11 ms·

A Tale of Two Ships [pdf]

95 points by dmurray 7y ago

michaelmcdonald 7y ago
"You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"
- mrec 7y ago
  Independence Day?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ThinkingGuy 7y ago
  Worth reading: "The Myth of the $600 Hammer" https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/ https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...
  - hapless 7y ago
    This article subverts its own thesis. The $435 hammer was an “accounting artifact,” but the government is routinely fleeced and the DoD in particular is unable to accomplish basic accounting tasks. My favorite paragraph: > Conversely, said defense analyst Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a conservative Arlington, Va., think tank, the $2 billion-per-plane figure cited by opponents of the B-2 stealth bomber includes the program's high research and development expenses--which must be spread over only 21 planes--plus spare parts, maintenance and future inflation. Said Thompson: "What would it cost me to build one more bomber? . . . $700 million." Gee, what a steal! Only $700 million for a “stealth” “bomber” that is neither stealthy nor able to carry a significant payload.
    - greedo 7y ago
      Your last sentence is filled with so many factual errors... The B2 is considered the most stealthy of any of the fifth generation aircraft currently flying. And it carries a 40K payload. Yes, that's smaller than the B-52 and B-1, but it's fine for it's role.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
It really surprises me that companies can get away with scamming the government so badly, and nobody gets shot (or at least put in jail) for that.
- netsharc 7y ago
  "Hello Senator, let's play golf again next month. Bahamas? My private jet will pick you and your family up, the penthouse at the $LUXURY hotel is booked for you. And your favorites Natalia and Svetlana will be waiting too".
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    It doesn't even take that much. Beurocrat A: "Company X really botched the contract, like to the point of near criminal, definitely civil, negligince, we should probably go after them in court so we don't set a precedent of allowing this sort of thing" Bureaucrat B: "Don't be unrealistic, company X donated amount Y to <campaign of person who's party currently heads up the executive branch of the level of government in question>, there's no way that would stick." And then bureaucrats A and B proceed to spend the rest of their day doing things that actually count toward whatever their performance metrics are.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      Exactly, and I like how you painted neither A nor B as evil at all. Which is how things move along so smoothly. Most people don't love the shit, they just put up with it.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  I dunno, when was the last time the US had an anti-corruption effort where anyone paid any kind of price? I'm old enough to remember Abscam[1], the outcome of which seemed to be "hey, American politicians can be bought for super cheap!" Also: whether or not he killed himself, l'affaire Epstein indicates that our politicians are swine who can be bought off in more simple and sleazey ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam
novalis78 7y ago
Great write-up. I am sure Thorconpower knows all too well, sadly, a tale of ‘two nuclear reactors’ and extensive paperwork for quality control... in an alternative universe their exciting design for MSTR would already be mass produced.
dooglius 7y ago
I've always wondered why the government doesn't try a payment-on-delivery model. That would put the risk on the supplier and fix the incentive problems. A counter-argument would be that it creates significant barriers to entry, but it seems like these contracts go to the big powerhouses anyway.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > I've always wondered why the government doesn't try a payment-on-delivery model. Because we're not talking about generic widgets here. It's the difference between buying a bespoke Saville Row suit and a 3-for-1 Suit Warehouse suit. There are all sorts of off-the-shelf (OTS) designs for general use vessels like tugboats: * https://ral.ca/designs/tugboats/ https://ral.ca/designs/tugboats/ And there are some 'generic' designs for combat vessels: * https://products.damen.com/en/clusters/combatants https://products.damen.com/en/clusters/combatants But if you purchase a generic design, then you don't have an advantage of your (potential) opponent because they may also have purchased a generic design. The US military specifically does not want a generic design (at least in some areas) because they want (perceived) advantage with more (supposedly) advanced design. And someone has to pay for the R&D on that advanced design. Given that the only market for these boats is the USN, why should the builder pay for the R&D? It's their (only?) customer that's asking for this, and they can't use what they learn for any other designs (because of ITAR export restrictions). When Ford is doing research for a new F-150 they can spread the R&D over millions of units getting economies of scale, but (e.g.) Bath Iron Works can't exactly amortize the fixed costs of the Zumwalt-class destroyer if their only customer, the USN, says they'll buy 32 but then only builds 3. Why should BIW be the ones to pay? It's the reason why the F-22 and F-35 have different costs: the Raptor is a US-only plane that no one else can touch, the Lightning II is cheaper because it's available for export and gets economies of scale.
  - hapless 7y ago
    In reality BIW gets to double dip — they charge for R&D and also postpone the “D” part until after the ship is built, at which point the Navy will pay again to fix problems that should never have made it out of the yard. Why do anything right the first time if you can get paid twice, thrice, or six times to fix your fuckups later? P.S. if I buy a bespoke suit, I pay a fixed cost and it’s guaranteed correct — problems are paid for by the maker, not me.
