Headlines are, necessarily, oversimplistic. Meanwhile, dreadnoughts are our future. Where's Jutland, again?
Headlines are, necessarily, oversimplistic. Meanwhile, dreadnoughts are our future. Where's Jutland, again?
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/trump-wants-goddamned-steam-not-digital-catapults-on-aircraft-carriers/526386/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/trump-wants-goddamned-steam-not-digital-catapults-on-aircraft-carriers/526386/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/trump-wants-goddamned-steam-not-digital-catapults-on-aircraft-carriers/526386/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/trump-wants-goddamned-steam-not-digital-catapults-on-aircraft-carriers/526386/
im not defending trump here - obviously - but the US military is not exactly the pinnacle of good decision making when it comes to cost/benefit analysis. there are times when seemingly older tech is the right option?
ReplyDeleteFair point, they are definitely not. But if it's a contest between them and Trump ... nevermind. If that article is correct, they've essentially got the new stuff already in place and the reason for developing it is that using steam has multiple problems.
ReplyDeleteNow, if the new tech has more problems than benefits, then yes, leave it alone. It sounds from this article like that's not so much the case. More that Trump doesn't like having to think about things and just wants whatever's cheaper, even if it's not the most cost effective.
I'm not at all informed about Navy stuff, though. So maybe it's the F-35, but this seems like a very specific thing to do a very specific thing. As opposed to the F-35 magically being able to do everything for everybody which was probably not a brilliant idea in the first place.
Trump understands steam (or thinks he does). He doesn't understand electromagnetics (wibbly wobbly Einstein shmeinstein).
mumbleresearxhdevelopmentprojectsforyearsmumble
ReplyDelete(Actually, I don't need to mumble. The calls-for-proposals on the DoD website are public, and you can read through and find R&D projects that are trivially linked.)
(Meaning, they have done the cost/benefit analysis. Over the course of the last decade, probably. This wasn't a moment's decision and immediate implementation.)
The information in that article regarding the induction catapults is basically the same as I've heard from other sources. None of those sources are nefarious or highly privileged, much less classified because I don't work on that stuff. But, you know, it's my industry, I keep my ear to the ground because I like to be knowledgeable about my craft, etc.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, that article understates it: Projections are something like 20-30% high tempo with 20-30% smaller crew, with a lot of those gains coming from desperately tedious and uglamorous things like the overall Size, Weight and Power envelope of the whole carrier.
Which brings me to my next point. The Ford class is, by my understanding, a done design. Builders trials were over a month ago, and if it hasn't started acceptance testing for delivery yet, it will very damn soon. Stick a fork in that sumbitch, it's done.
I have no special insight into designing a carrier, but I do have some insight into designing large complex vehicles like that, and I would be willing to bet a hundred bucks that the reaction of the senior-most technical lead, on hearing that they need to change the catapults, was laughter. That's not a do-able thing. You'd have to rip the catapults out and replace them, which is significant enough that you'd probably have to rip the power plants out and replace them, and at that point you may as well just start from scratch.
Newport News will drop a bill and a delivery schedule on SecNav's desk that will drive it right through the Pentagon's deepest sub-basement and into the Earth's molten core.
...Never has an incumbent SecNav so fervently hoped for a speedy Senate confirmation for his successor.
ReplyDelete