First, they canceled the Little Crappy Shops (LCS) program as not fit for purpose. Now it's the Constellation class Frigate program that gets the axe:
By 2024, the first ship of the class was 36 months behind schedule, with the second already considered two years behind before its keel was even laid. The plan, as I mentioned before, was to retain roughly 85% of the FREMM frigate design to expedite production, but by that point, the Constellation design retained only about 15% of its parent design. This caused a cascade of other issues, like the need to write new code for a reported 95% of the ship’s control system software due to deviations from the FREMM design it came from, and the incorporation of new equipment and systems.
The Constellation-class frigate seemed to suffer from a classic case of scope-creep, a term used to describe a program that keeps seeing new requirements tacked onto it as it develops, resulting in cost overruns and delays. As one lawmaker put it, the Navy kept chasing a 100% solution to the point where they ended up with 0% of the ship being delivered.
There's more here from the Tech Press, so this is getting attention.
As Yogi Berra once said, if you don't know where you're going you'll end up somewhere else. SECNAV should see to it that the Program Management Office finds itself somewhere else - preferably not working for the Navy. Pour encourager les autres ...
7 comments:
Mission creep, change orders and just plain incompetence of the Navy and the builders. Just in time delivery for parts that become scrap because some committee decided would it be nice if...
The new carriers are another example. CVN -78 (Ford) was late and over budget. The USN response was but we had to figure out new technologies Now CVN-79 (Kennedy) is at least two more years from completion because of the very same issues.
Bring back keel hauling.
This is what you get when the Pentagon goes with "cost plus" contracts that are based on "lowest bidder", and when Pentagon "designers" are allowed to change contract terms, e.g. the design, in the middle of construction.
Yes, technology changes very quickly nowadays. But a keel is a keel, a rudder is a rudder, and an elevator is an elevator. Start with a simple, basic ship design. Specify that all of the electronics and control systems are DESIGNED to be replaceable, and then require that the first systems work as originally designed. Future upgrades can add capabilities.
But none of that will happen 'cuz Pentagon military "leaders" are looking for jobs at military contractors when they retire, and political "leaders" need to "bring home the bacon".
The Pentagon Wars
Agree with all of the above. And have seen the mission creep/scope creep kill more than one program. This was turning into another Zumwalt CF... sigh
We offshored most of our heavy industry including steel production in the name of profit. That is now coming back to bite us in the ass. Factor in the utter failure of our indoctrination system to actually educate anyone and we are rapidly steaming towards complete failure. It's not an if.... it's a when.
The gallows is more effective.
Pour encourager les autres!</i?
Especially if you use the same executioner they used for Saddam!
Same as NASA and what I call "space 1.0." Perfect example is the SLS (Space Launch System) now being readied to fly a loop around the moon. One launch is $4 Billion. To launch the same amount of payload on a Falcon Heavy takes two launches that together cost like 8% of that. Yeah, it's not a real 1:1 comparison but SLS was built as a cost plus system and everything about it - not just the rocket, but mobile launch towers to get it to the pad and everything was delivered late and over budget. Falcon Heavy was designed as market-driven product.
Cost plus should be reserved for things that have never been done before, not modifications to old designs. First matter/antimatter impulse drive? Sure - cost plus. Another rocket with less capability than the Saturn V? YOYO (you're on your own).
Post a Comment