TheSoftwareGuy 7y ago
>If the job of building a 22 knot, 25,000 ton ship capable of carrying 700 marines a couple of helicopters and a couple of air cushion vehicles were put out for competitive bid to the the world shipyards, I am quite confident the price would come in under 50 million dollars, quite possibly well-under. And the ships would perform per spec. >In some situations, the difference between what it should cost and what it did cost can be a factor of 30. ... And that's the end of the article. I'm not saying the author is wrong or makes any dubious claims, but I really wish he would have explored his alternative more thoroughly. It's quite an easy assertion to make, that US military acquisitions are rife with inefficiencies, but solving that problem is much harder.
- Gravityloss 7y ago
  You can look at more complex ships. A cruise ship for example.
- all2 7y ago
  > It's quite an easy assertion to make, that US military acquisitions are rife with inefficiencies, but solving that problem is much harder. My favorite example of this was the US Army's decision to use the ACU design pattern. The only thing it blends in with is Gramma's floral couch. In terms of ships and other equipment, having a commercial manufacturer step into the military space would be like asking Ford or GMC to make Bradley Fighting Vehicles; they don't have the know-how for combat ready manufacturing. The systems in any combat vehicle are an order of magnitude more complex than commercial offerings in terms of design, verification, and manufacturing. Part of this is the military requirement for 3rd party integrations. The BFV is manufactured by BAE Systems, but the turret optics/electronics package is Raytheon. An engineering firm I'm familiar with recently got the contract for part of the M1 Abrams tier 4 (?not sure?) upgrades and has to meet integration requirements of existing hardware/electronics and new hardware/electronics other bid winners are contributing. I would argue that, aside from the run-of-the-mill pocket lining (see ACU design selection), the acquisition process for military equipment is necessarily inefficient.
  - linksnapzz 7y ago
hapless 7y ago
Just think, this was a “successful” project. If you think this sounds like a boondoggle, look at the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Zumwalt class, or the Gerald E. Ford. The disaster described in this essay is the proverbial good old days. DoD procurement has gotten worse since then.
pp19dd 7y ago
IMO this might be the most significant point in the doc. "Ship’s XO Sean Kearns refuses Captain’s mast, is court-martialed." While underway, commander/captain is judge, jury and executioner for disciplinary issues. They call it "Captain's mast" and the powers that come with it are wide and can be extreme, including demotions and docking pay. The XO refused to receive the ship commander's punishment while on mission. Tantamount to a mutiny.
- edw 7y ago
  And yet he is, per the PDF, acquitted.
  - jagged-chisel 7y ago
    I'm curious what orders were given and refused. We can assume that they were related to forcing approval of ship's readiness or some such, but I'd really like to be sure.
- iso1210 7y ago
  Must be a different Sean Kearns to the one who refused to accept a discommendation (not while underway), unlike the captain, and pushed for a court martial to get the real story out of what a dangerous ship it is. That's nothing to do with mutiny at sea, or mutiny at all.
- metabagel 7y ago
  The Navy decided to punish Kearns after he had transferred from the ship, not while on mission. "A sailor drowned after being thrown into the sea when an 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) flipped while being lowered into the water from amphibious transport dock USS San Antonio (LPD-17) on the first-in-class ship’s initial deployment. At the time, San Antonio was operating in the Gulf of Aden. Ship commander Cmdr. Eric Cash received a letter of reprimand. The amphib’s executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. Sean Kearns, was found not guilty of negligence. Kearns had transferred from the ship when the Navy decided to levy a punishment. Instead of accepting non-judicial punishment, Kearns opted to fight a single charge of negligence in a military court. During the trial, according to news reports, his lawyers presented information detailing how, at the time of the incident, San Antonio remained an unfinished vessel with thousands of faulty welds, engine trouble and only a portion of the standard technical manuals typically found onboard. Kearns’ promotion to commander, which had been delayed pending the trial, took effect after the verdict." https://news.usni.org/2018/01/22/30725 https://news.usni.org/2018/01/22/30725
gk1 7y ago
In ~2009 I worked with the engineering manager for this class of ship. Can confirm it was chaotic. Not in the sense that we didn't know what we were doing, but in the sense that every other week some crazy issue would come up. At one point I had to inventory every... single... weld... on the ship because we questioned their quality. At another time (2007), a diesel engine en route to the ship fell off a truck and crushed a car, barely missing a woman who was sleeping in the back. Nothing to do with the ship's quality, but imagine getting that news while already putting out so many fires. On the bright side, I got to be onboard one of these ships during a multi-day sea trial, which was a lot of fun. With all that said... It is completely unhelpful to compare the cost of a military ship to a commercial ship. The commercial ships are very simple and cookie-cutter[1], unlike military ships that are almost always new designs and involve complex, integrated systems such as communication, defense, hospitals, refueling, etc, etc. [1] I wrote about this just last week: https://www.gkogan.co/blog/simple-systems/ https://www.gkogan.co/blog/simple-systems/
