guess what I'm saying is it is really hard to know what not working at this point really means. It's so easy to walk into any situation and throw up your hands and panic when you don't know.

colechristensen 7y ago
Decades. The JSF (F-35) program began in 1993, the first flight was in 2000, the first time in combat was in 2018, and they're currently shaking out production bugs on the few hundred which have been built. They're slated to be operational until 2070.

cosmodisk 7y ago

Looks like a perfect ship for peacekeeping operations: you can't start a war with a carrier that can't launch/land jet fighters or bring bombs from the storage facility below the deck.Perfect. As always, this boils down to three main things that have been valid since day one of the humanity: stupidity, corruption and negligence.

simonblack 7y ago

If it works, don't fix it.

simonblack 7y ago
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." It's best to have a steam catapult that works, even if not so well than an electromagnetic catapult that doesn't work at all. Ditto for the elevators.

peterwwillis 7y ago

It's useful to remember, when we end up with incredibly expensive and totally ineffective weapons systems, that our military budget is more than double that of the next highest-spending nation, that it's about 3/4 of our federal discretionary spending, and the 3rd largest category of federal expenditure overall, at roughly 692 Billion dollars. We spend more on social security and health care, but far less on Veterans, Transportation, Food & Agriculture, Education, International Affairs, Housing, Energy, Science, and Labor.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

One of the key tools of the 9/11 attacks were box cutters. It's said the Russians influenced - and are still influencing (per Mueller) - our elections and (said) democratic processes with a few buckets of cash and some well placed internet misinformation. The threat of a cyber-attacked is very real. And we're still building multi-billion-dollar 20th century-minded war ships???

nordsieck 7y ago
> And we're still building multi-billion-dollar 20th century-minded war ships??? That's the thing that gets me. If the US is going to buy naval ships, at least get ones with a real purpose. The ships that are good against 3rd world nations are something like patrol boats. Cheap, small, fast boats with a shallow draft. The ships that are good against 1st world nations are submarines. Everything else will get sunk by ballistic missiles. One of the side effects of the second space race is that the knowledge to build medium range ballistic missiles is becoming increasingly more common. To a certain extent, it doesn't matter what the US builds; the last time it's been challenged militarily was the Korean War. It doesn't matter... until it does. And at that point, it'll be too late.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  But it does matter what's being built if it's the wrong thing(s) for the wrong century. We're spending more and more, yet are less and less safe. The MIC makes out well. The rest of us less so __and__ we get to pay the MIC's tab.
- wbl 7y ago
  What happened to Vietnam and Afghanistan?
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > What happened to Vietnam and Afghanistan? My understanding of Vietnam is that the US was defeated politically, not militarily. Afghanistan poses even less of a military threat than Vietnam.

kalalala024 7y ago

The military got the best and brightest during WWII because the US was fighting Nazis ... and a foreign enemy who had attacked us on our own soil. https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasyfootball2019/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fantasyfootball2019/ For Vietnam, they had to draft because few believed in the cause and what they got where those too powerless to escape the draft

m0zg 7y ago

Sounds like the same problem Germans had during WW2: weapons are too advanced and as a result very easy to fuck up when they see action, expensive to make, and impossible to repair. Same with planes: all that nice anti-radar coating loses effectiveness after a just few combat sorties. Military gear needs to be simple as a shovel, and not require a PhD to operate and repair. It also needs to be cheap and easy to manufacture (for some definition of "cheap" and "easy", given that this is an aircraft carrier), so you could make more of it if needed, reasonably quickly. None of the stuff the US military industrial complex has been producing for the past several decades fits this description even remotely. What was wrong with the older, tried and true systems? Sure, they were slower, but nobody else in the world has anything that comes close anyway, and won't have it in the foreseeable future.

Gustomaximus 7y ago
Russia has an interesting solution. With much equiptment design an advanced model and a simplified monkey model. The monkey model is used for 1) export (to avoid sharing tech) and 2) so they have a verison they can manufacture quickly and cheaply in war. This under the theory wars tend to be won very quickly, or via attrition. So if both sides fail to blitz each other, Russia is well placed to churn out machinery fast for the attrition component. For the same reason they stack their army with officers (or used to) giving them the ability to bring in civilians and split officers into multiple groups if they want to ramp up man-power fast.
mschuster91 7y ago
> Sure, they were slower, but nobody else in the world has anything that comes close anyway, and won't have it in the foreseeable future. China has a billion people combined with (thanks to spionage) modern aircraft. Give them a decade and they'll build their own aircraft carriers.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Yeah, and they could land people on the moon, too. One day. Maybe.

crb002 7y ago

Gone are the days of Grace Hopper.

ruytlm 7y ago

Relevant from 2017: https://warisboring.com/how-not-to-build-an-aircraft-carrier/ https://warisboring.com/how-not-to-build-an-aircraft-carrier...

anovikov 7y ago

No problem here really. It's best to debug the ship while it is already being used - issues come up more frequently. It's not a dangerous time in the U.S. history now - probably, safest time ever (no real enemies left since 1992 and nothing to fight for since the U.S. achieved oil independence recently). It's the best to do it in exactly the way it's done - spend another 5 years debugging the ship while it's being used in some sort of reduced capability mode, then another year to retrofit all fixes to the 2nd ship of class, and it will still be okay. People who see delays in major weapon programs as catastrophic, forget that the potential adversaries either protracted their equivalents for decades, or cancelled them altogether. F-22 looked like a mad dash to arrive to the 5th generation fighter ahead of Soviet Union, in 1991. It's been developed, all of them are built, fully learned by their crews and already start to age, and Russian 5th generation is still nowhere on the horizon - their abortion sort of project has even been discarded by the Indians as not matching their minimal requirements, and is in limbo since then. It's more or less the same with all similar projects.

mschuster91 7y ago
> no real enemies left since 1992 and nothing to fight for since the U.S. achieved oil independence recently There is one big enemy on the horizon: China, which gets ever more and more aggressive. That trade war may very well escalate in a real war, with the Chinese holding an absurd amount of leverage since the US doesn't have much manufacturing at home any more. In addition, there is Africa - which is the only market that hasn't been saturated already and only needs a bit of kickstarting. China has seen this and massively invested, and they will sell to Africa and grow on that, not the US.
- anovikov 7y ago
  What's the problem with that? How does rich and prosperous China threaten U.S. security? If anything, destitute and hopeless one does - they would have nothing to lose and would push through some radical agenda for the rulers to stay in power. If China becomes richer and more influential, there is nothing bad for the U.S. in that. World isn't zero-sum. Soviet Union was dangerous because it pushed through Communist ideas which threatened to uproot everything the Western world stands upon, starting with family and religion. China isn't going to do any of that shit, they are a super-pragmatic nation and they don't believe into any "ideas" themselves for that matter. If their way of government threatens Western democracy i'm more on the side of them rather than Western democracy: i strongly believe that market capitalism is incompatible with (universal) electoral democracy and for them to coexist, you have to turn one of them, or both, into fakes. It's time for West to get back republican model of government back to it's roots when only responsible, tax-paying immovable properly/production asset owners voted. If Chinese pressure will nudge them to do it sooner, good for them!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dwighttk 7y ago

I mean, they can, just at 2/11ths planned capacity.