
A Tale of Two Ships [pdf] - dmurray
http://thorconpower.com/docs/two_ships.pdf
======
gk1
In ~2009 I worked with the engineering manager for this class of ship. Can
confirm it was chaotic. Not in the sense that we didn't know what we were
doing, but in the sense that every other week some crazy issue would come up.

At one point I had to inventory every... single... weld... on the ship because
we questioned their quality.

At another time (2007), a diesel engine en route to the ship fell off a truck
and crushed a car, barely missing a woman who was sleeping in the back.
Nothing to do with the ship's quality, but imagine getting that news while
already putting out so many fires.

On the bright side, I got to be onboard one of these ships during a multi-day
sea trial, which was a lot of fun.

With all that said... It is completely unhelpful to compare the cost of a
military ship to a commercial ship. The commercial ships are very simple and
cookie-cutter[1], unlike military ships that are almost always new designs and
involve complex, integrated systems such as communication, defense, hospitals,
refueling, etc, etc.

[1] I wrote about this just last week: [https://www.gkogan.co/blog/simple-
systems/](https://www.gkogan.co/blog/simple-systems/)

~~~
linksnapzz
_The commercial ships are very simple and cookie-cutter[1], unlike military
ships that are almost always new designs and involve complex, integrated
systems such as communication, defense, hospitals, refueling, etc, etc._

So, subsequent hull numbers for San Antonio class ended up being cheaper than
100% over budget? Likewise, is it customary for STX or Chantiers de
l'Atlantique or Fincanterei to have to double-check the status of _every
single weld_ in ship they've delivered, or are the owners of cruise lines
tolerant of massive cost overruns && late delivery?

~~~
gk1
Generally, the first ship of any class suffers the most issues. Similar to the
first version of any major OS/software release. I don't remember the per-ship
costs off-hand but I'd be surprised if they were higher than the first.

Unfortunately the Navy doesn't have much choice in who builds their ships.
They _must_ be built in the US, and there are very few capable shipbuilders
still left in this country. It's a terrible business to be in, so there's no
incentive for companies to jump into the market because the margins are razor-
thin. In fact, Northrop Grumman got _out_ of the market a few years ago
([http://investor.northropgrumman.com/news-releases/news-
relea...](http://investor.northropgrumman.com/news-releases/news-release-
details/northrop-grumman-board-approves-spin-huntington-ingalls)).

(As an aside, cruise ships are still cookie-cutter compared to military
ships.)

To borrow a quote from Churchill, "[the current ship procurement process] is
the worst form of [procurement], except for all those others that have been
tried."

~~~
linksnapzz
Cruise ships are cookie-cutter designs relative to military ships due
to...more ships per class (model)? Lack of armament?

They are still made of steel, are welded/riveted together in modules, and must
be watertight. Is the knowledge of how to properly weld a hull-section for a
commercial ship utterly nontransferable to military work?

~~~
gk1
One of them is a war machine made by the world's richest country to defeat the
war machines of other very rich countries.

The other is a floating hotel.

~~~
LgWoodenBadger
Does a machine's purpose change how the welding for that machine is done?

~~~
at_a_remove
Yes.

I learned a couple of afternoon's worth of welding (TIG and MIG, with a dash
of spot) and looked at some books regarding it. I realized that I was staring
into a piece of craft that would take years to actually master the nuances of,
if I were even capable of it.

Very much, _yes_. Yes because of the probably different steels in a cruise
ship versus a battleship, yes because of lifetime expectancies, yes because of
stresses expected, yes because of inspection schedules. I probably don't have
even a good enough sense of what is required to come up with half of where the
differences would lie.

------
mojomark
As someone who has worked in both commercial ship and U.S. defense ship design
and construction for over 20 years, this is one of the most absurd and
uninformed write-ups I've ever seen.

VLCC's (an example of a commercial ship or "black hulls") are designed to
minimize cost. They use the cheapest steel, burn the cheapest fuel - it's
basically a metal bucket with a motor. LPD's (a military vessel (more
specifically an amphib) or "grey hull") is constructed of higher end materials
to protect itself and it's crew in peace time and it war.

