5 ms·

Yup. How many times does this engineering mistake have to be made? "Let's save time and money by not building a prototype and do our testing of the system on t

by krapht 7y ago

Yup. How many times does this engineering mistake have to be made? "Let's save time and money by not building a prototype and do our testing of the system on the actual ship itself!" Whenever someone thinks: let's cut corners on "x" to save money and time, it has always come around to bite me. And now they are far behind schedule, and they ended up having to build a carrier replica at the drydock to do testing anyway.

cle 7y ago
It keeps happening b/c so many people have the same attitude as GP: find scapegoats and fire them! That will fix the systemic problems...right?! No, it won't.
- vkou 7y ago
  It will if the scapegoats are admirals. From my conversation with navy folks, unless a scandal sinks an admiral, the organization does not take it seriously, and will not make any institutional changes.
  - cryptonector 7y ago
    +1 But if the only scapegoats are lower down in the chain then the result will be devastating to morale. The SecNavy has to fire one or more admirals here, and soon.
    - frankharv 7y ago
      As a yard worker, In some ways I feel sorry for NewportNews Shipyard. These elevators are designs the Navy brought to them. Not something they designed. They built it to spec and it did not work. Now the blame game. As someone above noted, The Navy did not even build a land based prototype. Now whose fault is this mess? I had thought it would be the catapult system that failed. Instead it is too powerful and they are still tuning it. They are worried about the stress on the nose gear. Some birds are still restricted in weight last I heard.
      - fock 7y ago
        the most probable cause is there aren't any contractors available anymore in the US who are able/willing to build such things. This is really sad.
  - cle 7y ago
    If the systemic mechanisms and incentives haven’t changed, is the problem really solved?
  - PaulAJ 7y ago
    Voltaire: "in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, in order to encourage the others". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng#Honorific_eponyms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng#Honorific_eponyms
user5994461 7y ago
Some of the systems might be unique, if not new technology or specifically designed and made for this use case, with the R&D sponsored as part of the project budget. There might not be a prototype, because the delivered item is the prototype. Sure, it should be tested before being shipped, but it doesn't help when it ultimately doesn't perform as expected and there is no alternative at hands.
JJMcJ 7y ago
> not building a prototype Old saying, "Fastest way to build a six inch reflector telescope is to build a four inch telescope first." That is, learn in the simplest possible context. Like companies that won't build an MVP or even a non-sellable proof of concept. Finding out a key software library doesn't work three weeks before launch day, for example.
chiph 7y ago
They did build a land version of the EMALs launch system. Here it is launching a F-35. There must have been a design change between when this was built & tested, and when they installed it on the Ford. Which would be the wrong thing to do - always install upgrades/changes in test before production. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAQtlmtCe8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAQtlmtCe8
- phonon 7y ago
  All these technologies "worked" before they were installed. They are just not yet reliable enough.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
"“I think when the Navy started off, they had a really good plan,” Paul Francis, of the Government Accountability Office, told the Senate in 2016. “They were going to build two ships, experimental ships.” But in 2005, having assured itself that “optimal manning works,” the Navy decided to skip the experimentation and move straight to construction. From this point on, whenever the Navy tried to study the feasibility of minimal manning, its analysis was colored by the fact that—on these ships, at least—it had to work. Dozens of littoral combat ships were on their way. The Giffords was the 10th to deploy." Taken from: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/future-of-work-expertise-navy/590647/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/future-...
Nomentatus 7y ago
Reminds me that the first U.S. ship to ship night naval battles with the Japanese in WWII were tragic (for the U.S.) 'cause the American super-fancy new-tech Mark 14 torpedoes hadn't been properly tested; that would have been "too expensive." So they were just made and deployed - and since defective, didn't trigger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo So "this engineering mistake" indeed has to be made ad nauseum, it would seem. As Einstein said, only space and human stupidity are infinite.
- fock 7y ago
  back then the US had still a solid industrial base outside of a oligopolic, capitalistic industrial-military-complex which is only interested in making money by milking the government (as opposed to making money in the long-term by supporting a solid, diverse array of industrial ventures)

by krapht 7y ago

cle 7y ago

It keeps happening b/c so many people have the same attitude as GP: find scapegoats and fire them! That will fix the systemic problems...right?! No, it won't.

vkou 7y ago
It will if the scapegoats are admirals. From my conversation with navy folks, unless a scandal sinks an admiral, the organization does not take it seriously, and will not make any institutional changes.
- cryptonector 7y ago
  +1 But if the only scapegoats are lower down in the chain then the result will be devastating to morale. The SecNavy has to fire one or more admirals here, and soon.
  - frankharv 7y ago
    As a yard worker, In some ways I feel sorry for NewportNews Shipyard. These elevators are designs the Navy brought to them. Not something they designed. They built it to spec and it did not work. Now the blame game. As someone above noted, The Navy did not even build a land based prototype. Now whose fault is this mess? I had thought it would be the catapult system that failed. Instead it is too powerful and they are still tuning it. They are worried about the stress on the nose gear. Some birds are still restricted in weight last I heard.
    - fock 7y ago
      the most probable cause is there aren't any contractors available anymore in the US who are able/willing to build such things. This is really sad.
- cle 7y ago
  If the systemic mechanisms and incentives haven’t changed, is the problem really solved?
- PaulAJ 7y ago
  Voltaire: "in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, in order to encourage the others". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng#Honorific_eponyms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng#Honorific_eponyms

user5994461 7y ago

Some of the systems might be unique, if not new technology or specifically designed and made for this use case, with the R&D sponsored as part of the project budget. There might not be a prototype, because the delivered item is the prototype. Sure, it should be tested before being shipped, but it doesn't help when it ultimately doesn't perform as expected and there is no alternative at hands.

JJMcJ 7y ago

> not building a prototype Old saying, "Fastest way to build a six inch reflector telescope is to build a four inch telescope first." That is, learn in the simplest possible context. Like companies that won't build an MVP or even a non-sellable proof of concept. Finding out a key software library doesn't work three weeks before launch day, for example.

chiph 7y ago

They did build a land version of the EMALs launch system. Here it is launching a F-35. There must have been a design change between when this was built & tested, and when they installed it on the Ford. Which would be the wrong thing to do - always install upgrades/changes in test before production. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAQtlmtCe8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAQtlmtCe8

phonon 7y ago
All these technologies "worked" before they were installed. They are just not yet reliable enough.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

"“I think when the Navy started off, they had a really good plan,” Paul Francis, of the Government Accountability Office, told the Senate in 2016. “They were going to build two ships, experimental ships.” But in 2005, having assured itself that “optimal manning works,” the Navy decided to skip the experimentation and move straight to construction. From this point on, whenever the Navy tried to study the feasibility of minimal manning, its analysis was colored by the fact that—on these ships, at least—it had to work. Dozens of littoral combat ships were on their way. The Giffords was the 10th to deploy." Taken from: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/future-of-work-expertise-navy/590647/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/future-...

Nomentatus 7y ago

Reminds me that the first U.S. ship to ship night naval battles with the Japanese in WWII were tragic (for the U.S.) 'cause the American super-fancy new-tech Mark 14 torpedoes hadn't been properly tested; that would have been "too expensive." So they were just made and deployed - and since defective, didn't trigger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo So "this engineering mistake" indeed has to be made ad nauseum, it would seem. As Einstein said, only space and human stupidity are infinite.

fock 7y ago
back then the US had still a solid industrial base outside of a oligopolic, capitalistic industrial-military-complex which is only interested in making money by milking the government (as opposed to making money in the long-term by supporting a solid, diverse array of industrial ventures)