3 ms·

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

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.
- mojomark 7y ago
  > I don't think anyone expects price parity -- but I'd expect at least basic features to work? I only worked on the LPD platform for a brief period of time, but as anyone in industry knows, the LPD-17 Class does indeed "work" - far above and beyond the basic propulsion and maneuvering. >I don't think anyone would complain if flight deck failed, or new combat systems failed to perform to spec. Tell that to the family of the sailor who was crushed by a rotating gun turret while checking his phone because an audible alarm failed to sound. Tell that to the crew of the adjacent ship during a training excersize when the gun barrel flips 180 degrees due to an erroneous sign-flip in the software. Tell that to the tax payers who have to pay for new flight deck non-skid and deck repair after the V-22 exhaust burns the old non-skid off and warps the deck steel (hopefully the FOD from the nonskid didn't get ingested into the aircraft intakes and cause a crash killing the crew) It's these kinds of uninformed statements that are dangerous to the very people trying to defend their country because average citizens don't take the time (and honestly don't have the time) to look into the true reason for defense costs. Instead they get their information from non-peer-reviewed papers by authors who make horrendous summations on topics they know nothing about. Yes, spending needs to be monitored and checked thrice, but the truth is much more complex than can be summed up two pages (not that this write-up even scratched the surface of the truth). This write-up is more than ignorant, it's dangerous because is spreads easy to digest and believe falsehoods that seep into the minds of the public. It may as well have been written by Trump himself (I'm a patriot and respect the POTUS office, but I still think the person in office is horrifying, even if he does want to increase the naval fleet size, which is needed to protect the country).
  - labcomputer 7y ago
    And who should we tell when the hull fails its most basic function (to keep water outside the ship)? Attempting to repeatedly change the subject by talking about night-vision compatible this-or-that and various gun turret failures only makes your argument look weak. Don't assume that we're stupid just because we aren't actively serving in the military. > This write-up is more than ignorant, it's dangerous because is spreads easy to digest and believe falsehoods that seep into the minds of the public. Ok, I'm open to persuasion. Can you identify one or two falsehoods in the pdf that is the subject of this thread? Thus far, I see a lot of accounts attempting to change the subject, a lot of complaining that the author is unfair, and insinuations that we civvies are too stupid to understand such complex military issues. But no actual "The author said X, and here's a link to show he's wrong." That makes me think the author probably isn't wrong.

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.

mojomark 7y ago
> I don't think anyone expects price parity -- but I'd expect at least basic features to work? I only worked on the LPD platform for a brief period of time, but as anyone in industry knows, the LPD-17 Class does indeed "work" - far above and beyond the basic propulsion and maneuvering. >I don't think anyone would complain if flight deck failed, or new combat systems failed to perform to spec. Tell that to the family of the sailor who was crushed by a rotating gun turret while checking his phone because an audible alarm failed to sound. Tell that to the crew of the adjacent ship during a training excersize when the gun barrel flips 180 degrees due to an erroneous sign-flip in the software. Tell that to the tax payers who have to pay for new flight deck non-skid and deck repair after the V-22 exhaust burns the old non-skid off and warps the deck steel (hopefully the FOD from the nonskid didn't get ingested into the aircraft intakes and cause a crash killing the crew) It's these kinds of uninformed statements that are dangerous to the very people trying to defend their country because average citizens don't take the time (and honestly don't have the time) to look into the true reason for defense costs. Instead they get their information from non-peer-reviewed papers by authors who make horrendous summations on topics they know nothing about. Yes, spending needs to be monitored and checked thrice, but the truth is much more complex than can be summed up two pages (not that this write-up even scratched the surface of the truth). This write-up is more than ignorant, it's dangerous because is spreads easy to digest and believe falsehoods that seep into the minds of the public. It may as well have been written by Trump himself (I'm a patriot and respect the POTUS office, but I still think the person in office is horrifying, even if he does want to increase the naval fleet size, which is needed to protect the country).
- labcomputer 7y ago
  And who should we tell when the hull fails its most basic function (to keep water outside the ship)? Attempting to repeatedly change the subject by talking about night-vision compatible this-or-that and various gun turret failures only makes your argument look weak. Don't assume that we're stupid just because we aren't actively serving in the military. > This write-up is more than ignorant, it's dangerous because is spreads easy to digest and believe falsehoods that seep into the minds of the public. Ok, I'm open to persuasion. Can you identify one or two falsehoods in the pdf that is the subject of this thread? Thus far, I see a lot of accounts attempting to change the subject, a lot of complaining that the author is unfair, and insinuations that we civvies are too stupid to understand such complex military issues. But no actual "The author said X, and here's a link to show he's wrong." That makes me think the author probably isn't wrong.