|
|
|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nightmare
Lyran Alliance
Kommandant-General
Joined: 03-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 2214
|
 Posted: 09-Dec-2004 09:06 Post subject: Army procurement vs real world |
  |
|
Thinking about how army procurement or defense industry engineers do the most brainless things? Sometimes they just don't know better! Here's a gem from a discussion on upgrading Mech engines, seen on rec.games.mecha... Originally about switching a Griffin from a standard engine to a modern XL. 
From: MKent41616 (mkent41616@aol.comdipyskpy) wrote:
>Mike Miller wrote:
>
>>Would you like to hear the story of why the USN's new
>>Virginia-class sub abandoned diesel auxiliaries based on
>>1920s train engines in favor of a modern diesels used by
>>Caterpillar earthmoving equipment?)
> actually i would
Alrighty, then. And this story is on-topic because it
translates over well to mech construction, or fluff for
mechs.
Once upon a time, long, long ago, the USN built some diesel-
powered submarines. Rather than spend megabucks on a new
engine design, the USN's clever engineers took an existing,
proven diesel engine (used in trains) and slapped it into
a submarine. Oh, there were a few modifications, like to
the air intakes, where the cooling water came from, and
putting valves on the exhaust, but the engine was basically
a train engine.
Then the USN started building nuclear submarines. These were
warships, and things on warships have a habit of getting broken
no matter how healthy they are. Failures of this nature can
usually be traced to something known as "enemy fire." But
just because something breaks on a warship doesn't mean the
warship is completely destroyed - what wrecks the reactor
may leave the weapons and sensors intact. So there are backups.
This is doubly true on submarines, where EVERYTHING has a
backup. There's even a retractable, back-up propeller on
USN submarines. So when the USN started building nuclear
wessles, they put on auxiliary power plants - diesels. Since
the old design worked, they kept that. On the Nautilus, on
the Sturgeon-class, on the Los Angeles-class, on the Sea
Wolf-Class...
Then the Arch Nemesis of the USN wussed out of the Cold War
and the budget to build big, bad-ass submarines went with
those Red weenies. The USN's latest and greatest attack sub
class, the Sea Wolf, had its production run curtailed from
about 30 subs to 3. The USN needed attack subs to replace
its aging LA-class boats, but the budget was smaller, so it
couldn't afford to build behemoths like the Sea Wolves. It
had to build the next generation of subs (formerly the NSSN -
New Nuclear Attack Submarine - and now the Virginia-class)
smaller, faster, cheaper.
Funny thing about smaller submarines: they don't have as much
room inside as bigger ones. I know, it's shocking.
Worse, the Virginias had to do SO much. Covert ops,
intelligence gathering, launching cruise missiles, fire
torpedos, drop mines, carry SEAL teams, work jointly
with other warships, etc. etc. etc. The days when attack
subs were lone hunters of the sea that just blew shit
up with torpedoes were gone. This put a real hurtin' on
available space in the sub, no matter the advances and
miniaturizations modern technology made available.
Would you believe that a 1920s diesel engine for trains is
a bit bulky?
The Virginia Class's engineers noticed that too, but were
in a terrible fright. The sub *needed* a diesel auxiliary.
Subs had diesel auxiliaries. That was the way subs were
built. USN subs used this proven, reliable design. That was
the way subs were built. Whatever were they to do?
The matter was forced on them when the engine's maker
mentioned it was getting out of the business. Nobody but
the USN bought the ancient diesels anymore, and the USN
bought, like, 50 engines a decade (coinciding with the
production rates of its submarines). The USN was paying
a fortune for tiny production runs of these ancient diesels.
Maybe they should ask around for a new engine.
They went to Caterpillar, the all-American earthmover
maker, and cautiously asked in a shy manner if Cat built
any diesel engines to this high output, ridiculously
compact size, and exacting military specifications for
reliability, shock resistance, etc. etc.
Cat said: Yeah. We build 30 of'em a day, most days.
Odd as it may sound, diesel engine technology had improved
since the 1920s.
So Caterpillar got the contract for a mere 30 engines. It's
losing money on the contract because the production run is
so small, but figures the PR value will more than make up
for it. And the USN learned the value of COTS (Current, Off-
The-Shelf) components.
Interestingly, the new, stealthy water pump the USN had to
design to supply cooling water to the Cat diesel cost more
than the engine. I'd bet the stealthy engine mounts and
muffler also cost more.
_________________
A tree fall in the forest, and no one is around, and it hits a mime. Does anyone care?
