4 ms·

> 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 exampl

by 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?
        all2 7y ago
        [edit for readability] Complexity in every sense, at every stage of the design, testing, fabrication, and delivery. From discerning appropriate tactics for the coming century (which are used to produce design requirements that equipment is designed against) to writing the user's and maintainer's manuals, to the number of people required to get a particular sub-system into production, and so on. The bottom line is that a modern tank requires more people, more knowledge, more complex (number of parts, functionality, materials selection, fabrication, testing, etc.) and interconnected sub-systems, more complex manufacturing techniques, tighter tolerances (sometimes) (which lead to more complex methods of measure), more exacting specifications, etc., than a modern consumer vehicle. A standard automobile may have 20 to 50 microcontrollers that talk to each other on one CAN bus. A modern tank has at least 3 independent communication networks, an electrically isolated diagnostics system, distinct optics systems for the commander and pilot and gunner, a fire control sub-system, and so on. Each of these subsystems is immensely complex, designed and manufactured to exacting specifications for durability and maintainability. The specifications for each are so exact, that any subsystem can be torn out and another designed to the same spec can be swapped in. This is no trivial feat. This isn't like a new set of rims onto your car. It isn't even akin to piggy-backing or changing out the ECU in your car. It is at a whole different level, because each sub-system has to integrate with at least two other sub-systems (power and communications). This is like being able to tear out the autopilot portion of your Tesla and swap in some other company's autopilot, while keeping the rest of the systems intact.

by all2 7y ago

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?
      - all2 7y ago
        [edit for readability] Complexity in every sense, at every stage of the design, testing, fabrication, and delivery. From discerning appropriate tactics for the coming century (which are used to produce design requirements that equipment is designed against) to writing the user's and maintainer's manuals, to the number of people required to get a particular sub-system into production, and so on. The bottom line is that a modern tank requires more people, more knowledge, more complex (number of parts, functionality, materials selection, fabrication, testing, etc.) and interconnected sub-systems, more complex manufacturing techniques, tighter tolerances (sometimes) (which lead to more complex methods of measure), more exacting specifications, etc., than a modern consumer vehicle. A standard automobile may have 20 to 50 microcontrollers that talk to each other on one CAN bus. A modern tank has at least 3 independent communication networks, an electrically isolated diagnostics system, distinct optics systems for the commander and pilot and gunner, a fire control sub-system, and so on. Each of these subsystems is immensely complex, designed and manufactured to exacting specifications for durability and maintainability. The specifications for each are so exact, that any subsystem can be torn out and another designed to the same spec can be swapped in. This is no trivial feat. This isn't like a new set of rims onto your car. It isn't even akin to piggy-backing or changing out the ECU in your car. It is at a whole different level, because each sub-system has to integrate with at least two other sub-systems (power and communications). This is like being able to tear out the autopilot portion of your Tesla and swap in some other company's autopilot, while keeping the rest of the systems intact.