Worked in one. They are safety nightmares. They give safety bonuses if “nothing is reported” so nothing gets reported. Working conditions suck.. you spend your time begging for AC in a metal can in 100 degree heat (outside) on top of that the craziest thing was how subcontractors made money. I was in test so we wondered why certain runs of cable were way out of spec. Turns out subcontractors are paid by the foot to install cable so it would take the longest route through. Nuts. Never work there.
There's a BBC Nova episode about the soviet union with an apocryphal story about train schedulers being evaluated on the amount of cargo shipped by distance so of course, freight was sent on the least efficient route to its destination. Amazing to see the exact same metric get gamed again.
None of that is accurate other than the fact it might be hot if the AC isn't running, and there are a lot of perfectly legitimate reasons why the AC might not be running.
We actively encourage reporting of all incidents, and cable runs are not determined by subcontractors trying to find the longest route. Cable runs are determined by drawings done by the Navy and they're installed in accordance with the drawings or people don't get paid. That's definitely one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.
I spent nine years on CVNs and many of those years in the yards installing, deinstalling, and maintaining equipment.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes I wonder if US leadership, above the paygrade of naval leadership, assume that large surface combatants likely won't be survivable in a peer war. Then they'd do exactly what they're doing now... stall naval projects and pivot.
There's a lot of motivated naval lobbying decrying the state of US ship building, but we can see in semi that US leadership fine with pouring 100s of billions in urgent industrial policy. Maybe US ship building is actually that broken, but IMO that wouldn't stop the spigot from flowing. At some point, it's hard to differentiate if current state of naval procurement is incompetent by malice/design. It's hard to explain how little is being done.
IMO it's all about the money being the main motivating factor. With government contracts more money should mean you can do a better job - which is why these contracts are so large. But there's a conflicting motivation to 'generate value for shareholders.' And this is further confounded by conflicts of interest in oversight. Congress not only receives large donations from the military industrial complex, but is also literally invested in these companies, and also stands to work as 'consultants', lobbyists, and and the like after leaving office for 7+ figure salaries. So you get a system where so long as money's getting spent, everybody's pretty happy - and the more, the merrier.
It seems that in the past there was more ideologically (rather than financially) motivated leadership of many industries. One can see this today by comparing companies like SpaceX with Boeing. SpaceX is an ideologically driven company with a goal of colonizing Mars, headed by an eccentric engineer. Boeing is a financially driven company headed by an accountant. One has already revolutionized the entire space industry multiple times and is sending costs plummeting. The other has now spent tens of billions of dollars and well over a decade trying to rework Space Shuttle era tech into a new overpriced rocket that's already effectively obsolete before it's even finished. [1] And Boeing is also one of the largest military industrial complex contractors.
Of course in 40 or 50 years, SpaceX will just be another Boeing. Maybe there's an argument for not perpetuating massive companies. They all seem to go from ideologically driven to MBA driven, yet their inertia and size makes it quite difficult to compete against them, resulting in an overall stagnation in technology and efficiency.
Pretty easy to see the eventual outcome of a system where everyone’s siphoning dollars from the government through lucrative contracts, so no one stirs the pot by calling out a subcontractor for being crooked. The bloat is systemic.
I have confidence our new era of businesses can basically bleed the middle class dry without any issue at all via “inflation” but I don’t think they’ll get away with doing it to the military in the long term.
But you can't stand in the way of Progress. Especially not if you're a Congressman, and need some fat donations to help finance your next reelection campaign. Just another way in which Capitalism is superior a way of doing everything, I guess...
It looks like we closed them after the end of the Cold War [1]. This wasn’t an idealistic pursuit, just banal cost cutting to disarm the nation.
Given increased tensions, it would make sense to reverse and begin re-integrating Navy owned and operated shipyards. (I’m also noticing that most of the shipyards were on the Atlantic, with the Washington shipyard being one of the few that’s been maintained [2].)
I know what this. I just haven’t figured out to make money on it yet.
Complexity crisis. It’s happening everywhere. Boeing didn’t turn into a bad engineering company, they put a noose on their own necks because they could. Navy is doing the same thing.
Everyone is. That is the real reason we have toasters and teapots on the internet.
