tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4615307549280422610..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: A Lesson In ComplexityComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74648354881552163572016-06-19T21:14:45.458-07:002016-06-19T21:14:45.458-07:00There is a lot to be said about reliability and we...There is a lot to be said about reliability and weapons that work under difficult conditions. <br /><br />Like it or not, warfare will subject everything to the far from ideal conditions. It is what having a war is all about after all.<br /><br />In a military that cared about success, reliability would be a key metric for choosing a system. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90318713853159101812016-06-18T18:35:18.293-07:002016-06-18T18:35:18.293-07:00Annon, with all due respect to Larry Vickers, &quo...Annon, with all due respect to Larry Vickers, "I'm not talking about what a delta force vet can achieve with a particular tool, I'm talking about what you can stick in the hand of a 6 month recruit and expect him to use competently, an Ak aint it, else, we'd all be using Galils or SIG's."<br /><br />++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />Either you did not watch the video clip (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b9_1311111666), or you are arguing for the sake of argument.<br /><br />LAV specifically states at 2:18 that AK inaccuracy legend is "a common misconception" goes on to state that the AK is more sufficiently accurate for its intended role. Larry puts the weapon through its paces.<br /><br />If you "could not hit the broadside of a barn" with an AK, then the problem is likely operator error and not the weapon.<br /><br />GAB<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64942426008006226322016-06-18T00:15:36.020-07:002016-06-18T00:15:36.020-07:00Noted,
Thanks Andrew.Noted,<br />Thanks Andrew.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29384348397261833622016-06-17T22:15:43.987-07:002016-06-17T22:15:43.987-07:00TRT ,
Pretty much, yes, 100 hour service interval ...TRT ,<br />Pretty much, yes, 100 hour service interval isn't terrible, especially if that component is a 20 minute job, dont forget, in modern parlance, labours expensive, manufacturing is cheap. So, drop in a gear box after every week of hard use? Sure, it sounds like it takes less time than it would to fuel up the diesels. which you're doing every day.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64134844209837730502016-06-17T22:07:15.342-07:002016-06-17T22:07:15.342-07:00Barbra Tuchman postulates that why the west has wo...Barbra Tuchman postulates that why the west has won is largely because of this right here, the ability to exchange ideas openly, so pardon me if I'm overly abrupt with my points, i do listen to what you have to say.<br /><br />Annon, with all due respect to Larry Vickers, I'm not talking about what a delta force vet can achieve with a particular tool, I'm talking about what you can stick in the hand of a 6 month recruit and expect him to use competently, an Ak aint it, else, we'd all be using Galils or SIG's.<br /><br />Jim, <br />I'm well aware of how important readiness rates and turn around times are,<br />IDF trounced the Egyptian air force not on weight of numbers, but on weight of airstrikes, with comparable sized air forces the IDF were able to generate 4 times the sorties per day than their egyptian counterparts, so yes, readiness rates count for a LOT.<br />Hence, one of the biggest innovations in the F-35 is its internal sensor suite, coupled with networked supply chain.<br />I know, I KNOW! its not currently working at 100%, its a very complicated system. However enough of it is already working to allow the plane to inform the ground controlers of what needs attention. This innovation is purely for the ready rate factor, give it time, its not a finished craft, then again, whatever is?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58708665236188307622016-06-17T14:03:50.732-07:002016-06-17T14:03:50.732-07:00TrT, don't equate complexity failures with qua...TrT, don't equate complexity failures with quality failures. You can build the simplest thing in the world but if you build it poorly, it will fail. The point of the post was that the converse is not true. You can build the most complex thing in the world perfectly and it still won't be ready, available, and maintainable. Complexity = poor readiness and maintainability.<br /><br />I have no idea what the case is for the T72 gearbox. Quality failure (would be my guess) or complexity failure? I have no idea and I'm sure you don't either. That it fails does not necessarily mean that it's too complex - it may just be poorly built.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21825819151940313302016-06-17T13:49:36.437-07:002016-06-17T13:49:36.437-07:00"I cannot comment on the new Russian gear, bu..."I cannot comment on the new Russian gear, but the Soviets designed pretty robust equipment. "<br /><br />See, thats cool, but I've also read that a T72 gearbox had a MTBF of 100 hours.<br />But then if it can be swapped out in 20 minutes, is a T72 "robust"?<br /><br />It depends where we measureTrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89470955525493678482016-06-17T08:30:43.851-07:002016-06-17T08:30:43.851-07:00"I'm sorry mate, you're wrong."
