US Navy Littorals are cracking.

[Straight Shooter]

I dunno dude. I perceive the current gen of Soldiers to be pretty good. I think you’re doing the age-old generation thing, where we praise the old guard and vilify the young. Sure, there are differences, but it balances out. The Army is primarily composed of good Soldiers, and many absolutely kick ass. And for weapons, vehicles, and equipment, we’ve got better than we ever had back in the day. Shit, look at a squad of 0311s today, and lust after the vast improvement in gear they’ve gotten over the last decade or so. The USMC has probably had the most improvement of any branch in the last decade, even if I don’t agree with all of the changes.

The Army went from taking a non-tactical vehicle and bolting armor on it to make a wide variety of non-uniform deathtrap wannabe APCs to the JLTV, which isn’t perfect, but its a huge step up. They went from ragged out M16s to M4a1s. Shelter halves to Lightfighters. Stuffing a ****ing ratchet strap and some gauze and needles into a canteen pouch to a fully mature IFAK. You get the idea.

I suspect that a lot of this applies to the Navy, as well. I know they have problems. Expensive problems. But I still think our Navy is pretty badass. I’d put money on them defeating any other navy on the seas. I mean, shit, Russias navy hasn’t won a battle since before the American Civil War, and their only aircraft carrier is in drydock due to shoddy Russian reasons. And their next most important surface ship is…subsurface due to massive incompetence.

If this new ship is a lemon, that sucks. But I think you are off target in your above assessment of the DoD as a whole.

Well, I know that you know your stuff on the subject, and I concede some generational bias. Im GLAD to be wrong about the military. Maybe that is where most of the good ones are going, because brother...they arent going to work, Ill tell you that. And when/if they go..its to do the absolute BARE minimum to get paid. The crap I hear on the daily just sickens me. But the good ones, are as good and better than the bad ones are bad..its like there no grey area..theyre either outstanding or not worth a damn.
Good point on the gear, too. I admit I was painting with too broad a brush. Glad to hear what you had to say.

[SomeOtherGuy]

SpaceX? Boeing?

Space-X is awesome, and along with Starlink one of the best things we have going right now.

Boeing would have been a great example 20 years ago, but their recent track record is awful, both civilian side (737 MAX, various junk problems (FOD risk) in other airliners) and military side (KC-46, the tanker that doesn't). USAF or DoD procurement might share blame for the KC-46, but the civilian airliner problems are 100% Boeing, bad management and cost-cutting elevated over basic quality control.

I'm not gloomy on all of the US economy, but we've gone from being an easy #1 country 50+ years ago to having a random grab bag of amazing tech and amazing crap today.

[glocktogo]

The Freedom class is part of the LCS program, bruh.

OK, but that doesn't answer the legitimate questions.

[Defaultmp3]

Boeing would have been a great example 20 years ago, but their recent track record is awful, both civilian side (737 MAX, various junk problems (FOD risk) in other airliners) and military side (KC-46, the tanker that doesn't). USAF or DoD procurement might share blame for the KC-46, but the civilian airliner problems are 100% Boeing, bad management and cost-cutting elevated over basic quality control.

What was the issue with the 737 MAX? AFAIK, it was a software issue, not hardware, which seems to be what markm is focusing on, since he seems only interested in stuff that is physically built.

OK, but that doesn't answer the legitimate questions.

And what question is that? Why procurement is so ****ed up? Because of politics. The military procurement process has been a shitshow forever; this is not something new, it's just the nature of the beast, due to political jockeying by the legislature for something for their own constituents, the inherent nature of risk adversity due to the fact that we're spending taxpayer money, thrown in with the human tendency toward sunk cost fallacy. The RAH-66, the XM2001, the BFV, the A-12, etc. There's a bazillion programs out there that have been costly mistakes, most of which that never enter service.

[SomeOtherGuy]

What was the issue with the 737 MAX? AFAIK, it was a software issue, not hardware, which seems to be what markm is focusing on, since he seems only interested in stuff that is physically built.

