# Navy's $12.9 BILLION USS Gerald R. Ford warship delayed again



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2016)

They say it stumbled thru the trials! 

The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford Navy supercarrier could potentially struggle with planes landing and taking off, moving military weapons and being able to successfully defend itself, a memo obtained by Bloomberg News reads.

Navy's $12.9 BILLION USS Gerald R. Ford warship delayed again


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The $12.9 billion USS Gerald R. Ford Navy supercarrier could potentially struggle with planes landing and taking off, moving military weapons and being able to successfully defend itself, a memo obtained by Bloomberg News reads.



Other than that, it sounds G2G.

"Concurrency" is one of the greatest lies told in weapons procurement. It is absolutely criminal.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> struggle with planes landing and taking off



If you are talking about an Aircraft Carrier, don't you just stop there ?


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> If you are talking about an Aircraft Carrier, don't you just stop there ?



They may have cranes. Just pull into port, offload, and problem solved. Duh!

(I can't tell if you're missing my sarcasm or not)


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> They may have cranes. Just pull into port, offload, and problem solved. Duh!
> 
> (I can't tell if you're missing my sarcasm or not)


 Not missing your sarcasm at all. In fact just adding onto it, how the fuck can you build an aircraft carrier the can't land aircraft,  and then have that point just  mixed in with the other point like it's only a small detail. 

 I guess this is what you get when you go with the lowest bidder, not to be derail my own thread, but I really wonder if we could land a man on the moon today.


----------



## CrimsonWave (Jul 21, 2016)

Ummm pretty much the same way as you have the most advanced and tactfully equipped fighter ACFT for air superiority ever built (supposedly).... and it cant even fly... or be used.... or even keep its pilots from passing out due to oxygen problems.... you know basic airplane requirements...


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2016)

CrimsonWave said:


> Ummm pretty much the same way as you have the most advanced and tactfully equipped fighter ACFT for air superiority ever built (supposedly).... and it cant even fly... or be used.... or even keep its pilots from passing out due to oxygen problems.... you know basic airplane requirements...



I think you may confuse the F-22 and the F-35. The -22 had O2 issues, but those were resolved. The F-22A field is currently receiving incremental software upgrades and is arguably the best plane on the planet right now. Hands down. The thing is a beast and we're leveraging its electronic capabilities against ISIS. Those are mind-blowing and I only see a small slice of them.

The F-35 is...not even close.


----------



## CrimsonWave (Jul 21, 2016)

@Freefalling I was speaking of a little bit of both, not only in the aspect of what I said above but with other issues, just what very close friends of mine who work on them say, the F-35 in my opinion has been a waste of money from the start.... great idea yes their idea of obviously coming out with a joint fighter that is pretty much the Sams club version of the F-22 (cheaper replacement)  I was lucky (meaning when the 5th gens came out I had already been working on the old birds long enough for them not to cross shred me) and got stuck on what now the military now calls heritage fighters... (F-16, F-15, A-10 and so on) now granted I understand that when Acft come off the line they already have huge issues that have to be addressed, (when F-16s came off the line they had fuselage crack issues) and as of today we are still dealing with longeron cracks. It is very unfortunate that it took pilots losing there lives to find and troubleshoot the oxy problem up in AK. But and this is just a huge but in the defense of the 22 its power and technology is amazing, I've been a part of a F-22 motor pull before and it is incredible what GE has come up with compared to when I pull F-16 motors. it does surpass anything that I have ever seen.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 21, 2016)

Everybody quit bitching. It's invisible to radar. No wonder planes can't land on it, they can't find it.

This is what happens when you christen a ship with "American sparkling wine" and not Dom Perignon. Hey, we got a 20-billion dollar aircraft carrier here, will somebody run out and get a bottle of Mad Dog 20-20 so we can christen this scow on the cheap?


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Other than that, it sounds G2G.



"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how'd you enjoy the play?"

The AC has one job.....just one....and they can't even get it right anymore.....