..."I'm sorry mate, you're wrong."<br /><br />I can lead you to water ...ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82640490790518282762016-06-17T07:45:54.586-07:002016-06-17T07:45:54.586-07:00"Unless you're choosing to focus only on ..."Unless you're choosing to focus only on manufacturing, you're missing the main point of the post."<br /><br />Sorry. I went off on a tangent based on the M4 example (the idea that there was alot of sophistication in the M4 due to the way it was manufactured). My point was that complexity in manufacturing (going to an entirely cast hull, epoxy's used in certain areas in addition to bolts) can be okay, *AS OPPOSED* to complexity in the product itself. <br /><br />The F-35 and LCS are a hot mess, no matter how good or efficient the manufacturing is.They aren't supportable in the field so far. <br /><br />The M4 had alot of new technology in its manufacturing, but the end product itself was extremely serviceable and reliable. <br /><br />" if you can get a good process flow from design to manufacture"<br /><br />This is key to making a product serviceable and reliable. Some of the things the engineers come up with are nightmares. <br /><br />Serviceability and manufacturability have to be in the design. <br /><br />JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36841032968629393702016-06-17T07:41:08.774-07:002016-06-17T07:41:08.774-07:00Oooooooooo, Interesting debate.
The “simplicity” ...Oooooooooo, Interesting debate.<br /><br />The “simplicity” of which you speak, the AK47 being a prime example, is in fact incredibly complex to engineer.<br /><br />You have to get an idea and run design after design after design until you have one that circumvents many of the inherent problems caused by the universe, and then you have to refine, ditch, redesign and evolve a design.<br /><br />Then more to production engineering and figure out how to change the whole thing again so that it can be made reliable.<br /><br />The MAC10 is a nice example of many of the features an AK47 uses to be so good, open tolerances, air cooling, simple design, minimal components, cheap and easily made.<br /><br />And it’s a piece of Sh*t. Sorr Mr Mac but it is !<br /><br />Quality is designed in. It takes time and a whole bunch of a particular kind of very skilled engineers.<br />It has to be high on the list of priorities, and the ethos must permeate every level of the design and construction, and it costs. ( But not necessarily in terms of the dollar net. )<br /><br />In Short Simplicity is phenomenally complex.<br /><br />It’s got to have NO Ego and NO Agenda and NO PR department, because it involves rework and being prepared to admit your wrong and evolve the design.<br />You have to admit your in a research world, making something new and never before seen. Admit you don’t know, what you don’t know, yet! and when you hit that problem you have to adapt.<br /><br />Unfortunately we seem to be risk adverse in a research and development environment, and stock holders don’t respond well to anything but good news.<br /><br />On the other hand.<br /><br />We do still do some good things. AESA is a brilliant invention, highly resilient to the real word; they can suffer 100 of broken components whilst still remaining nearly totally operational. Complex complex waveform engineering but basically consists of sticking a load of “LED’s” on a big board. Amazing.<br /><br />I guess you win some you lose some?<br /><br />Beno<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12729830680739249692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71972078932749811932016-06-17T07:39:45.275-07:002016-06-17T07:39:45.275-07:00"That road means the equipment needs to be a ..."That road means the equipment needs to be a highly reliable black box. not something that is CASREP'd if someone sneezes on it. Having to call LockMart, GE and Raytheon for tech assistance reduces the overall capability of the Navy."<br /><br />I had thought that the Navy used to, in the 80's at least, do some pretty complex technical work on their stuff? Like the radar, etc. on the Tomcat? <br /><br />Is that no longer true? Or did they always have vendor reps on board?JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-65279827127024606752016-06-17T07:25:05.419-07:002016-06-17T07:25:05.419-07:00TRT,
