4 ms·

>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

>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
  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. Strangely enough, seventy years ago commercial manufacturers ...GM, Ford, Chrysler, Food Machinery Corp(!), General Mills(!!), Western Electric etc. had the know-how for combat-ready manufacturing...what changed?
  - all2 7y ago
    > what changed? Complexity and integration requirements. Tanks 70 years ago were not as complex as our current heavy armor by several orders of magnitude. === EDIT === To clarify: the complexity arises from electronics and electro-mechanical assemblies, the chemistry/metallurgy/materials science from armor/chassis, engine complexity (M1 has a jet turbine), and so on. We have a depth of advancement that is as complex at the knowledge end as it is at the application end.
    - linksnapzz 7y ago
      70 years ago, cars weren't as complicated as tanks were. Do you think that automotive tech has stood still relative to military technology?
      - all2 7y ago
        > Do you think that automotive tech has stood still relative to military technology? No. But I do think military technology has outpaced modern consumer technology in terms of complexity.
        linksnapzz 7y ago
        Complexity in what sense? Level of hardware integration? # of embedded controllers? Amount of time necessary to familiarize oneself with the operation of the system?
protomyth 7y ago
under 50 million dollars Are ships so much cheaper than cargo airplanes? The 747-8 is around $400 million unit cost.
- cardiffspaceman 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship#Vessel_purchases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship#Vessel_purchase...

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
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. Strangely enough, seventy years ago commercial manufacturers ...GM, Ford, Chrysler, Food Machinery Corp(!), General Mills(!!), Western Electric etc. had the know-how for combat-ready manufacturing...what changed?
- all2 7y ago
  > what changed? Complexity and integration requirements. Tanks 70 years ago were not as complex as our current heavy armor by several orders of magnitude. === EDIT === To clarify: the complexity arises from electronics and electro-mechanical assemblies, the chemistry/metallurgy/materials science from armor/chassis, engine complexity (M1 has a jet turbine), and so on. We have a depth of advancement that is as complex at the knowledge end as it is at the application end.
  - linksnapzz 7y ago
    70 years ago, cars weren't as complicated as tanks were. Do you think that automotive tech has stood still relative to military technology?
    - all2 7y ago
      > Do you think that automotive tech has stood still relative to military technology? No. But I do think military technology has outpaced modern consumer technology in terms of complexity.
      - linksnapzz 7y ago
        Complexity in what sense? Level of hardware integration? # of embedded controllers? Amount of time necessary to familiarize oneself with the operation of the system?

protomyth 7y ago

under 50 million dollars Are ships so much cheaper than cargo airplanes? The 747-8 is around $400 million unit cost.

cardiffspaceman 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship#Vessel_purchases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship#Vessel_purchase...