Just to give you an example of where some of that cost comes from - LPD's have
flight decks with night vision compatible visual landing aids so pilots can
land at night concurrent with LCACs bing loaded into the well deck. The flight
deck can handle the intense structural heat loading of V-22 aircraft. They
have massive hangars to store and maintain aircraft, with precision gantry
cranes to do delicate aircraft parts replacement aboard the ship. There is an
ASSIST RAST track that does not deteriorate over time and jeopardize heavy
weather aircraft landings. There is a state of the art help control station...
ALL OF THIS is shock qualified to survive blasts.

The list goes on and on - combat systems, command and control, freshwater
generation and sewage systems for a massive crew (compared to a ~20 person
merchant ship), a propulsion and steering system with much higher installed
power and power density than anything anyone would put on a commercial ship
due to stringent speed and maneuvering requirements.

All of this is very difficult to integrate into a design and equally difficult
to build.

If you think you're going to design and build a grey hull at the same
displacement cost (steel weight) as a grey hull, you are grossly mistaken.
You're comparing a custom Ferrari to a bare bones van and saying "hey, this
can weighs more and costs way less. Gee, I need to write a paper to let
everyone know that Ferraris are way over priced."

Ding dong.

~~~
theamk
I don't think anyone expects price parity -- but I'd expect at least basic
features to work? I don't think anyone would complain if flight deck failed,
or new combat systems failed to perform to spec. Instead, report mentions what
looks like basic features -- "deficiencies [..] major enough [to] compromise
watertight integrity"? "Could not move under own power"?

When one is paying for a Ferarri that's a lot of money.. but at least when the
vehicle arrives, it can move under its own power and does not break down 2
month after.

~~~
mojomark
> I don't think anyone expects price parity -- but I'd expect at least basic
> features to work?

I only worked on the LPD platform for a brief period of time, but as anyone in
industry knows, the LPD-17 Class does indeed "work" \- far above and beyond
the basic propulsion and maneuvering.

>I don't think anyone would complain if flight deck failed, or new combat
systems failed to perform to spec.

Tell that to the family of the sailor who was crushed by a rotating gun turret
while checking his phone because an audible alarm failed to sound.

Tell that to the crew of the adjacent ship during a training excersize when
the gun barrel flips 180 degrees due to an erroneous sign-flip in the
software.

Tell that to the tax payers who have to pay for new flight deck non-skid and
deck repair after the V-22 exhaust burns the old non-skid off and warps the
deck steel (hopefully the FOD from the nonskid didn't get ingested into the
aircraft intakes and cause a crash killing the crew)

It's these kinds of uninformed statements that are dangerous to the very
people trying to defend their country because average citizens don't take the
time (and honestly don't have the time) to look into the true reason for
defense costs. Instead they get their information from non-peer-reviewed
papers by authors who make horrendous summations on topics they know nothing
about.

Yes, spending needs to be monitored and checked thrice, but the truth is much
more complex than can be summed up two pages (not that this write-up even
scratched the surface of the truth).

This write-up is more than ignorant, it's dangerous because is spreads easy to
digest and believe falsehoods that seep into the minds of the public. It may
as well have been written by Trump himself (I'm a patriot and respect the
POTUS office, but I still think the person in office is horrifying, even if he
does want to increase the naval fleet size, which is needed to protect the
country).

~~~
labcomputer
And who should we tell when the hull fails its most basic function (to keep
water outside the ship)?

Attempting to repeatedly change the subject by talking about night-vision
compatible this-or-that and various gun turret failures only makes your
argument look weak. Don't assume that we're stupid just because we aren't
actively serving in the military.

> This write-up is more than ignorant, it's dangerous because is spreads easy
> to digest and believe falsehoods that seep into the minds of the public.

Ok, I'm open to persuasion. Can you identify one or two falsehoods in the pdf
that is the subject of this thread?

Thus far, I see a lot of accounts attempting to change the subject, a lot of
complaining that the author is unfair, and insinuations that we civvies are
too stupid to understand such complex military issues. But no actual "The
author said X, and here's a link to show he's wrong."

That makes me think the author probably isn't wrong.

~~~
rwmurrayVT
"I am quite confident the price would come in under 50 million dollars, quite
possibly well-under."

The outfitting on a LPD and any other Navy vessel is the majority of the cost.
There is over 50m USD worth of radar processing equipment in a single space on
an LPD. Chocks, non-skid, RAST, extensive welding well beyond a VLCC, and
more. The alignment work alone on the combat systems equipment, i.e.
directors, CIWS, nulka, SRBOC, slq-32, spq-9b, HGHS, DTS, etc., is over 500k
USD. That's just ALIGNING the foundations and equipment. It's not the actual
equipment or foundations. The NOMEX panels in every space is incredibly
expensive. That's something you would never find on a VLCC. Even if you used
non-mil-spec cables you'd have miles and miles and miles more cable on a LPD
than a VLCC.