I was a military observer in the MINURSO mis...TRT,<br /><br />I was a military observer in the MINURSO mission and we had a UN Antonov AN-22 that landed at Agwanit Morrocco (western Sahara) after a week of hard rains (yes, in the Sahara desert) and buried itself almost up to the aircraft belly.<br /><br />The Polisario got two BMPs and chained them to the aircraft and yanked it out backwards. The air crew inspected the plane and then flew it off with no issues. I can think of no western aircraft that would have been able to fly immediately after burying its landing gear like that.<br /><br />I cannot comment on the new Russian gear, but the Soviets designed pretty robust equipment. <br /><br />Soviet air defenses inflicted some pretty heavy losses on the USA in Korea and Vietnam.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-80369254378761385152016-06-17T07:18:55.778-07:002016-06-17T07:18:55.778-07:00I think the US pursued that technological exotic b...I think the US pursued that technological exotic because many felt there was the luxury of both time and money. Going back to your AEGIS example, the money does exist to keep the system in working repair, but like most politicians its apparent that ADM's prefer the new and shiny over brooms and maintenance.<br /><br />It's clear that the USN is acquiring tech that is exceeding the repair capabilities of sailors at sea and the SIMA's that are supposed to be the resident experts and fleet trainers. That road means the equipment needs to be a highly reliable black box. not something that is CASREP'd if someone sneezes on it. Having to call LockMart, GE and Raytheon for tech assistance reduces the overall capability of the Navy.Jay Nixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031750833658933314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43241624842166993502016-06-17T07:12:50.504-07:002016-06-17T07:12:50.504-07:00"Onto your F22 criticism, yep, I'm aware ..."Onto your F22 criticism, yep, I'm aware of it, seems the same contamination issue which is afflicting the far simpler F18 ..."<br /><br />Nate, you are just not getting the premise, at all. Let me try again. I'm not just talking about overall system complexity (F-22 vs. F-18), I'm talking about each and every component as well as overall systems. <br /><br />The oxygen system is a good example. It is apparently too complex to function correctly or to be fixed and that's true whether it's in an F-22, F-35, F-18, or F4F Wildcat. You're trying to turn this into some kind of debate about which aircraft or gun is better. That's not the premise of the post. The point of the post is that complexity invariably equals reduced availability and maintainability and we need to carefully balance complexity against readiness/maintainability. Understand?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30201504114737673732016-06-17T07:06:27.999-07:002016-06-17T07:06:27.999-07:00"... if you can get a good process flow from ..."... if you can get a good process flow from design to manufacture ..."<br /><br />Unless you're choosing to focus only on manufacturing, you're missing the main point of the post. It doesn't matter if we can churn out a thousand Aegis radar systems a day if they can't be operated and maintained by the 20 year old tech on the ship or if the array is so delicate that gently nosing aground a 2 kts results in a permanent disabling of the ship.<br /><br />The point of the post was combat reliability, readiness, and maintainability. The point was not manufacturing or one weapon versus another.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81595398252846919332016-06-17T06:56:26.861-07:002016-06-17T06:56:26.861-07:00Nate,
1. CNO was spot on in his analogy about air...Nate,<br /><br />1. CNO was spot on in his analogy about aircraft: simply stated, you must get sufficient aircraft in the air to defend and to strike your opponent, not just in a single engagement, but 24/, for months, maybe years on end. Mission readiness rates count, replacements count, exchange rates count, morale counts, a lot of things go into the calculus of getting aircraft into the air. Do not forget that historically, most destroyed aircraft were shot-up or bombed on the ground!<br /><br />If you have 12 aircraft and they can shoot down 12 aircraft on day one: you lose if the enemy has 148 aircraft (the four surviving enemy shoot up your surviving planes on the ground)!<br /><br />You might want to read "Who won the Battle of Britain" written by a very distinguished RAF Squadron Commander H R Allen. Allen’s campaign analysis is excellent (he fought in the Battle of Britain) and it illuminating.<br /><br />2. The western allies generally favored mass, admittedly of reliable and effective equipment, over quality.<br /><br />3. Larry Vickers (a former Delta team assault team member and armorer) has a pretty good opinion of the AK-47 as do many SOF vets (including me). Larry (in his own tv show) specifically addresses accuracy as he takes the AK-47 through its paces around 1:38: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b9_1311111666 A Swiss SIG 550/1/2 is basically a westernized AK and accurate to less 1 milliradian, which is more accurate than most people can shoot from the bench.