4 ms·

> It has to be more reliable and trustworthy than possibly any other map software. Did you read the detailed examples on the website? Because the point you mak

by mpyne 5y ago

> It has to be more reliable and trustworthy than possibly any other map software. Did you read the detailed examples on the website? Because the point you make is the same point the website makes: VMS is crap, compared to the map application that comes with your phone by default. It is less reliable, because it crashes all the time. It is less trustworthy, because you can't even rely on it to do extremely basic checks on the safety of a proposed leg of your navigation plan. I find the website disappointing for a different reason: the flaws they point out in VMS in 2021 are the same flaws I experienced with VMS from 2006 to 2009 during my own time in submarines. I should be astonished that we haven't made things better since, but I've seen enough of software in defense to honestly claim surprise.

samplatt 5y ago
A $3B warship costs less than what (I imagine) has been spent on Google Maps development. I'm currently working on ship-alerting software, and all the usual "haha programmers suck at their job" memes apply... But then, so does the hardware it's running on. PLC/SCADA hardware that behaves unpredictably with zero support from the (global monopoly) vendor and PC's that are years out of date because getting new hardware approved is fucking torture.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  Multiply that by ~70 (number of active subs in the fleet)
- mpyne 5y ago
  VMS is used across submarine designs spanning all the way back to 2005. Currently there are 67 submarines actively part of the battle fleet (https://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/FLEETSIZE.HTML https://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/FLEETSIZE.HTML), let's say $3B per submarine, that's $200 *BILLION* dollars of capital expenditure. And it should go without saying that the reason we spend money on submarines is because the missions they go on are that important to the national defense. I think Google has spent less than $200 billion on Google Maps. Between the capital expense and the mission to perform, and the repeated underground collisions, I don't think it's too much to ask that the Navy apply some usability design to support one of the most critical functions of any warship, safe navigation. Because I've used VMS myself and I can attest to everything the author of this article mentions, and it's far from being just a resourcing question: it's inherent to the way the Navy designs, implements and acquires software-based systems. This includes the stuff you mention about hardware (which, oddly, the Navy submarine force had managed to subvert with ARCI sonars, which use commercial servers and a ton of additional spares to meet operational availability needs).

by mpyne 5y ago

samplatt 5y ago

A $3B warship costs less than what (I imagine) has been spent on Google Maps development. I'm currently working on ship-alerting software, and all the usual "haha programmers suck at their job" memes apply... But then, so does the hardware it's running on. PLC/SCADA hardware that behaves unpredictably with zero support from the (global monopoly) vendor and PC's that are years out of date because getting new hardware approved is fucking torture.

jkhdigital 5y ago
Multiply that by ~70 (number of active subs in the fleet)
mpyne 5y ago
VMS is used across submarine designs spanning all the way back to 2005. Currently there are 67 submarines actively part of the battle fleet (https://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/FLEETSIZE.HTML https://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/FLEETSIZE.HTML), let's say $3B per submarine, that's $200 *BILLION* dollars of capital expenditure. And it should go without saying that the reason we spend money on submarines is because the missions they go on are that important to the national defense. I think Google has spent less than $200 billion on Google Maps. Between the capital expense and the mission to perform, and the repeated underground collisions, I don't think it's too much to ask that the Navy apply some usability design to support one of the most critical functions of any warship, safe navigation. Because I've used VMS myself and I can attest to everything the author of this article mentions, and it's far from being just a resourcing question: it's inherent to the way the Navy designs, implements and acquires software-based systems. This includes the stuff you mention about hardware (which, oddly, the Navy submarine force had managed to subvert with ARCI sonars, which use commercial servers and a ton of additional spares to meet operational availability needs).