- linksnapzz 7y ago
  The commercial ships are very simple and cookie-cutter[1], unlike military ships that are almost always new designs and involve complex, integrated systems such as communication, defense, hospitals, refueling, etc, etc. So, subsequent hull numbers for San Antonio class ended up being cheaper than 100% over budget? Likewise, is it customary for STX or Chantiers de l'Atlantique or Fincanterei to have to double-check the status of every single weld in ship they've delivered, or are the owners of cruise lines tolerant of massive cost overruns && late delivery?
  - gk1 7y ago
    Generally, the first ship of any class suffers the most issues. Similar to the first version of any major OS/software release. I don't remember the per-ship costs off-hand but I'd be surprised if they were higher than the first. Unfortunately the Navy doesn't have much choice in who builds their ships. They must be built in the US, and there are very few capable shipbuilders still left in this country. It's a terrible business to be in, so there's no incentive for companies to jump into the market because the margins are razor-thin. In fact, Northrop Grumman got out of the market a few years ago (http://investor.northropgrumman.com/news-releases/news-release-details/northrop-grumman-board-approves-spin-huntington-ingalls http://investor.northropgrumman.com/news-releases/news-relea...). (As an aside, cruise ships are still cookie-cutter compared to military ships.) To borrow a quote from Churchill, "[the current ship procurement process] is the worst form of [procurement], except for all those others that have been tried."
rwmurrayVT 7y ago
The USS San Antonio just left BAE Systems NSR within the last 6 months. In fact, this week it has just returned from sea trials to NAVSTA Norfolk. There were plenty of issues during the availability, including that damn stern gate. :-)
gumby 7y ago
The us has allies with which it shares technology and weapons. Why should it not have diversity in sourcing?
mojomark 7y ago
As someone who has worked in both commercial ship and U.S. defense ship design and construction for over 20 years, this is one of the most absurd and uninformed write-ups I've ever seen. VLCC's (an example of a commercial ship or "black hulls") are designed to minimize cost. They use the cheapest steel, burn the cheapest fuel - it's basically a metal bucket with a motor. LPD's (a military vessel (more specifically an amphib) or "grey hull") is constructed of higher end materials to protect itself and it's crew in peace time and it war. Just to give you an example of where some of that cost comes from - LPD's have flight decks with night vision compatible visual landing aids so pilots can land at night concurrent with LCACs bing loaded into the well deck. The flight deck can handle the intense structural heat loading of V-22 aircraft. They have massive hangars to store and maintain aircraft, with precision gantry cranes to do delicate aircraft parts replacement aboard the ship. There is an ASSIST RAST track that does not deteriorate over time and jeopardize heavy weather aircraft landings. There is a state of the art help control station... ALL OF THIS is shock qualified to survive blasts. The list goes on and on - combat systems, command and control, freshwater generation and sewage systems for a massive crew (compared to a ~20 person merchant ship), a propulsion and steering system with much higher installed power and power density than anything anyone would put on a commercial ship due to stringent speed and maneuvering requirements. All of this is very difficult to integrate into a design and equally difficult to build. If you think you're going to design and build a grey hull at the same displacement cost (steel weight) as a grey hull, you are grossly mistaken. You're comparing a custom Ferrari to a bare bones van and saying "hey, this can weighs more and costs way less. Gee, I need to write a paper to let everyone know that Ferraris are way over priced." Ding dong.
- theamk 7y ago
  I don't think anyone expects price parity -- but I'd expect at least basic features to work? I don't think anyone would complain if flight deck failed, or new combat systems failed to perform to spec. Instead, report mentions what looks like basic features -- "deficiencies [..] major enough [to] compromise watertight integrity"? "Could not move under own power"? When one is paying for a Ferarri that's a lot of money.. but at least when the vehicle arrives, it can move under its own power and does not break down 2 month after.
tacon 7y ago
A few years ago I got an inside tour of the brand new LCS Jackson (littoral combat ship) while undergoing acceptance trials at Mayport Naval Base near Jacksonville, Florida. The Jackson was first of its new class. Why do they check every weld on a new Navy ship? So they can test it by trying to blow it up: https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2016/06/16/lcs-survives-first-shock-test-preps-for-more/ https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2016/06/16/lcs-survives... Not part of the acceptance test for a VLCC.
- trhway 7y ago
  from the link: >A 10,000-pound explosive charge was set off about a hundred yards from the Jackson – the Navy wouldn't say exactly how close, saying the actual distance is classified and they provided the photo clearly allowing for the precise calculation :) - the explosion is about 12 widths of the helicopter deck from the ship and that means at least 200-250m which sounds more realistic as setting off a 5ton explosion 100m from a small aluminum ship - who is going to pay for all that damage :) If the test is officially declared for anything close to 100m then that may be another case of "Pentagon Wars" ...