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12501404996314612422016-06-17T06:30:32.967-07:002016-06-17T06:30:32.967-07:00Very valid point, and that's the 'good'...Very valid point, and that's the 'good' complexity I was trying to describe earlier, the sweet spot. <br /><br />My family has been in manufacturing for a couple of generations; and if you can get a good process flow from design to manufacture, and you can have those break throughs in manufacturing technology, the multiplication effects on efficiency and quality are massive. <br /><br />The Japanese auto industry were magicians at this, especially as they came on in the early 80's. <br /><br />The Panther/Tiger I see as a failure of that process. IIRC the engineers had actually designed a more robust final drive for the panther. But that final drive couldn't be manufactured in numbers; so they had to dumb it down to what they could build. <br /><br />The engineers who made the Sherman made a great platform that could be easily manufactured by US plants, and it was robust enough to be both reliable and flexible. Think how many drive trains got stuck into the M4: Radials, multibanks, the odd diesels.... and none of this slowed down production. <br /><br />I'll have to look it up. But I thought that the Russians kept a group of Shermans around to act as tanks to exploit a breakthrough. The biggest reason was that they knew when the crews jumped into the Shermans they'd start and move. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4094392459089593702016-06-17T06:29:38.298-07:002016-06-17T06:29:38.298-07:00Very valid point, and that's the 'good'...Very valid point, and that's the 'good' complexity I was trying to describe earlier, the sweet spot. <br /><br />My family has been in manufacturing for a couple of generations; and if you can get a good process flow from design to manufacture, and you can have those break throughs in manufacturing technology, the multiplication effects on efficiency and quality are massive. <br /><br />The Japanese auto industry were magicians at this, especially as they came on in the early 80's. <br /><br />The Panther/Tiger I see as a failure of that process. IIRC the engineers had actually designed a more robust final drive for the panther. But that final drive couldn't be manufactured in numbers; so they had to dumb it down to what they could build. <br /><br />The engineers who made the Sherman made a great platform that could be easily manufactured by US plants, and it was robust enough to be both reliable and flexible. Think how many drive trains got stuck into the M4: Radials, multibanks, the odd diesels.... and none of this slowed down production. <br /><br />I'll have to look it up. But I thought that the Russians kept a group of Shermans around to act as tanks to exploit a breakthrough. The biggest reason was that they knew when the crews jumped into the Shermans they'd start and move. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57413314282180133022016-06-17T06:22:33.345-07:002016-06-17T06:22:33.345-07:00Nate; with the caveat that I'm not military......Nate; with the caveat that I'm not military....<br /><br />I see you're point about increased lethality. That much I get. If its a straight 'our planes are more deadly so we don't need as many, so its okay that we can't afford as many' I'm 100% on board with you. <br /><br />But the reliability rates are what I'm really worried about. Add that on top of the 'we can't make as many' and we're screwed. <br /><br />If you need a mission flown, and the F-18 will always be there to fly that mission, but you have a 50% that the F-35 won't be there at all, then the increased lethality of the F-35 doesn't matter if its not in the air. <br /><br />And we've gone to the absolute realm of aburdity with the LCS. <br /><br />A) Its not reliable due to its really complex drivetrain and B) when it is on station its lethality sucks due to poor sensors and weak weapons. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26600918909871259212016-06-17T00:49:19.702-07:002016-06-17T00:49:19.702-07:00Nate, in the defense of the Ak-47 and tiger, you g...Nate, in the defense of the Ak-47 and tiger, you got just a few things wrong. The sights on the ak are solidly mounted, barrel and receiever. Its the distance between the sights that cause it to be difficult to aim correctly. The Finnish army rectified that by mounting them on the rear of the receiver. To be honest a service ak has a 3-3.5 MOA depending on country of origin. By comparison a Colt M16/ M4 has a MOA of 2/2.5. The tiger tank actually had better reliability then the panther tank, and almost parity to the pz IV tank. It came down to the quality of the crews, being trained not to exceed set standards and a relatively (for German engineering ) simple tranmission compared to the panther. In addition to those two specific, most things russian actually have better performance, particularly aircraft. Where they come short is avionics and less reliable targeting systems. They also design most everything with easy access and easy controls. A solution for the conscripts that are expected to maintain and operate the equipment.<br />Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29811374027980946392016-06-16T21:12:31.923-07:002016-06-16T21:12:31.923-07:00And,