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Oafman
Draconis Combine
Tai-sho
Joined: 18-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1657
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 09-Dec-2004 10:42 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
Interesting little story. That would go well with the booster rocket width is based on the width of 2 horse butts story.
_________________
Festina Lente!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 09-Dec-2004 16:04 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
Fairbanks-Morse. That is the company who made a lot of naval powerplants.
Side-note: FM was building naval powerplants long before they entered the locomotive market. They used an opposed-piston design that was much more efficient and powerful than comparitively sized V engines. They adapted the OP engines for use on a locomotive frame by enlarging the actual size of the locomotives. When FM was producing locomotives the standard HP were 1500-1750. EMD and Alco had the lion's share of the market when FM entered it. Baldwin and Lima were on the out and had merged(unsuccessfully) to remain competitive. FM offered as it's first units, 2000 HP passenger engines known as "Erie-builts". EMD had a similar engine as did Alco. EMD used 2 engines to produce 1600 HP, while Alco had a single engine that produced 1750 HP. FM also produced road switchers and while their competitors were producing 1500-1750 HP units, FM produced a 2400 HP units. 12 years later both EMD and Alco matched that output. But during this same time FM introducecd it's "TrainMaster" line. which produced 3000-3600 HP depending on model. FM, as a third person in a one person market, fell just as many others had. Alco was soon to follow as GE started producing their own locomotives and stopped supplying Alco with advanced electronics. EMD still is around but GE displaced them from the #1 spot in the late 90's and hasn't been able to top GE since.
(bows his head in memory of all the fallen flags, both railroad and locomotive builder)
What killed the FM engines for the railroads was it's difficulty to servicec and do minor overhauls, which almost always required the removal of the engine to remove the pistons from the lower bank of cylinders. Naval ships never had this problem as they had as much room as they needed to work on and around the engine. Also the naval ships provided a much more stable and steady platform than a locomotive frame ever could. This also contrributed to the demise of FM frfom the locomotive industry.
Side note: The aformentioned Alco also produced the engines that still power the shuhttle carrier that NASA uses to move the space shuttle to the launch pad.
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Seraph
Blighted Sun Battalion
2nd Company
"Seraph's Slaughter"
Major
Joined: 11-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 1744
|
| Posted: 09-Dec-2004 16:05 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
-edit- dang double post.
[ This Message was edited by: Seraph on 2004-12-09 16:07 ]
_________________
If ignorance is bliss, then why are you so miserable?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Karagin
Imperial Karagin Army
Imperial General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 09-Dec-2004 21:06 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
The military never really get's the best of the best. They get decent products that work in the testing labs and under controlled enviorments ie the testing grounds.
Improvements are made AFTER actual combat usage and troop input. Some times they do get it right and buy the correct item at the correct time, but it's rare and even then the different committees and groups inside the Defense Department always seems to want to either :
1) Fix it so it meets some mythical need only they are aware of
2) Add more items to it since they have other things that need a home
OR and I like this one a lot having dealt with it:
3) It works and their fixes work but the cost is too much that they can only get a few of them and the units that need the new toy can't get them because the cost is too much.
In a nut shell they have to meet a budget and while they do get stuff that is needed a lot of times the on the shelf and works is beat by NOT on the shelf and has a lot of bugs in it.
IF you can get rid of the lobbist and other vultures hanging around Congress and the Pentagon then we might see working systems with less problems or we might not, but the cost won't be out the window on everything.
_________________
Karagin
Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato
"Wasted trip Man. Nobody said nuthin' about lockin' horns with no tigers." Oddball
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sir Henry
Team Bansai
Senior Tech Specialist
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4899
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 10-Dec-2004 06:34 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
I've seen the Virginia. It was a Nuclear Cruiser. It's painful to see the new SSN be saddled with a name from a recently decom'ed ship.
_________________
Sir Henry
A Dragon in the disguise of a bunny, is still a Dragon.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Nightmare
Lyran Alliance
Kommandant-General
Joined: 03-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 2214
|
| Posted: 10-Dec-2004 08:46 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-09 21:06, Karagin wrote:
IF you can get rid of the lobbist and other vultures hanging around Congress and the Pentagon then we might see working systems with less problems or we might not, but the cost won't be out the window on everything.
|
|
Somewhat like the Land Warrior project? Raytheon, maker of cruise missiles, managed to get the contract for developing that piece of gear. All they've done is waste money and fail to produce. A civilian consulting firm took over and produced working models using off-the-shelf parts.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/02/07/tech-military.htm
02/07/2002 - Updated 12:37 AM ET
Silicon Valley techies suit up Army with sleeker gear
By Edward Iwata, USA TODAY
On a pitch-black night last fall, 40 Army Rangers parachuted into the forests at Fort Polk, La., simulating combat against an Eastern Bloc enemy. They were outfitted with the "Land Warrior," a computer system full of high-tech firearms and communications gear. On the ground, the troops used Land Warrior's satellite-mapping device and found each other in 30 minutes. It can take two or three hours using flashlights and paper maps.