95 points by dmurray 7y ago

michaelmcdonald 7y ago

"You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"

mrec 7y ago
Independence Day?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ThinkingGuy 7y ago
Worth reading: "The Myth of the $600 Hammer" https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/ https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...
- hapless 7y ago
  This article subverts its own thesis. The $435 hammer was an “accounting artifact,” but the government is routinely fleeced and the DoD in particular is unable to accomplish basic accounting tasks. My favorite paragraph: > Conversely, said defense analyst Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a conservative Arlington, Va., think tank, the $2 billion-per-plane figure cited by opponents of the B-2 stealth bomber includes the program's high research and development expenses--which must be spread over only 21 planes--plus spare parts, maintenance and future inflation. Said Thompson: "What would it cost me to build one more bomber? . . . $700 million." Gee, what a steal! Only $700 million for a “stealth” “bomber” that is neither stealthy nor able to carry a significant payload.
  - greedo 7y ago
    Your last sentence is filled with so many factual errors... The B2 is considered the most stealthy of any of the fifth generation aircraft currently flying. And it carries a 40K payload. Yes, that's smaller than the B-52 and B-1, but it's fine for it's role.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

It really surprises me that companies can get away with scamming the government so badly, and nobody gets shot (or at least put in jail) for that.

netsharc 7y ago
"Hello Senator, let's play golf again next month. Bahamas? My private jet will pick you and your family up, the penthouse at the $LUXURY hotel is booked for you. And your favorites Natalia and Svetlana will be waiting too".
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  It doesn't even take that much. Beurocrat A: "Company X really botched the contract, like to the point of near criminal, definitely civil, negligince, we should probably go after them in court so we don't set a precedent of allowing this sort of thing" Bureaucrat B: "Don't be unrealistic, company X donated amount Y to <campaign of person who's party currently heads up the executive branch of the level of government in question>, there's no way that would stick." And then bureaucrats A and B proceed to spend the rest of their day doing things that actually count toward whatever their performance metrics are.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Exactly, and I like how you painted neither A nor B as evil at all. Which is how things move along so smoothly. Most people don't love the shit, they just put up with it.
scottlocklin 7y ago
I dunno, when was the last time the US had an anti-corruption effort where anyone paid any kind of price? I'm old enough to remember Abscam[1], the outcome of which seemed to be "hey, American politicians can be bought for super cheap!" Also: whether or not he killed himself, l'affaire Epstein indicates that our politicians are swine who can be bought off in more simple and sleazey ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam