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2016)

Just to show how our acquisition program is broken:

The Air Force Is Done Testing Its Next-Generation Tanker



> The KC-46 contract does not contain pre-defined penalties for missing schedule deadlines, Leese said.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 23, 2016)

How hard can it be to make a tanker? They didn't need to design the airframe, engines, avionics, comms systems, they already have the booms for the other planes... Add tanks, figure out the structural loads. This isn't even a ground up plane. It is a fucking 767 that costs billions in development? Wtf.


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> How hard can it be to make a tanker? They didn't need to design the airframe, engines, avionics, comms systems, they already have the booms for the other planes... Add tanks, figure out the structural loads. This isn't even a ground up plane. It is a fucking 767 that costs billions in development? Wtf.



Something like 90% of the system I maintain is COTS yet it still took years to engineer, develop, and test. Bonus points: It used much of the same equipment and software as it predecessors. It isn't a 100% from the ground up production. We still have integration issues, software only few people understand but won't touch it without a follow-on support contract*, and our training "plan" was directed to be developed in house. Yes, we're writing our own training plan.

I am 100% on board with you and working in an environment with similar issues. Mine are much less challenging than an airplane, but it shows we can't properly manage small systems (I think ours is only $130-ish million) so how do we expect to manage aircraft or ship acquisition?

The system and people who run it are just broken.

* - I don't blame them for not touching it without a contract. I blame the contracting officers for not budgeting for follow-on support. That could be had on the cheap because it would be very part time and amount to 2-3 episodes over as many years.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 23, 2016)

Looks like the Navy has its own "F-35 program" now.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> How hard can it be to make a tanker? They didn't need to design the airframe, engines, avionics, comms systems, they already have the booms for the other planes... Add tanks, figure out the structural loads. This isn't even a ground up plane. It is a fucking 767 that costs billions in development? Wtf.



I'd be curious as to the disagree here.. Is it not a 767, a plane we already use in government service?


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> How hard can it be to make a tanker? They didn't need to design the airframe, engines, avionics, comms systems, they already have the booms for the other planes... Add tanks, figure out the structural loads. This isn't even a ground up plane. It is a fucking 767 that costs billions in development? Wtf.


No,no,and no.
The boom and pods are new designs.
You also are building a new software suite (source of most program delays) with a different set of (US) mil std avionics (all of which need software integration).  Software is not cheap.
The 767/KC-46 boom had issues with bow waves from large aircraft (C-5,KC-10,C-17) that's something that isn't alway apparent in wind tunnel testing (which needs an engineering/software fix).
They also had hydraulic/boom over pressure issues, again wind tunnel does not always equate to real world ops.
One of the issues not mentioned in the story was a subcontractor screwing the refueling tanks/system up during initial testing.  They had to remove the tanks/ and subsystems purge them and re-install.  That adds delays (especially when you only have a single aircraft to test).

(sorry for the delayed response, I am typing in-between chores as we just finished our vacation).

It's based on the 767, but it has enough differences to be a new airframe (just like the KC-10 was based on the DC-10 (with major mods).


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 24, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> No,no,and no.
> The boom and pods are new designs.
> You also are building a new software suite (source of most program delays) with a different set of (US) mil std avionics (all of which need software integration).  Software is not cheap.
> The 767/KC-46 boom had issues with bow waves from large aircraft (C-5,KC-10,C-17) that's something that isn't alway apparent in wind tunnel testing (which needs an engineering/software fix).
> ...




I hope you had a good vacation.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 24, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I hope you had a good vacation.


Got 'disowned by my Mother-in-law, does that count as good?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 24, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Got 'disowned by my Mother-in-law, does that count as good?



Jeez.... You know who you have to ask about that one. 

Some of my in-laws, 2 sisters and one brother, agreed to mutual beneficial brick walls.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 24, 2016)

Back on topic, is this the carrier with the new launch recovery systems?


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Back on topic, is this the carrier with the new launch recovery systems?



Yes.


----------



## Brill (Jul 24, 2016)

So the Navy too is considering deleting their EMALS?

