4 ms·

>But today, the version being built at a shipyard in Wisconsin shares only 15 percent commonality with the original design How is this in any way acceptable? T

>But today, the version being built at a shipyard in Wisconsin shares only 15 percent commonality with the original design How is this in any way acceptable? The procurement strategy was to buy an existing design in order to speed up the process. I would bet tradeoffs were made doing it that way instead of a clean sheet design. Now, after the fact they throw away the design and make something new? The Navy is likely to get the worst of both approaches doing it the way they are.

fblp 3y ago
I'm also wondering how incentives / leadership structure were setup to make this "scope creep" possible.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > how incentives / leadership structure were setup to make this "scope creep" possible It’s partly a function of use it or lose it funding. If the Navy gets budget, it’s incentivised to start spending it aggressively. Planning only burns so much cash, so there is a built-in incentive to jumpstart production alongside design and then patch everything with costly retrofits.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    If the DRS is adopted the "use-it-or-lose-it" dichotomy should shift away due to a faster budget cycle
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      DRS?
      - alephnerd 3y ago
        It's the new proposal by the PPBE Reform Commission in the senate [0] [0] - https://ppbereform.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Commission-on-PPBE-Reform_Full-Report_6-March-2024_FINAL.pdf https://ppbereform.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Com...
- callalex 3y ago
  They won’t even accept a simple audit of the budget.
nradov 3y ago
Part of the reason is that the only way to get the acquisition of a major new weapons system approved by Congress is to drastically underestimate the cost. This gives Congresspeople political cover to vote aye. Everyone involved knows that costs will explode later, and by that time the program has become too big to fail. Everyone knows we need a new frigate and it's too late to start over from scratch without endangering national security. The other reason is that this program is constantly chasing a moving target. The national security establishment is getting increasingly freaked out about the risk of a naval war with China. The original inexpensive European frigate design was largely designed for lower threat environments, mainly European coastal defense against Russia plus gunboat diplomacy in Africa and the Middle East. Now the US Navy needs something that can fight and survive against a superior force in the Western Pacific, so many of the combat systems are getting upgraded. And even with those upgrades it's still dangerously short of VLS cells. If Navy leadership knew in 2018 what they know now then they might have chosen a different approach.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  Arguably, the root cause is just that the marginal economics of antiship missile defense are now unfavorable (historically the idea was that you would shoot down the planes carrying them and deny targeting, but that's not very realistic now). That's not a problem against traditional opponents, but against an economic peer, it means you have great pressure in your quantity of antiship defences. The problem is that for every VLS cell the US can float, the Chinese can build 4-5 more missiles, so the problem will remain.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  > The national security establishment is getting increasingly freaked out about the risk of a naval war with China. I guess military professionals might know things we don’t, but doesn’t a hot war with China strike everyone else as utterly ridiculous? China’s economy is so inextricably intertwined with those of the rest of the world, it would make no sense for either side. Mutually assured economic destruction. Yes, I know there are US hawk politicians constantly banging on the “China war” drums, but it seems so silly.
jki275 3y ago
the world changes. The contracts are written, ten years later the equipment available to put on the ship when it's actually being built changed three times already and the original contractor for half of it went out of business.
jandrewrogers 3y ago
The fig leaf of an "existing design" is often used for new procurement because Congress is less likely to interfere with political considerations if it is viewed as an upgrade instead of a new system, under the theory that working within the constraints of an existing system limit flexibility with respect to Congressional politicking. Upgrades are also assumed to be cheaper than new designs, whether they are or not. The boundaries are fuzzy but there are many examples of new systems packaged as upgraded old systems for the sake of procurement efficiency.
somat 3y ago
Some fun examples. The F-15E, F-18E "It's just an upgraded version", don't get me wrong they are good planes, but they are 20 percent larger than previous models it is a different plane, with different jigs, parts, testing, performance. The tu-22m, A least the f-15e is the same shape as the f-15. "Yes boss, I understand we don't have the money to design a new bomber, we are just going to upgrade the design of one of our existing models" Proceeds to design a completely new plane and gives it the same designation of an existing one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

fblp 3y ago

I'm also wondering how incentives / leadership structure were setup to make this "scope creep" possible.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> how incentives / leadership structure were setup to make this "scope creep" possible It’s partly a function of use it or lose it funding. If the Navy gets budget, it’s incentivised to start spending it aggressively. Planning only burns so much cash, so there is a built-in incentive to jumpstart production alongside design and then patch everything with costly retrofits.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  If the DRS is adopted the "use-it-or-lose-it" dichotomy should shift away due to a faster budget cycle
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    DRS?
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      It's the new proposal by the PPBE Reform Commission in the senate [0] [0] - https://ppbereform.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Commission-on-PPBE-Reform_Full-Report_6-March-2024_FINAL.pdf https://ppbereform.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Com...
callalex 3y ago
They won’t even accept a simple audit of the budget.

nradov 3y ago

Part of the reason is that the only way to get the acquisition of a major new weapons system approved by Congress is to drastically underestimate the cost. This gives Congresspeople political cover to vote aye. Everyone involved knows that costs will explode later, and by that time the program has become too big to fail. Everyone knows we need a new frigate and it's too late to start over from scratch without endangering national security. The other reason is that this program is constantly chasing a moving target. The national security establishment is getting increasingly freaked out about the risk of a naval war with China. The original inexpensive European frigate design was largely designed for lower threat environments, mainly European coastal defense against Russia plus gunboat diplomacy in Africa and the Middle East. Now the US Navy needs something that can fight and survive against a superior force in the Western Pacific, so many of the combat systems are getting upgraded. And even with those upgrades it's still dangerously short of VLS cells. If Navy leadership knew in 2018 what they know now then they might have chosen a different approach.

sudosysgen 3y ago
Arguably, the root cause is just that the marginal economics of antiship missile defense are now unfavorable (historically the idea was that you would shoot down the planes carrying them and deny targeting, but that's not very realistic now). That's not a problem against traditional opponents, but against an economic peer, it means you have great pressure in your quantity of antiship defences. The problem is that for every VLS cell the US can float, the Chinese can build 4-5 more missiles, so the problem will remain.
ryandrake 3y ago
> The national security establishment is getting increasingly freaked out about the risk of a naval war with China. I guess military professionals might know things we don’t, but doesn’t a hot war with China strike everyone else as utterly ridiculous? China’s economy is so inextricably intertwined with those of the rest of the world, it would make no sense for either side. Mutually assured economic destruction. Yes, I know there are US hawk politicians constantly banging on the “China war” drums, but it seems so silly.

jki275 3y ago

the world changes. The contracts are written, ten years later the equipment available to put on the ship when it's actually being built changed three times already and the original contractor for half of it went out of business.

jandrewrogers 3y ago

The fig leaf of an "existing design" is often used for new procurement because Congress is less likely to interfere with political considerations if it is viewed as an upgrade instead of a new system, under the theory that working within the constraints of an existing system limit flexibility with respect to Congressional politicking. Upgrades are also assumed to be cheaper than new designs, whether they are or not. The boundaries are fuzzy but there are many examples of new systems packaged as upgraded old systems for the sake of procurement efficiency.

somat 3y ago

Some fun examples. The F-15E, F-18E "It's just an upgraded version", don't get me wrong they are good planes, but they are 20 percent larger than previous models it is a different plane, with different jigs, parts, testing, performance. The tu-22m, A least the f-15e is the same shape as the f-15. "Yes boss, I understand we don't have the money to design a new bomber, we are just going to upgrade the design of one of our existing models" Proceeds to design a completely new plane and gives it the same designation of an existing one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M