novalis78 7y ago

Great write-up. I am sure Thorconpower knows all too well, sadly, a tale of ‘two nuclear reactors’ and extensive paperwork for quality control... in an alternative universe their exciting design for MSTR would already be mass produced.

dooglius 7y ago

I've always wondered why the government doesn't try a payment-on-delivery model. That would put the risk on the supplier and fix the incentive problems. A counter-argument would be that it creates significant barriers to entry, but it seems like these contracts go to the big powerhouses anyway.

throw0101a 7y ago
> I've always wondered why the government doesn't try a payment-on-delivery model. Because we're not talking about generic widgets here. It's the difference between buying a bespoke Saville Row suit and a 3-for-1 Suit Warehouse suit. There are all sorts of off-the-shelf (OTS) designs for general use vessels like tugboats: * https://ral.ca/designs/tugboats/ https://ral.ca/designs/tugboats/ And there are some 'generic' designs for combat vessels: * https://products.damen.com/en/clusters/combatants https://products.damen.com/en/clusters/combatants But if you purchase a generic design, then you don't have an advantage of your (potential) opponent because they may also have purchased a generic design. The US military specifically does not want a generic design (at least in some areas) because they want (perceived) advantage with more (supposedly) advanced design. And someone has to pay for the R&D on that advanced design. Given that the only market for these boats is the USN, why should the builder pay for the R&D? It's their (only?) customer that's asking for this, and they can't use what they learn for any other designs (because of ITAR export restrictions). When Ford is doing research for a new F-150 they can spread the R&D over millions of units getting economies of scale, but (e.g.) Bath Iron Works can't exactly amortize the fixed costs of the Zumwalt-class destroyer if their only customer, the USN, says they'll buy 32 but then only builds 3. Why should BIW be the ones to pay? It's the reason why the F-22 and F-35 have different costs: the Raptor is a US-only plane that no one else can touch, the Lightning II is cheaper because it's available for export and gets economies of scale.
- hapless 7y ago
  In reality BIW gets to double dip — they charge for R&D and also postpone the “D” part until after the ship is built, at which point the Navy will pay again to fix problems that should never have made it out of the yard. Why do anything right the first time if you can get paid twice, thrice, or six times to fix your fuckups later? P.S. if I buy a bespoke suit, I pay a fixed cost and it’s guaranteed correct — problems are paid for by the maker, not me.

TheSoftwareGuy 7y ago

>If the job of building a 22 knot, 25,000 ton ship capable of carrying 700 marines a couple of helicopters and a couple of air cushion vehicles were put out for competitive bid to the the world shipyards, I am quite confident the price would come in under 50 million dollars, quite possibly well-under. And the ships would perform per spec. >In some situations, the difference between what it should cost and what it did cost can be a factor of 30. ... And that's the end of the article. I'm not saying the author is wrong or makes any dubious claims, but I really wish he would have explored his alternative more thoroughly. It's quite an easy assertion to make, that US military acquisitions are rife with inefficiencies, but solving that problem is much harder.

Gravityloss 7y ago
You can look at more complex ships. A cruise ship for example.
all2 7y ago
> It's quite an easy assertion to make, that US military acquisitions are rife with inefficiencies, but solving that problem is much harder. My favorite example of this was the US Army's decision to use the ACU design pattern. The only thing it blends in with is Gramma's floral couch. In terms of ships and other equipment, having a commercial manufacturer step into the military space would be like asking Ford or GMC to make Bradley Fighting Vehicles; they don't have the know-how for combat ready manufacturing. The systems in any combat vehicle are an order of magnitude more complex than commercial offerings in terms of design, verification, and manufacturing. Part of this is the military requirement for 3rd party integrations. The BFV is manufactured by BAE Systems, but the turret optics/electronics package is Raytheon. An engineering firm I'm familiar with recently got the contract for part of the M1 Abrams tier 4 (?not sure?) upgrades and has to meet integration requirements of existing hardware/electronics and new hardware/electronics other bid winners are contributing. I would argue that, aside from the run-of-the-mill pocket lining (see ACU design selection), the acquisition process for military equipment is necessarily inefficient.
- linksnapzz 7y ago