EMALS/ AAG: Electro-Magnetic Launch  Recovery for Carriers


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 25, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> You also are building a new software suite (source of most program delays) with a different set of (US) mil std avionics (all of which need software integration).  Software is not cheap.



Shouldn't all those avionics be in the P8 though so it shouldn't be too much of a change?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 25, 2016)

Some are standard, others aren't as much. With the major airframe reconfiguration required to do tanker duty, there's a good bit that ends up having to be done. Including redesignating the flight envelope of the aircraft, bla de blah.

Even with a COTS bird, more or less, it's not really plug and play as much as anyone would like.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 25, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Shouldn't all those avionics be in the P8 though so it shouldn't be too much of a change?


P-8 is a 737 derivative.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 25, 2016)

This is the new age of the F35c and the electromagnetic rail gun. Fuck steam. Fuck Hydraulics. Fuck the cost. Go Navy, A Global Force for Good.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 25, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> P-8 is a 737 derivative.



I'm aware but you're talking about standard mil avionics right? Radios, nav, crypto etc.


----------



## CQB (Jul 25, 2016)

Up next, the USS Spiro Agnew.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 25, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Some are standard, others aren't as much. With the major airframe reconfiguration required to do tanker duty, there's a good bit that ends up having to be done. Including redesignating the flight envelope of the aircraft, bla de blah.
> 
> Even with a COTS bird, more or less, it's not really plug and play as much as anyone would like.



Yeah I see that now. You would think it would be an easy fix. A cheap fix. But alas I have been around enough to know better


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Just to show how our acquisition program is broken:
> 
> The Air Force Is Done Testing Its Next-Generation Tanker



It's all the damn changes and higher ups who want to put their own stamp on things that cause major overages. 

Want to know why the MRAP was so fast to hit the desert? Because the Government allowed industry to spend their own money and then kept their noses out of the way. 

I won't pretend to be an expert yet in contracting, and I haven't bought any major systems or supplies, but I'd venture to say if the Government forced contractors to stay the course and build per their proposal, and then penalized the contractor for going over,  unless it's fixed price, a lot of broken parts of the acquisition of supplies and services would be fixed quickly.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 28, 2016)




----------



## DA SWO (Jul 29, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> It's all the damn changes and higher ups who want to put their own stamp on things that cause major overages.
> 
> Want to know why the MRAP was so fast to hit the desert? Because the Government allowed industry to spend their own money and then kept their noses out of the way.
> 
> I won't pretend to be an expert yet in contracting, and I haven't bought any major systems or supplies, but I'd venture to say if the Government forced contractors to stay the course and build per their proposal, and then penalized the contractor for going over,  unless it's fixed price, a lot of broken parts of the acquisition of supplies and services would be fixed quickly.


True.

One thing the Russians did was build to the original specs and make changes in latter models (we use to go that route too).
Contractors love change orders as it allows them to dump all the cost errors on the Government.


----------



## AWP (Jul 29, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> It's all the damn changes and higher ups who want to put their own stamp on things that cause major overages.
> 
> ...I'd venture to say if the Government forced contractors to stay the course and build per their proposal, and then penalized the contractor for going over,  unless it's fixed price, a lot of broken parts of the acquisition of supplies and services would be fixed quickly.



To a certain extent those two contradict each other. The gov't will make changes to a contract so that would force them to rewrite the delivery dates. I know contractors will request changes, and that's on them, but gov't changes should require a revision in the timeline and deliverables.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 30, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> To a certain extent those two contradict each other. The gov't will make changes to a contract so that would force them to rewrite the delivery dates. I know contractors will request changes, and that's on them, but gov't changes should require a revision in the timeline and deliverables.



Which is why I stated it's the higher ups who want to put their own stamp on it. The blame isn't pointed solely at industry, which is why I said for the Government to keep their nose out of the build process.  But by doing it that way,  it moves the risk from the Government to industry,  which will raise prices,  but it will also place all the blame back on industry.  It allows them to be held accountable so when delays happen, it's not a finger pointing game. If a manufacturer has negative past performance,  it will be harder for them to get future contracts, especially when using evaluation factors and past performance is rated higher than price.


----------