One Ranger, peering through a heat-sensing thermal sight on his M-4 rifle, spotted "enemy" snipers in the dark 300 meters away and opened fire, "killing" them. The Rangers finished their mission twice as fast as a typical platoon.
"It's powerful technology," says Army Ranger Sgt. Chris Augustine. "We were apprehensive at first, but now we're begging for it."
That's a stunning turnaround from three years ago, when soldiers hated the clunky Land Warrior system and ripped it off their backs. The $2 billion project was on its deathbed after defense contractor Raytheon built a prototype called the "turtle shell" that was blasted by the General Accounting Office. Since then, the Land Warrior has been resurrected by a team of Silicon Valley engineers who retooled it in six months.
The firms — Pacific Consultants, Exponent, Pemstar and Computer Sciences — ignored rigid Army specifications and brainstormed ideas. They lightened the Land Warrior computer harness, wrote new software and worked closely with soldiers.
Today, the new Land Warrior is earning rave reviews from troops testing it. "A dramatic improvement," says Army Lt. Col. Scott Crizer. Military officials say 48,000 Land Warrior outfits may roll out by 2004 to be used by Army troops in training and combat. Even the Navy has tested the Land Warrior.
The tech firms hail the revised Land Warrior as a victory of their fast-track, entrepreneurial business model over the costlier defense industry model followed by the military for decades. They also tout their use of commercial products, such as Microsoft software and Intel computer chips, instead of pricier technology made by the government or large defense contractors. While corporate behemoths, such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, rule the defense world, the small tech firms say their Land Warrior success has caught the attention of military brass and defense companies.
"We made it the classic Silicon Valley way: quicker, cheaper and better," says Hugh Duffy, a former Pacific Consultants executive. "It's an uphill battle, but we think we can transform the old model."
Six years ago, the Army hoped the Land Warrior would revolutionize combat by creating the world's first digital soldier. Part of the Pentagon's sweeping $21 billion drive to create a digital battlefield, the Land Warrior would give the Army the same dominance on the ground that the Air Force enjoys in the skies.
In theory, the early Land Warrior would be an awesome fighting machine. Infantrymen would use a computer and radio harness, voice communication and wireless e-mail, a satellite-mapping system and other high-tech gear.
"The idea was to make our soldiers invincible," says Justus Decher, executive director of business development at Pemstar.
After intense bidding, the contract to develop Land Warrior was awarded to Raytheon, maker of the Tomahawk cruise missile and the world's No. 3 defense contractor, with $17 billion in revenue.
Troubled times
But the first prototype by Raytheon was a 40-pound monstrosity, according to GAO reports, Army officials and defense industry experts. During testing, soldiers who rolled on the ground got stuck on their backs like tortoises. The helmet was so heavy, troops who were crawling couldn't lift their heads to fire rifles. A thick helmet cable got snagged in bushes so often that soldiers ripped it out.
The early Land Warrior software rarely worked, and batteries for computers and radios lasted far less than the desired 12 hours. The system failed water tests, leaking badly. During jump exercises, the bulky computer packs wouldn't fit under soldiers' parachutes.
"It was a classic example of guys sitting around a table, wishing they had this and that," says retired Army Lt. Col. Tim Eads, an analyst at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. "You ended up with a 50-pound piece of metal that soldiers hated dragging around."
Raytheon declined to talk about problems raised in the GAO report but said the company laid the foundation for the Land Warrior concept. "We believe our efforts were invaluable to (the success of) the Land Warrior," says Raytheon executive David Martin.
Meanwhile, the cost of developing the Land Warrior units had soared to $2.1 billion from $1.4 billion, according to the GAO. Congress was threatening to cut off funding, and Army officials were under pressure to kill the program.
An intense Army colonel named Bruce Jette revived the Land Warrior system, according to military and defense industry insiders. Jette, a no-nonsense engineer with a doctorate in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has a personal stake in the project's success: His son is studying at West Point.
