4 ms·

Instead of investing in large projects meant to satisfy large numbers of stakeholders for all their needs anticipated out decades into the future, instead focus

by jjk166 4y ago

Instead of investing in large projects meant to satisfy large numbers of stakeholders for all their needs anticipated out decades into the future, instead focus on maintaining a development pipeline with steady stream of smaller, narrowly focused projects where the design requirements are locked down early. If you plan from the get go on developing something new every 5 years, it's not a big deal to say "let's save that for the next iteration" and you can incorporate both new developments and lessons learned. You also naturally get people working on these projects who have worked on other similar projects before, so you don't need to reinvent the wheel like you do when there's a 40 year gap between iterations. We see excellent examples of this kind of project management in the automotive, semiconductor, and consumer electronics industries.

nradov 4y ago
That is a terrible idea. The military doesn't want small numbers of completely different vehicles introduced every five years. They need large numbers of identical items with consistency over decades so that they can train the troops and maintain a supply chain. Their needs have almost nothing in common with the automotive, semiconductor, and consumer electronics industries.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  that's just 2 more requirements: must be cross trainable, supply chain compatible with previous generation there, problem solved
- jjk166 4y ago
  In WW2 they were introducing brand new designs months after their predecessors. Warfare is a dynamic environment where those who do not adapt fast enough literally perish. Keeping the same system for decades does reduce the cost of retraining and logistics, but is the point of your military to save money or win wars? The military needs projects to be completed in a timely manner, producing systems that can keep up with or preferably beat their competitors. The automotive, semiconductor, and consumer electronics industries all have exactly the same need, and this is how it's achieved.
  - nradov 4y ago
    That's just completely wrong. Most of the major new ship and aircraft designs introduced during WW2 were started before the USA even entered the war. For example, work on the B-29 Superfortress and the Fletcher class destroyers started in 1939. During the war they mostly made minor improvements to designs that either already existed or were at least already in the pipeline. No one produced brand new designs within months. Modern designs are literally an order of magnitude more complex than the WW2 era, and timelines have extended accordingly. Making references to irrelevant industries doesn't help your credibility.

by jjk166 4y ago

nradov 4y ago

That is a terrible idea. The military doesn't want small numbers of completely different vehicles introduced every five years. They need large numbers of identical items with consistency over decades so that they can train the troops and maintain a supply chain. Their needs have almost nothing in common with the automotive, semiconductor, and consumer electronics industries.

ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
that's just 2 more requirements: must be cross trainable, supply chain compatible with previous generation there, problem solved
jjk166 4y ago
In WW2 they were introducing brand new designs months after their predecessors. Warfare is a dynamic environment where those who do not adapt fast enough literally perish. Keeping the same system for decades does reduce the cost of retraining and logistics, but is the point of your military to save money or win wars? The military needs projects to be completed in a timely manner, producing systems that can keep up with or preferably beat their competitors. The automotive, semiconductor, and consumer electronics industries all have exactly the same need, and this is how it's achieved.
- nradov 4y ago
  That's just completely wrong. Most of the major new ship and aircraft designs introduced during WW2 were started before the USA even entered the war. For example, work on the B-29 Superfortress and the Fletcher class destroyers started in 1939. During the war they mostly made minor improvements to designs that either already existed or were at least already in the pipeline. No one produced brand new designs within months. Modern designs are literally an order of magnitude more complex than the WW2 era, and timelines have extended accordingly. Making references to irrelevant industries doesn't help your credibility.