|
I just realized I'm gonna read articles about Hillary's EMALS problems.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The Navy has needed to embrace the idea of smaller carriers, but gently caress that, big ships are easier to justify because big, complex, and sexy means lots of lucrative multi-state contracts. Also because the bigger carriers are flat out better ways to deliver air power than an equivalent weight of lighter ones, but go on with the literally everything is graft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:So what issues is the EMALS currently having anyway? Last I heard it was providing too much acceleration and they were planning on fixing the issue in software, but that was a while ago and I would imagine should have been fixed by now. Also, why didn't these problems come out during the ground tests they released video of years ago? When they first fit them, the failure rate was 1:120. It's now 1:400, which is still pretty unacceptable when it means potentially dumping a $120 million dollar plane in the drink. xthetenth posted:Also because the bigger carriers are flat out better ways to deliver air power than an equivalent weight of lighter ones, but go on with the literally everything is graft. The Nimitz and Ford-classes are still at heart designed to fight engagements in support of war-grade invasions or 1980s-level nightmare naval engagements. Overkill alone isn't a justification for something needing to exist. A smaller carrier still has the same effect as a Nimitz, while hazarding less men and materiel. It's not even like the Nimitz are going out with full-complement air wings anymore, either. And yeah, when a $9b 'we swear' carrier becomes a currently $17b carrier, and almost certainly will be $20b+ by the time the words 'operational' and/or 'ready' are attached to it...in this case, yeah, it's graft disguised as 'reinventing the wheel.' BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It's EMALS plus the new arrestor tech. And the Ford-class in and of itself is reinventing the wheel when no one else is even in the same ballpark. The non-Kutz Chinese native carrier, at its best, will be a Forrestal clone in capability, as would have been the Ulyanovsk.  If you think smaller carriers would be any less complex. The main reason the F-35 has hosed the DOD is because we're trying to cater to a non-assisted launch capability on the USMC's goddamned WWII-style flattops. And we'd need a lot more of them to bring the same overall projection capability. It's not as simple as "build two ships half the size," it's probably 3x or more. And now you've got 3x as many people for most of the jobs, 3x as many spare parts to manage, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Other than $17 Billion not sounding as egregious as $1 Trillion, why hasn't this gotten nearly as much press as the F-35 debacle? And, to that point - when was the last time a major weapons system was brought in on time, and on budget (or even within 15% of budget)? The F-35 seems to be its own special case, but when literally everything the DOD costs so much, at what point do we just assume that X% cost overruns are to be expected?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Awesome http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-tale-of-when-a-marine-mechanic-stole-an-a-4-skyhawk-1745015819
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Other than $17 Billion not sounding as egregious as $1 Trillion, why hasn't this gotten nearly as much press as the F-35 debacle? And, to that point - when was the last time a major weapons system was brought in on time, and on budget (or even within 15% of budget)? The F-35 seems to be its own special case, but when literally everything the DOD costs so much, at what point do we just assume that X% cost overruns are to be expected? Because aircraft carriers are sacred cows and the banner-carriers of pharmaceutical-grade Freedom(tm), whereas the JSF is the largest weapons program in modern human history* and its success, failure, or fates in-between have long-reaching consequences for the US and its allies. The DoD can lose 17b in the couch cushions and at best it'd rate a night's worth of investigation on MSNBC (like Rachel Maddow railing against the F-22), with the only "outrage" happening on blogs, with either an economic slant or "look how that lizard socialist is wasting your money" tack, despite the Ford's construction timeline. * the over/under on the *minimum* the US spent on nuclear weapons from 1944-1996 is ~$5.5-6t, with the actual figure potentially being many times that BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Should have named it USS Grover Cleveland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:And, to that point - when was the last time a major weapons system was brought in on time, and on budget (or even within 15% of budget)? The Virginia-class attack submarines. Which blows my mind, since it's a steel pressure vessel full of people, electronics, explosives, oh, and a nuclear reactor, that gets repeatedly dunked in several hundred feet of seawater for months on end. It's basically a recipe for cost overruns, and yet several of the recent boats have actually been under budget and ahead of schedule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Because aircraft carriers are sacred cows and the banner-carriers of pharmaceutical-grade Freedom(tm), whereas the JSF is the largest weapons program in modern human history* and its success, failure, or fates in-between have long-reaching consequences for the US and its allies. The DoD can lose 17b in the couch cushions and at best it'd rate a night's worth of investigation on MSNBC (like Rachel Maddow railing against the F-22), with the only "outrage" happening on blogs, with either an economic slant or "look how that lizard socialist is wasting your money" tack, despite the Ford's construction timeline. I agree with you, the US Navy should look into carriers a size smaller than supercarriers, call 'em fleet carriers. Design them for the US Navy, period, and then when the line is running well you could sell 'em to the Japanese, British, the French if they were into it....