The thing about toasters and teapots on the internet is that they give the people working on them a job to do. Because absent being filthy rich, if you don't work then you don't don't eat and you don't sleep inside.
To oversimplify, as a society we have decided that a person shouldn't be able to earn a living doing less than ~35-40 hours of work a week. So if there isn't enough valuable work to go around filling up everyone's week, then some people are gonna have to make up performative work.
[+] [-] SignalM|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] morkalork|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jki275|1 year ago|reply
We actively encourage reporting of all incidents, and cable runs are not determined by subcontractors trying to find the longest route. Cable runs are determined by drawings done by the Navy and they're installed in accordance with the drawings or people don't get paid. That's definitely one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.
I spent nine years on CVNs and many of those years in the yards installing, deinstalling, and maintaining equipment.
[+] [-] Solvency|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ungreased0675|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nradov|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jandrewrogers|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] somat|1 year ago|reply
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
[+] [-] fblp|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jki275|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] maxglute|1 year ago|reply
There's a lot of motivated naval lobbying decrying the state of US ship building, but we can see in semi that US leadership fine with pouring 100s of billions in urgent industrial policy. Maybe US ship building is actually that broken, but IMO that wouldn't stop the spigot from flowing. At some point, it's hard to differentiate if current state of naval procurement is incompetent by malice/design. It's hard to explain how little is being done.
[+] [-] pyuser583|1 year ago|reply
Submarine operations, including production, are extremely hush-hush.
Last I heard the US had two submarine fleets: the ones the Navy openly discusses, and the useful ones which are discussed in whispers.
I like to think the hush-hush subs are being built and deployed en masse.
[+] [-] somenameforme|1 year ago|reply
It seems that in the past there was more ideologically (rather than financially) motivated leadership of many industries. One can see this today by comparing companies like SpaceX with Boeing. SpaceX is an ideologically driven company with a goal of colonizing Mars, headed by an eccentric engineer. Boeing is a financially driven company headed by an accountant. One has already revolutionized the entire space industry multiple times and is sending costs plummeting. The other has now spent tens of billions of dollars and well over a decade trying to rework Space Shuttle era tech into a new overpriced rocket that's already effectively obsolete before it's even finished. [1] And Boeing is also one of the largest military industrial complex contractors.
Of course in 40 or 50 years, SpaceX will just be another Boeing. Maybe there's an argument for not perpetuating massive companies. They all seem to go from ideologically driven to MBA driven, yet their inertia and size makes it quite difficult to compete against them, resulting in an overall stagnation in technology and efficiency.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
[+] [-] arh68|1 year ago|reply
1. miscommunication (not seen here)
2. training issues (check)
3. not spending enough money (check)
4. decisions made by previous leadership (only hinted at)
I just hope the results are worth it.
[+] [-] dclowd9901|1 year ago|reply
I have confidence our new era of businesses can basically bleed the middle class dry without any issue at all via “inflation” but I don’t think they’ll get away with doing it to the military in the long term.
[+] [-] mikey_p|1 year ago|reply
What Would Rickover Do?
[+] [-] bell-cot|1 year ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_Yard
But you can't stand in the way of Progress. Especially not if you're a Congressman, and need some fat donations to help finance your next reelection campaign. Just another way in which Capitalism is superior a way of doing everything, I guess...
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|1 year ago|reply
It looks like we closed them after the end of the Cold War [1]. This wasn’t an idealistic pursuit, just banal cost cutting to disarm the nation.
Given increased tensions, it would make sense to reverse and begin re-integrating Navy owned and operated shipyards. (I’m also noticing that most of the shipyards were on the Atlantic, with the Washington shipyard being one of the few that’s been maintained [2].)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Base_Realignment_and_Cl...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_Naval_Shipyard
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SV_BubbleTime|1 year ago|reply
Complexity crisis. It’s happening everywhere. Boeing didn’t turn into a bad engineering company, they put a noose on their own necks because they could. Navy is doing the same thing.
Everyone is. That is the real reason we have toasters and teapots on the internet.
[+] [-] JellyBeanThief|1 year ago|reply
To oversimplify, as a society we have decided that a person shouldn't be able to earn a living doing less than ~35-40 hours of work a week. So if there isn't enough valuable work to go around filling up everyone's week, then some people are gonna have to make up performative work.