hapless 7y ago

Just think, this was a “successful” project. If you think this sounds like a boondoggle, look at the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Zumwalt class, or the Gerald E. Ford. The disaster described in this essay is the proverbial good old days. DoD procurement has gotten worse since then.

pp19dd 7y ago

IMO this might be the most significant point in the doc. "Ship’s XO Sean Kearns refuses Captain’s mast, is court-martialed." While underway, commander/captain is judge, jury and executioner for disciplinary issues. They call it "Captain's mast" and the powers that come with it are wide and can be extreme, including demotions and docking pay. The XO refused to receive the ship commander's punishment while on mission. Tantamount to a mutiny.

edw 7y ago
And yet he is, per the PDF, acquitted.
- jagged-chisel 7y ago
  I'm curious what orders were given and refused. We can assume that they were related to forcing approval of ship's readiness or some such, but I'd really like to be sure.
iso1210 7y ago
Must be a different Sean Kearns to the one who refused to accept a discommendation (not while underway), unlike the captain, and pushed for a court martial to get the real story out of what a dangerous ship it is. That's nothing to do with mutiny at sea, or mutiny at all.
metabagel 7y ago
The Navy decided to punish Kearns after he had transferred from the ship, not while on mission. "A sailor drowned after being thrown into the sea when an 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) flipped while being lowered into the water from amphibious transport dock USS San Antonio (LPD-17) on the first-in-class ship’s initial deployment. At the time, San Antonio was operating in the Gulf of Aden. Ship commander Cmdr. Eric Cash received a letter of reprimand. The amphib’s executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. Sean Kearns, was found not guilty of negligence. Kearns had transferred from the ship when the Navy decided to levy a punishment. Instead of accepting non-judicial punishment, Kearns opted to fight a single charge of negligence in a military court. During the trial, according to news reports, his lawyers presented information detailing how, at the time of the incident, San Antonio remained an unfinished vessel with thousands of faulty welds, engine trouble and only a portion of the standard technical manuals typically found onboard. Kearns’ promotion to commander, which had been delayed pending the trial, took effect after the verdict." https://news.usni.org/2018/01/22/30725 https://news.usni.org/2018/01/22/30725

gk1 7y ago

In ~2009 I worked with the engineering manager for this class of ship. Can confirm it was chaotic. Not in the sense that we didn't know what we were doing, but in the sense that every other week some crazy issue would come up. At one point I had to inventory every... single... weld... on the ship because we questioned their quality. At another time (2007), a diesel engine en route to the ship fell off a truck and crushed a car, barely missing a woman who was sleeping in the back. Nothing to do with the ship's quality, but imagine getting that news while already putting out so many fires. On the bright side, I got to be onboard one of these ships during a multi-day sea trial, which was a lot of fun. With all that said... It is completely unhelpful to compare the cost of a military ship to a commercial ship. The commercial ships are very simple and cookie-cutter[1], unlike military ships that are almost always new designs and involve complex, integrated systems such as communication, defense, hospitals, refueling, etc, etc. [1] I wrote about this just last week: https://www.gkogan.co/blog/simple-systems/ https://www.gkogan.co/blog/simple-systems/