To troubleshoot, in early 1999 Jette brought in high-tech consultants Exponent, a Silicon Valley firm that studies engineering and structural failures and accidents.
The firm felt that Raytheon had followed Army specs for the project too closely. The old prototype had to be trashed and a new computer and radio system built.
Raytheon strongly objected, say military and defense industry sources. The company had spent four years and millions of dollars developing the Land Warrior. It needed more work, but not a complete overhaul, they felt.
"We fulfilled our contractual obligations and designed what the government requested," says Raytheon's Martin.
In tense meetings and phone calls, Army officials asked Raytheon several times to work with the Silicon Valley engineers to change the Land Warrior. Raytheon refused, according to military and defense industry experts.
"Raytheon had a lot of ego and technical talent invested in the project," says Dan Causey, the Army's chief of technical management for the Land Warrior program. "They felt they were at the top of their game, and we hadn't convinced them. It was a real impasse."
The Silicon Valley engineers felt Raytheon could build missile systems but couldn't make cheap, reliable computer setups the way they could. Over beers at nearby bars, the engineers clashed over everything from software standards to computer chip speeds.
The budding partnership crumbled when Exponent refused to sign a subcontractor agreement with lead contractor Raytheon. Frustrated Army officials told Exponent to charge ahead anyway and design a new Land Warrior.
Going off the shelf
The Silicon Valley engineers slapped together a crude model in three months. They went to retailers Best Buy and Fry's Electronics and bought several cheap, off-the-shelf products, including Microsoft Windows CE software and a wireless card to allow Land Warrior computers to send data.
The most critical technical step: They wrote the software in common programming language used by most software engineers, rather than using old government programming language, as Raytheon had.
The Army sped up the months-long military procurement process by staging a Silicon Valley-style "bake-off" in late 1999 in Menlo Park, Calif. The bidders — Pacific Consultants, Raytheon and Motorola — demonstrated their proposed Land Warrior computer and software designs before a roomful of Army engineers.
"It was like the gunfight at the OK Corral," Duffy says.
Pacific Consultants said it could finish its prototype in six months for $2 million — more quickly and cheaply than the other bidders. The price tag for Pacific Consultant's prototype was $30,000 a unit, while Raytheon's version would have cost more than $60,000, say defense contractors and Army officials.
The Army decided in one day, choosing Pacific Consultants to design the Land Warrior's hardware, software and radio systems. The next year, Pacific Consultants led a consortium that won a $35 million contract to make the prototypes. In coming years, the military might dole out up to $18 billion to contractors to manufacture and repair Land Warrior units.
Soldiers say the newest Land Warrior is the best version yet. At 12 pounds, the vest and body armor fit snugly around a soldier's torso. Its Microsoft Windows 2000 software still has bugs but is nearing the project goal of 10 days of use without breaking down.
Soldiers who've grown up with computers love the Land Warriors, says Army Ranger Sgt. Don Boyle, who notes that a Delta Force Land Warrior video game is used during training at West Point.
Mindful that billions of dollars have been spent on ill-fated defense projects over the decades, the military hopes to buy more commercial technology. Even the Navy Seals have bought commercial speedboats and reinforced them to withstand gunfire.
"The Army may have led the world in solid-state electronics in the 1960s, but today, our technology expenditures aren't even one high-tech company's R&D budget," says Jette. "We have to use technologies in the commercial sector to our advantage."
Analysts say it's unclear, though, whether the Army's success with the Land Warrior will persuade the military and defense industry to change its ways. Too much is at stake, such as the $200 billion, 10-year contract won recently by Lockheed Martin to build the Joint Strike Fighter, a state-of-the-art jetfighter. Conservative military brass fear change. Politicians still want to funnel defense dollars into their districts.
"The forces arrayed against change are pretty formidable," says analyst Christopher Hellman at the Center for Defense Information.
Many of the large defense contractors have decades-old political ties to the Pentagon, Congress and the White House. Unless small tech firms own superior technology, they stand little chance of competing against the big guns.
Yet, the Silicon Valley model might be winning converts. Military experts say two new Army projects to modernize military vehicles and soldiers' communications systems will use commercial technology.
"That's a good sign," says Exponent executive John Geddes. "It means we've been successful."
_________________
A tree fall in the forest, and no one is around, and it hits a mime. Does anyone care?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gunslinger Patch
Royal Black Watch Regiment
Major
Joined: 04-Mar-2002 00:00
Posts: 1611
|
| Posted: 10-Dec-2004 21:42 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
I guess Ratheon is relearning that old rule for staying in business. Stay Innovative or get left in the ditch.