The article is correct. You could build a ship to carry 700 marines,
helicopters, and support vehicles for much cheaper. You would never be able to
have it move with the speed of a LPD, have the combat systems equipment
outfitted, and you'd never have it with any level of defense.

I have been on this exact ship many, many times. I previously commented that
it just left BAE NSR within the last 6 months. It just finished sea trials at
NAVSTA NFK. The LPD-class has been riddled with problems, but it's a totally
unfair to compare it to a basic "off-the-shelf" VLCC.

I'm surprised to see so many naval architects and engineers in this thread.
You have to remember that none of us wake up every day to do a poor job. These
ships are a miracle of modern engineering.

------
TheSoftwareGuy
>If the job of building a 22 knot, 25,000 ton ship capable of carrying 700
marines a couple of helicopters and a couple of air cushion vehicles were put
out for competitive bid to the the world shipyards, I am quite confident the
price would come in under 50 million dollars, quite possibly well-under. And
the ships would perform per spec. >In some situations, the difference between
what it should cost and what it did cost can be a factor of 30.

... And that's the end of the article. I'm not saying the author is wrong or
makes any dubious claims, but I really wish he would have explored his
alternative more thoroughly. It's quite an easy assertion to make, that US
military acquisitions are rife with inefficiencies, but solving that problem
is much harder.

~~~
all2
> It's quite an easy assertion to make, that US military acquisitions are rife
> with inefficiencies, but solving that problem is much harder.

My favorite example of this was the US Army's decision to use the ACU design
pattern. The only thing it blends in with is Gramma's floral couch.

In terms of ships and other equipment, having a commercial manufacturer step
into the military space would be like asking Ford or GMC to make Bradley
Fighting Vehicles; they don't have the know-how for combat ready
manufacturing. The systems in any combat vehicle are an order of magnitude
more complex than commercial offerings in terms of design, verification, and
manufacturing.

Part of this is the military requirement for 3rd party integrations. The BFV
is manufactured by BAE Systems, but the turret optics/electronics package is
Raytheon.

An engineering firm I'm familiar with recently got the contract for part of
the M1 Abrams tier 4 (?not sure?) upgrades and has to meet integration
requirements of existing hardware/electronics and new hardware/electronics
other bid winners are contributing.

I would argue that, aside from the run-of-the-mill pocket lining (see ACU
design selection), the acquisition process for military equipment is
_necessarily_ inefficient.

~~~
linksnapzz
_In terms of ships and other equipment, having a commercial manufacturer step
into the military space would be like asking Ford or GMC to make Bradley
Fighting Vehicles; they don 't have the know-how for combat ready
manufacturing. The systems in any combat vehicle are an order of magnitude
more complex than commercial offerings in terms of design, verification, and
manufacturing._

Strangely enough, seventy years ago commercial manufacturers ...GM, Ford,
Chrysler, Food Machinery Corp(!), General Mills(!!), Western Electric etc. had
the know-how for combat-ready manufacturing...what changed?

~~~
all2
> what changed?

Complexity and integration requirements. Tanks 70 years ago were not as
complex as our current heavy armor by several orders of magnitude.

=== EDIT ===

To clarify: the complexity arises from electronics and electro-mechanical
assemblies, the chemistry/metallurgy/materials science from armor/chassis,
engine complexity (M1 has a jet turbine), and so on. We have a depth of
advancement that is as complex at the knowledge end as it is at the
application end.

~~~
linksnapzz
70 years ago, cars weren't as complicated as tanks were. Do you think that
automotive tech has stood still relative to military technology?

~~~
earthboundkid
All of the apologist replies are based on the problem of overoptimizing. Yes,
if you pay 100x as much, you can always get something 10% better. Is it worth
it? Well, it is 10% better. Depends.

For our military since the 70s, we have not fought a major power, and the main
incentives are to keep the contractor money flowing and the body bag count
down. So, the system is working to deliver what it is optimized to deliver.

Were we to get into a war with Russia or China though, it's pretty clear we'd
get our asses handed to us because we can only make N weapons for Y dollars
while they make 10N weapons for the same price, and theirs are only 10% less
effective than ours. As it is, ISIS and the Taliban can keep us spinning our
wheels for a decade with nothing to show for it. Imagine a foe with an actual
military budget…

~~~
all2
To be fair, the Russians also occupied Afghanistan with very similar results.
I think this is a tenant of colliding ideologies of the occupied people,
ideologies of the occupiers, and asymmetrical warfare (see a fantastic book
titled "Small Wars").

~~~
gumby
> To be fair, the Russians also occupied Afghanistan with very similar results

Exactly, but was that lesson learned? No.