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
The super hornet was also on time and on budget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
If the CDC guys are to be believed around 80% of DoD projects are either on time or early and within their POM allocations. Remember though that like 95% of these are not ACAT I type programs...the vast majority of acquisitions, numerically speaking, is crap like software patches and tents and toolboxes and the like. I suspect the success ratio is lower when it comes to ACAT I programs but that could just be confirmation bias on my part as those programs obviously receive the most scrutiny and media attention and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:If the CDC guys are to be believed around 80% of DoD projects are either on time or early and within their POM allocations. Remember though that like 95% of these are not ACAT I type programs...the vast majority of acquisitions, numerically speaking, is crap like software patches and tents and toolboxes and the like. I wouldn't be surprised, by definition pushing the state of the art is going to be harder to budget for because knowing the work involved means you have to know what the work is going to be already both from a viewpoint of it being easy to make legit mistakes and it being harder to call out bullshit. See also, programming, also known as the discipline where budgeting and project management go to die because everything's by definition a prototype otherwise you'd just license the existing solution. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Awesome
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I find it deeply annoying that conservative media, to wit National Review, the Weekly Standard, etc. have been screaming about this Putin connection for like, 8 or 9 months and only now are cable news channels actually covering it. And then of course four years ago Barack Obama was like "hur dur what century do you think we're in" when Mitt Romney singled out Russia as our most serious geopolitical foe. Nice to see we're all on the same page now, glad you got with the program, would have been nice though if you'd noticed back in 2012. This is an over simplification. Romney couldn't have predicted the course diplomacy and history have taken and was essentially red baiting, take it in context of his assertion that the US Navy was smaller then it has been since WWI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This is an over simplification. Romney couldn't have predicted the course diplomacy and history have taken and was essentially red baiting, take it in context of his assertion that the US Navy was smaller then it has been since WWI. Eh, Russia was already stepping up provocative bullshit w/r/t airspace/nukes/etc., had already hosed over Georgia, had stepped up support to basically anywhere that opposed Western Europe/NATO along with international far right groups, and was deeply involved in the continuing campaign of disinformation and propaganda very squarely aimed at NATO. It wasn't as obvious to the casual observer at the time (see: the popular account of the Georgian conflict basically being RT.txt) but the writing was on the wall. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This is an over simplification. Romney couldn't have predicted the course diplomacy and history have taken and was essentially red baiting, take it in context of his assertion that the US Navy was smaller then it has been since WWI. As much as I hate Romney, he said what a lot of people were thinking. Russia was absolutely acting out at the time and had been for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Other than $17 Billion not sounding as egregious as $1 Trillion, why hasn't this gotten nearly as much press as the F-35 debacle? You answered your own question. Raenir Salazar posted:This is an over simplification. Romney couldn't have predicted the course diplomacy and history have taken and was essentially red baiting, take it in context of his assertion that the US Navy was smaller then it has been since WWI. No, it's not. People who were paying attention connected the dots between Transnistria and Georgia and poisoning Yuschenko and the graft in Yanukovych's government and Litvinenko's assassination and on and on and on. loving Sarah Palin (presumably at the behest of her staff) commented on the likelyhood of Russia seizing Crimea back in 2008, and for all the right reasons--it wasn't just a lucky guess. Foreign policy types have been talking about it forever. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
small carriers are dumb and so is anyone who thinks they're a good idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjvNCFXCjs&t=159s
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
You know what the Ford should have? A ski jump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Mazz posted:You know what the Ford should have? A ski jump. You take that commie concept right back to Russia, this is  'merica!