linksnapzz 7y ago
The commercial ships are very simple and cookie-cutter[1], unlike military ships that are almost always new designs and involve complex, integrated systems such as communication, defense, hospitals, refueling, etc, etc. So, subsequent hull numbers for San Antonio class ended up being cheaper than 100% over budget? Likewise, is it customary for STX or Chantiers de l'Atlantique or Fincanterei to have to double-check the status of every single weld in ship they've delivered, or are the owners of cruise lines tolerant of massive cost overruns && late delivery?
- gk1 7y ago
  Generally, the first ship of any class suffers the most issues. Similar to the first version of any major OS/software release. I don't remember the per-ship costs off-hand but I'd be surprised if they were higher than the first. Unfortunately the Navy doesn't have much choice in who builds their ships. They must be built in the US, and there are very few capable shipbuilders still left in this country. It's a terrible business to be in, so there's no incentive for companies to jump into the market because the margins are razor-thin. In fact, Northrop Grumman got out of the market a few years ago (http://investor.northropgrumman.com/news-releases/news-release-details/northrop-grumman-board-approves-spin-huntington-ingalls http://investor.northropgrumman.com/news-releases/news-relea...). (As an aside, cruise ships are still cookie-cutter compared to military ships.) To borrow a quote from Churchill, "[the current ship procurement process] is the worst form of [procurement], except for all those others that have been tried."

rwmurrayVT 7y ago

The USS San Antonio just left BAE Systems NSR within the last 6 months. In fact, this week it has just returned from sea trials to NAVSTA Norfolk. There were plenty of issues during the availability, including that damn stern gate. :-)

gumby 7y ago

The us has allies with which it shares technology and weapons. Why should it not have diversity in sourcing?

mojomark 7y ago

As someone who has worked in both commercial ship and U.S. defense ship design and construction for over 20 years, this is one of the most absurd and uninformed write-ups I've ever seen. VLCC's (an example of a commercial ship or "black hulls") are designed to minimize cost. They use the cheapest steel, burn the cheapest fuel - it's basically a metal bucket with a motor. LPD's (a military vessel (more specifically an amphib) or "grey hull") is constructed of higher end materials to protect itself and it's crew in peace time and it war. Just to give you an example of where some of that cost comes from - LPD's have flight decks with night vision compatible visual landing aids so pilots can land at night concurrent with LCACs bing loaded into the well deck. The flight deck can handle the intense structural heat loading of V-22 aircraft. They have massive hangars to store and maintain aircraft, with precision gantry cranes to do delicate aircraft parts replacement aboard the ship. There is an ASSIST RAST track that does not deteriorate over time and jeopardize heavy weather aircraft landings. There is a state of the art help control station... ALL OF THIS is shock qualified to survive blasts. The list goes on and on - combat systems, command and control, freshwater generation and sewage systems for a massive crew (compared to a ~20 person merchant ship), a propulsion and steering system with much higher installed power and power density than anything anyone would put on a commercial ship due to stringent speed and maneuvering requirements. All of this is very difficult to integrate into a design and equally difficult to build. If you think you're going to design and build a grey hull at the same displacement cost (steel weight) as a grey hull, you are grossly mistaken. You're comparing a custom Ferrari to a bare bones van and saying "hey, this can weighs more and costs way less. Gee, I need to write a paper to let everyone know that Ferraris are way over priced." Ding dong.

theamk 7y ago
I don't think anyone expects price parity -- but I'd expect at least basic features to work? I don't think anyone would complain if flight deck failed, or new combat systems failed to perform to spec. Instead, report mentions what looks like basic features -- "deficiencies [..] major enough [to] compromise watertight integrity"? "Could not move under own power"? When one is paying for a Ferarri that's a lot of money.. but at least when the vehicle arrives, it can move under its own power and does not break down 2 month after.

tacon 7y ago

A few years ago I got an inside tour of the brand new LCS Jackson (littoral combat ship) while undergoing acceptance trials at Mayport Naval Base near Jacksonville, Florida. The Jackson was first of its new class. Why do they check every weld on a new Navy ship? So they can test it by trying to blow it up: https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2016/06/16/lcs-survives-first-shock-test-preps-for-more/ https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2016/06/16/lcs-survives... Not part of the acceptance test for a VLCC.

trhway 7y ago
from the link: >A 10,000-pound explosive charge was set off about a hundred yards from the Jackson – the Navy wouldn't say exactly how close, saying the actual distance is classified and they provided the photo clearly allowing for the precise calculation :) - the explosion is about 12 widths of the helicopter deck from the ship and that means at least 200-250m which sounds more realistic as setting off a 5ton explosion 100m from a small aluminum ship - who is going to pay for all that damage :) If the test is officially declared for anything close to 100m then that may be another case of "Pentagon Wars" ...