~~~
earthboundkid
Also, they occupied Afghanistan for less time and with arguably more control.

------
hapless
Just think, this was a “successful” project. If you think _this_ sounds like a
boondoggle, look at the F-35, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Zumwalt class, or
the Gerald E. Ford.

The disaster described in this essay is the proverbial good old days. DoD
procurement has gotten _worse_ since then.

------
michaelmcdonald
"You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet
seat, do you?"

~~~
ThinkingGuy
Worth reading: "The Myth of the $600 Hammer"

[https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-
the...](https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-
the-600-hammer/5271/)

~~~
hapless
This article subverts its own thesis. The $435 hammer was an “accounting
artifact,” but the government is routinely fleeced and the DoD in particular
is unable to accomplish basic accounting tasks.

My favorite paragraph:

> Conversely, said defense analyst Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington
> Institute, a conservative Arlington, Va., think tank, the $2 billion-per-
> plane figure cited by opponents of the B-2 stealth bomber includes the
> program's high research and development expenses--which must be spread over
> only 21 planes--plus spare parts, maintenance and future inflation. Said
> Thompson: "What would it cost me to build one more bomber? . . . $700
> million."

Gee, what a steal! Only $700 million for a “stealth” “bomber” that is neither
stealthy nor able to carry a significant payload.

~~~
greedo
Your last sentence is filled with so many factual errors...

The B2 is considered the most stealthy of any of the fifth generation aircraft
currently flying. And it carries a 40K payload. Yes, that's smaller than the
B-52 and B-1, but it's fine for it's role.

------
dooglius
I've always wondered why the government doesn't try a payment-on-delivery
model. That would put the risk on the supplier and fix the incentive problems.
A counter-argument would be that it creates significant barriers to entry, but
it seems like these contracts go to the big powerhouses anyway.

~~~
throw0101a
> _I 've always wondered why the government doesn't try a payment-on-delivery
> model._

Because we're not talking about generic widgets here. It's the difference
between buying a bespoke Saville Row suit and a 3-for-1 Suit Warehouse suit.

There are all sorts of off-the-shelf (OTS) designs for general use vessels
like tugboats:

* [https://ral.ca/designs/tugboats/](https://ral.ca/designs/tugboats/)

And there are some 'generic' designs for combat vessels:

* [https://products.damen.com/en/clusters/combatants](https://products.damen.com/en/clusters/combatants)

But if you purchase a generic design, then you don't have an advantage of your
(potential) opponent because they may also have purchased a generic design.

The US military specifically does not want a generic design (at least in some
areas) because they want (perceived) advantage with more (supposedly) advanced
design. And someone has to pay for the R&D on that advanced design.

Given that the only market for these boats is the USN, why should the builder
pay for the R&D? It's their (only?) customer that's asking for this, and they
can't use what they learn for any other designs (because of ITAR export
restrictions).

When Ford is doing research for a new F-150 they can spread the R&D over
millions of units getting economies of scale, but (e.g.) Bath Iron Works can't
exactly amortize the fixed costs of the _Zumwalt_ -class destroyer if their
only customer, the USN, says they'll buy 32 but then only builds 3. Why should
BIW be the ones to pay?

It's the reason why the F-22 and F-35 have different costs: the Raptor is a
US-only plane that no one else can touch, the Lightning II is cheaper because
it's available for export and gets economies of scale.

~~~
hapless
In reality BIW gets to double dip — they charge for R&D and also postpone the
“D” part until after the ship is built, at which point the Navy will pay again
to fix problems that should never have made it out of the yard.

Why do anything right the first time if you can get paid twice, thrice, or six
times to fix your fuckups later?

P.S. if I buy a bespoke suit, I pay a fixed cost and it’s guaranteed correct —
problems are paid for by the maker, not me.

