PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 23, 2016, 03:03:33 PM
-
Nice not to fall out of the air when stuff like this happens. And thanks to Jim L for making us aware of this website a while back. I check it regularly.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/new-zumwalt-breaks-down-pacific-transit.html
-
The more they cost, the more technology they use, the easier they are to break.
-
For the amount of money we pay for these things that ought to be freaking perfect. I also don't really understand this stealth deal with a ship.
-
For the amount of money we pay for these things that ought to be freaking perfect. I also don't really understand this stealth deal with a ship.
In the navy there are only two types of vessels. There are submarines, and everything else are targets.
-
For the amount of money we pay for these things that ought to be freaking perfect. I also don't really understand this stealth deal with a ship.
I don't get the stealth idea either. I assure you that every submarine within many miles knows exactly where this thing is at all times. Not because it's special, but because it's a surface ship and it makes noise when the water hits it. Plus the propellers are not under that much pressure so they make noise when they turn. A boat on the surface does the same thing.
Ok, it has a very small radar signature. That's good in a world of missiles. But it will still only submerge once and it IS still a target.
-
The more they cost, the more technology they use, the easier they are to break.
And the more complex, and costly they are the more the break on their own. I would rather have reliability, than the complexity that will render the vessel useless. I was a contractor tp a very large defense company in the D.C. area, in an area relatively unrelated to defense, but it did give me an immersion into the industry. It is ALL about technology now. They had more IT people than anything else. A lot of it revolved around the NSA, but also they did a lot of battlefield, and naval situational awareness work which was all computer, and satellite based. Well, that is the first thing the enemy will take out, so where are we?
-
And the more complex, and costly they are the more the break on their own. I would rather have reliability, than the complexity that will render the vessel useless. I was a contractor tp a very large defense company in the D.C. area, in an area relatively unrelated to defense, but it did give me an immersion into the industry. It is ALL about technology now. They had more IT people than anything else. A lot of it revolved around the NSA, but also they did a lot of battlefield, and naval situational awareness work which was all computer, and satellite based. Well, that is the first thing the enemy will take out, so where are we?
A high technology ship dead in the water is surely a huge target. ::)
-
For the amount of money we pay for these things that ought to be freaking perfect. I also don't really understand this stealth deal with a ship.
Everything in this world that works had a time when it didn't.
Out in the middle of the ocean, ships don't like being targets. The less RCS the better, the less electronic emissions the better. Why would we make it easier for an enemy to detect and track our Navy ships?
-
And the more complex, and costly they are the more the break on their own. I would rather have reliability, than the complexity that will render the vessel useless.
Reliability usually comes at a cost and sometimes highly reliable can be more complex.
Of course, I'm still confused as to why the zumalt guns couldn't also fire regular shells.
-
Reliability usually comes at a cost and sometimes highly reliable can be more complex.
Of course, I'm still confused as to why the zumalt guns couldn't also fire regular shells.
Easy. The military industrial complex coupled with a corrupt Washington DC. This ship brought millions of dollars into many pockets and by making it so unique guarantees millions more to support it.
Take the A-10's. A very battle proven aircraft, very simple for what is is. A SLEP (service life extension program) would cost a fraction of what it cost to develop a replacement. But he replacement means millions, if not billions of dollars of taxpayer money being spread around. And the replacement being a very complex aircraft with very unique components means even more money just to support it.
-
A drive system is some pretty basic stuff, especially since it sounds like it was a driveshaft that locked. We are becoming a country run by bean counters, lawyers and english majors. Not that there is anything wrong with those professions, but analyzing sentence structure, arguing legal points or analyzing a balance sheet does not qualify one in overseeing, hiring engineers for or making decisions for such complex systems. I have a friend who works for an aeronautical company where basic mistakes are being made on $50,000,000 units by inept management. I can't begin to tell you the horror stories of simple things ignored over politics and egos that stall huge projects.
-
This is what shakedown cruises are for. Even when a ship design has been built dozens of times they often find problems. On the first voyage of such an advanced ship, I would have been extremely surprised, to the point of disbelieving, if they said they had no problems.
But it will be interesting to find out what the problem was. Was it due to "new technology", or did something "old tech", like a drive shaft or bearing fail.
-
This is what shakedown cruises are for. Even when a ship design has been built dozens of times they often find problems. On the first voyage of such an advanced ship, I would have been extremely surprised, to the point of disbelieving, if they said they had no problems.
But it will be interesting to find out what the problem was. Was it due to "new technology", or did something "old tech", like a drive shaft or bearing fail.
If I'm not mistaken, the shakedown cruises were already taken and the ship was supposedly operational.
-
If I'm not mistaken, the shakedown cruises were already taken and the ship was supposedly operational.
Ok, I stand corrected on that, but in the real world, most bugs and gotchas are found after the project has been put through all sorts of testing and is put to work. As I said, that is what shakedown cruises are for, but there can really be no definitive stopping place for testing such a new technology. There will be more bugs found in the future too. You can count on it.