I was sighting anecdotal evidence (never idea...And,<br />I was sighting anecdotal evidence (never ideal ill grant you) of your very argument of cases where complexity vs simplicity faced off. <br /><br />In western war fighting (where historically we've always favoured the complex high maintenance option) we've always won. <br />Greeks beat the Persians, with a fraction of the force, Romans beat everyone, with Legions which were nearly always outnumbered, ill stop, wont bore you, but, history speaks for itself on this one.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67827076841326649652016-06-16T20:42:41.419-07:002016-06-16T20:42:41.419-07:00Sorry CNO,
I disagree with nearly everything you s...Sorry CNO,<br />I disagree with nearly everything you say, but let it slide, but as a combat veteran, you'll pardon me if i chose to completely ignore your views on modern infantry warfare and the ranges at which its fought. <br />Onto your F22 criticism, yep, I'm aware of it, seems the same contamination issue which is afflicting the far simpler F18 sighted earlier, only there, they aren't grounding them, merely letting pilots die. F22's, and the F35's with helmet cued targeting, even in limited numbers, are over match for anything eastern opponents can field right now, and in the near future. <br />I'm sorry mate, you're wrong.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7035478367777458782016-06-16T18:44:44.929-07:002016-06-16T18:44:44.929-07:00Wow! You are totally ignoring the premise of the ...Wow! You are totally ignoring the premise of the post. The F-22, for example, only has a target readiness of around 70% and the actual is around 55-60%. The premise of the post is that if the enemy has more aircraft with higher readiness than you have then you lose. You may shoot down 10 enemy but if they have 20 aircraft, you lose that mission because the remaining 10 aircraft do whatever it is they were tasked to do.<br /><br />Continuing with the simplicity theme, you're undoubtedly aware that the entire F-22 fleet has been grounded for significant periods due to some sort of oxygen contamination. This problem has yet to be solved and the F-22 still currently flies under significant restrictions, as far as I know.<br /><br />Given that the readiness of the F-22 is barely over 50% in peacetime, with perfect maintenance conditions, what do you think the readiness will be after a few weeks of combat? I'm guessing around 20%!<br /><br />How often does a soldier get to take careful, aimed shots 300 m downrange in combat? Somewhere around never. Most rifle fire is either up close or blind fired at a distance. <br /><br />Further, the point of the post was not to compare one aircraft or weapon against another but to balance complexity against readiness/maintainability.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91757764098307872152016-06-16T18:20:42.797-07:002016-06-16T18:20:42.797-07:00Can you qualify your statements?
One of the joys o...Can you qualify your statements?<br />One of the joys of working with carbon fibre is that its easily repairable. Its just carbon weave and glue....<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4538597029426564272016-06-16T18:05:59.511-07:002016-06-16T18:05:59.511-07:00The German staff was overly complicated, Tigers wo...The German staff was overly complicated, Tigers would often breakdown on the way to the battle, never mind during the fighting.<br /><br />Sherman's were an extremely sophisticated design, but not in the way you think. While the Brits were riveting their tanks together, and the soviets and krauts were welding theirs, the US was casting entire body shells, and turrets, in one piece, this was a phenomenal leap in terms of the technological abilities of the day. A Tiger or T-34 required hundreds of highly trained welders and specialist craftsmen in order to build each one (and often not well, t-34's would delaminate their welds on the drive out of the factories, users would frequently describe being able to see the outside world through the cracks that opened in their armour), <br />Whereis you ordered a hundred sherman,s and the production line simply pumped them out till they ran out of raw steel. <br />This is a generation ahead in terms of technology. <br />Its not the tech is bad, you just need to have developed the right one. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.com