~~~
throw0101a
> _P.S. if I buy a bespoke suit, I pay a fixed cost and it’s guaranteed
> correct — problems are paid for by the maker, not me._

Using materials that have been used for decades.

If you want to create a new nano-fibre fabric in a lab that's never been used
before, and will not be purchased by anyone else, why should Henry Pool or
Huntsman & Sons be the ones to pay for all the lab equipment?

If the USN wants cheap and cheerful there are OTS options:

* [https://products.damen.com/en/clusters/combatants](https://products.damen.com/en/clusters/combatants)

It's kind of what the USN is doing for the FFG(X):

* [https://news.usni.org/2018/02/16/navy-picks-five-contenders-...](https://news.usni.org/2018/02/16/navy-picks-five-contenders-next-generation-frigate-ffgxprogram)

~~~
hapless
Last I checked, ships are still built from steel, just as they have been for a
century.

Also the ffg/x “competitive” “bidding” process is a joke. They are paying five
vendors to make PowerPoint presentations, then whoever made the prettiest
slide deck gets billions of dollars.

The folks who run this are sensitive to criticism but also either unwilling or
unable to enact any substantial change.

~~~
throw0101a
So tell me: which COTS design are the _Zumwalt_ s based off? Or the LCS
designs? Or the _Ford_ carriers? Where was the _Ford_ s' EMALS catapults tried
before?

------
TeMPOraL
It really surprises me that companies can get away with scamming the
government so badly, and nobody gets shot (or at least put in jail) for that.

~~~
scottlocklin
I dunno, when was the last time the US had an anti-corruption effort where
anyone paid any kind of price? I'm old enough to remember Abscam[1], the
outcome of which seemed to be "hey, American politicians can be bought for
super cheap!" Also: whether or not he killed himself, l'affaire Epstein
indicates that our politicians are swine who can be bought off in more simple
and sleazey ways.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam)

~~~
EvanAnderson
I was around 3 y/o when Abscam went down. Now, however, I have a pretty good
idea why Penn and Teller called their Bell Labs prank "lab scam". Thanks for
that.

[https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/labscam.html](https://www.bell-
labs.com/usr/dmr/www/labscam.html)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxMKuv0A6z4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxMKuv0A6z4)

------
novalis78
Great write-up. I am sure Thorconpower knows all too well, sadly, a tale of
‘two nuclear reactors’ and extensive paperwork for quality control... in an
alternative universe their exciting design for MSTR would already be mass
produced.

------
tacon
A few years ago I got an inside tour of the brand new LCS Jackson (littoral
combat ship) while undergoing acceptance trials at Mayport Naval Base near
Jacksonville, Florida. The Jackson was first of its new class.

Why do they check every weld on a new Navy ship? So they can test it by trying
to blow it up:

[https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2016/06/16/lcs-
survives...](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2016/06/16/lcs-survives-
first-shock-test-preps-for-more/)

Not part of the acceptance test for a VLCC.

~~~
trhway
from the link:

>A 10,000-pound explosive charge was set off about a hundred yards from the
Jackson – the Navy wouldn't say exactly how close, saying the actual distance
is classified

and they provided the photo clearly allowing for the precise calculation :) -
the explosion is about 12 widths of the helicopter deck from the ship and that
means at least 200-250m which sounds more realistic as setting off a 5ton
explosion 100m from a small aluminum ship - who is going to pay for all that
damage :) If the test is officially declared for anything close to 100m then
that may be another case of "Pentagon Wars" ...

------
rwmurrayVT
The USS San Antonio just left BAE Systems NSR within the last 6 months. In
fact, this week it has just returned from sea trials to NAVSTA Norfolk. There
were plenty of issues during the availability, including that damn stern gate.

:-)

------
gumby
The us has allies with which it shares technology and weapons. Why should it
not have diversity in sourcing?

------
pp19dd
IMO this might be the most significant point in the doc. "Ship’s XO Sean
Kearns refuses Captain’s mast, is court-martialed."

While underway, commander/captain is judge, jury and executioner for
disciplinary issues. They call it "Captain's mast" and the powers that come
with it are wide and can be extreme, including demotions and docking pay.

The XO refused to receive the ship commander's punishment while on mission.
Tantamount to a mutiny.

~~~
edw
And yet he is, per the PDF, acquitted.

~~~
jagged-chisel
I'm curious what orders were given and refused. We can assume that they were
related to forcing approval of ship's readiness or some such, but I'd really
like to be sure.