Back Hack fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
You remember when Trump, during a GOP debate, bragged about the size of his dick? Well, he's outdone himself
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Holy Jesus, what is this goddamn animal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Oh wow. Trump never ceases to amaze.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:You remember when Trump, during a GOP debate, bragged about the size of his dick? Good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
This guy should be building drones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVNIWuLs_7E
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:You remember when Trump, during a GOP debate, bragged about the size of his dick?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The Virginia-class attack submarines. The current state of DoD procurement reminds me of all the lovely projects that helped contribute to the end of British Rail. From the 50's to the 80's management were always trying to reinvent the wheel and create the NEWEST and BESTEST thing that will use new technology to solve everyone's problems. Then that inevitably turns into a giant boondoggle and waste of everyone's time and money, so they had to create things like the High Speed Train using only tried and tested technology with no frills or fancy stuff. They were built in the 1970's, on time and on budget, and are still running, expecting to last until around 2030. So basically the B-52 of trains, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Mazz posted:You know what the Ford should have? A ski jump. as long as it doesn't have stairs we're good
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The current state of DoD procurement reminds me of all the lovely projects that helped contribute to the end of British Rail. From the 50's to the 80's management were always trying to reinvent the wheel and create the NEWEST and BESTEST thing that will use new technology to solve everyone's problems. Then that inevitably turns into a giant boondoggle and waste of everyone's time and money, so they had to create things like the High Speed Train using only tried and tested technology with no frills or fancy stuff. It's just the simple fact that adding a bunch of new "revolutionary" technology is risky and expensive as hell. If we're okay with getting the end product w/ cost overruns cool... Otherwise stick to tried and true designs, insert one or new two things and call it a revolution solution. poo poo - it's pretty much the JSF vs the Super Hornet. Either you pay and ride the out the risk or you go for the easy "A" so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Has there ever been a military that actively practiced/endorsed "Lap Loading" for their tanker crews? That being the practice of holding a round ready on the loader's lap for faster rate of fire while the gunner and commander do their thing? Its an easy concept to visualize, and it makes sense, but the dangers of it are obvious. That leads me to ask if any nation has actually outright said "Sure, go wild" regarding the practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
My understanding of how the M1 is set up for loading is that this would actually make it more difficult and slow you down.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Mazz posted:You know what the Ford should have? A ski jump. I know youre kidding but I'd like to see a hawkeye get off a skijump blades intact
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The Virginia-class attack submarines. Don't they have two competing companies doing that production run?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Has there ever been a military that actively practiced/endorsed "Lap Loading" for their tanker crews? That being the practice of holding a round ready on the loader's lap for faster rate of fire while the gunner and commander do their thing? The Russians had pretty good system for Arm Loading.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
TCD posted:It's just the simple fact that adding a bunch of new "revolutionary" technology is risky and expensive as hell. If we're okay with getting the end product w/ cost overruns cool... Otherwise stick to tried and true designs, insert one or new two things and call it a revolution solution. Surely there have been designs with untested technology in the past that haven't been such big cockups as the Ford and the JSF program though? Admittedly i'm drawing a blank trying to think of one... Dandywalken posted:Has there ever been a military that actively practiced/endorsed "Lap Loading" for their tanker crews? That being the practice of holding a round ready on the loader's lap for faster rate of fire while the gunner and commander do their thing? That would mean that the tank is stuck with firing whatever round the loader has in their lap instead of the round the commander might ask for. Also I think sabot rounds come in 2 parts instead of one, or is that just that APFSDS is twice as long as other rounds? MikeCrotch fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:My understanding of how the M1 is set up for loading is that this would actually make it more difficult and slow you down. The slowest part of Abrams loading looks to be waiting for the blast door to move fully. Presumably if it was open you'd get a faster rate of fire and also totally fail for loader qualifications :p
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Surely there have been designs with untested technology in the past that haven't been such big cockups as the Ford and the JSF program though? Admittedly i'm drawing a blank trying to think of one... Small and secret secret seems to be the secret to success. A-12/SR-71 and F-117 were both reasonably budgeted and down pretty fast. There is something to be said for congress not being able to publicly grandstand about X Project bringing Y jobs to their district because it's too black to talk about. The Virginia is also partly due to it basically riding on the back of the Seawolf class which wasn't DREADFUL but an expensive top of the line project. The Virginia is kind of the value Seawolf with some new touches that were available since the Seawolf was initially designed. Alaan fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This is an over simplification. Romney couldn't have predicted the course diplomacy and history have taken and was essentially red baiting, take it in context of his assertion that the US Navy was smaller then it has been since WWI. He couldn't have predicted it, except that predicting it is literally exactly what he did. EDIT: People beat me to this...I should read the rest of the thread before replying. Feel free to ignore me please 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:He couldn't have predicted it, except that predicting it is literally exactly what he did. Calling it a prediction may be giving too much credit to the process that lead him to his statements. If I have a stopped clock that happens to display the current time, I wouldn’t say that it is keeping good time, or keeping time at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:12
|
|