_________________
"Those who beat their guns into plows will plow for those with guns..." -Thomas Jefferson
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Nightmare
Lyran Alliance
Kommandant-General
Joined: 03-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 2214
|
| Posted: 10-Dec-2004 23:44 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
Hey, they're hauling in billions on cruise missiles. I don't understand why on Earth they were even allowed to start messing around with Land Warrior.
Not that corruption of some sort is uncommon in business of any kind. It may be frank, as giving key deciders cold cash. The subtle version consists of dinners, entertainment and travel under the guise of business or education.
_________________
A tree fall in the forest, and no one is around, and it hits a mime. Does anyone care?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Pinhead
The Bloody Clans
Joined: 25-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1258
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 11-Dec-2004 02:13 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
How does a commercial production house keep costs down?
They generally have large runs of products.
They generally use common, off the shelf parts.
They generally do not over specify the requirements on their product.
They are definately not over designed, and if they break it is an acceptable loss.
The Military by its nature never has a large production run. They are planning on 200 ish F22s, over 20 or so years, 300 ish JSF aircraft over 30 years or so.
The Military is generally required to use military parts, which are rated from -55 C to + 100 C. Commercial parts are 0 C to 70 C. There has been a push to allow the use on Industrial rated parts which generally go from -40 C to + 100 C.
Military parts are 5 to 20 times more expensive than commercial parts mostly due the the additional testing required by the Government to qualify them.
Lucky me, I get to occasionally decompose Federal Specifications into specifications for a design team. In the additional documents section (section 2.0), I have never seen less than 25 additional requirement documents called out. All of them must be met or the Government does not have to accept your product.
As an example, the F22 program has a 20 year lifetime. The supplier is required to prove that their system will last through a 20 year cycle. How do you prove that? Well there is the rub... It takes a huge amount of analysis, in conjunction with an extreme amount of testing.
The JSF program has a 30 year lifetime.
There are alot of reasons why Military Systems cost alot of money, and I would argue with the person who claimed that they generally get older technology. I have worked on at least 4 cutting edge technologies which are not available anywhere else. One of the prototypes I worked on over 10 years ago has found its way into hospitals....
The SR71 set the speed record from LA to DC on the flight it was retired and placed into the Smithsonian. How much would you like to bet that there are things which are faster out there.
The F117 was one of the larger reasons the USSR caved in militarily. All those expensive radars they had set up to protect their capital and sourrounding area were useless in detecting it. (Aviation weekly)
The unguided missles that were used in Vietnam can now hit a 5 foot circle 10 out of 10 times due to advances in guidance technology. (Journal of Electronic defense)
The missle defense technology that can guide a rocket to hit an incoming rocket has sensors that are so detailed you can actually see the writing on the side of the incoming missles (Jane's)
There is alot of things wrong with Military supply, but the technology of some of their equipment is head and shoulders above anything else out there.
Pin
_________________
"My Blood is not mine to give, it belongs to my Brothers"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SaberDance
Federated Suns
Colonel
Joined: 07-May-2004 00:00
Posts: 837
|
| Posted: 11-Dec-2004 13:26 Post subject: RE: Army procurement vs real world |
|
|
Ditto Pinhead.
I toured the Army's NBC training ground at Ft. Leonard Wood, MO last year. They use a lot of "old stuff," in the sense that the technology for identifying nerve gas hasn't really changed that much in 50 years. They also have a lot of updates, for example an LAV which they retrofited for use as an NBC scout. Then they have the "off-the-shelf" stuff (a modified Dodge Ram).
The officers I talked to said that the military's requirements for technology are magnitudes stricter than civilian technology. The highest-end civilian night vision, for example, is considered defective by the army.
The army's weaponry and armor is lightyears ahead of their civilian counterparts, and I doubt anyone is complaining that the vests which stop rifle rounds are too expensive.
There is also a national security component to this: the chips we use in Landwarrior are readily available to any of our enemies, and some of them are even manufactured in other countries (like China). It isn't exactly out of the question for China to hardwire a shutdown code into the chips before they sell them back to us, or they could learn to hack the chips indirectly, or they could stop selling us the chips. It's one of the reasons the House of Representatives voted on a law to require something like 80% of military equipment had to be home grown, and 100% of the classified stuff.
I do not know why the Senate voted that down.
_________________
"Politics is the Art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing the problem, and applying the wrong solution."
-Groucho Marx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-04:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