Software vs. hardware is splitting hairs for most modern vehicles that require both. But for both aspects, you need to hire competent people and ensure the job is done correctly.

With the 737 MAX, Boeing shoe-horned excessively large engines into an ancient platform, to minimize costs of development and allow pilots with a type rating for existing 737 models to fly the new version. A lot of this was to compete with Airbus's latest upgrade to its equivalent airplane.

Unfortunately the 737 platform, designed 60 years ago, didn't contemplate giant turbofan engines. The right thing to do would have been to lengthen the landing gear or otherwise physically change the airframe for a better fit. That would cost more money, so Boeing kludged a setup where the new (giant fan) engines were placed farther forward and higher than ideal, to fit into the platform. This made the airplane unstable in certain situations. Boeing knew this, and used software in its fly-by-wire system to compensate and hopefully control that instability.

Boeing also cheaped out on instrumentation for the base model, allowing single sensors where they should have had redundancy. Airlines could buy the extra sensors, but due to six-figure costs some didn't.

With so much riding on software, what did Boeing do? Why, outsource the software development to $9/hour programmers in India! Woo-hoo we are saving money now!

So guess what - a dynamically unstable airplane with poorly written software becomes dangerous when a single sensor, without redundancy, gives bad readings. And roughly 300 people died as a result (two separate crashes). The MAX fleet was grounded for almost two years, and Boeing's reputation won't return to what it was before.

I could go on, but it's becoming a book. It boils down to management cutting costs that were not safe to cut, all in the unholy pursuit of profits over safety. This seems to be a result of American psychopath MBA / business school culture, which is why we see similar problems at so many US companies.

-------
More news today for Boeing - not out when I posted earlier:

https://financialpost.top1tv.net/pmn...mplete-sources

Oopsie, highly profitable 787 still not OK to keep selling.

-------

In the US, it seems that if the company's founder is alive and has his name on the company, it is more likely to care about quality. Once the name becomes generic and the company is taken over by short-term-mindset MBAs trying to make a quick buck and cash out, the company is going to nosedive.

[Defaultmp3]

Software vs. hardware is splitting hairs for most modern vehicles that require both. But for both aspects, you need to hire competent people and ensure the job is done correctly.

Oh, I completely agree; I am a software engineer that works in a related industry. I just don't think everyone here does, given the inane emphasis on physical manufacturing that crops up on this forum.

Of course, being software, I have to say that I don't really see the problem inherently unstable aircraft, provided the software is up to spec, since it's my understanding that this is a well-solved problem. Beyond that, it's my understanding that the MCAS wasn't even necessary to insure stability. Spitballing here, but I also wouldn't fault the software team on this, necessarily; something as complex as this has multiple points of failures, and if anything, I'd lean toward blaming the safety and systems engineers, who likely wrote the requirements that caused this issue, and software simply implemented based on spec. At least at my job, I've seen plenty of times where the resulting software was terrible, not because the software devs were bad, but because the systems team wrote shitty requirements, and so software developed exactly to them.

Don't get me wrong, Boeing definitely has pretty big issues. Just that if one was to impose an artificial divide between the physical manufacturing and the entirety of the system, AFAIK, Boeing's still pretty on point in the former (though probably just resting on the laurels from decades of experience), with few other peers, especially in the non-Western bloc.

[glocktogo]

What was the issue with the 737 MAX? AFAIK, it was a software issue, not hardware, which seems to be what markm is focusing on, since he seems only interested in stuff that is physically built.

And what question is that? Why procurement is so ****ed up? Because of politics. The military procurement process has been a shitshow forever; this is not something new, it's just the nature of the beast, due to political jockeying by the legislature for something for their own constituents, the inherent nature of risk adversity due to the fact that we're spending taxpayer money, thrown in with the human tendency toward sunk cost fallacy. The RAH-66, the XM2001, the BFV, the A-12, etc. There's a bazillion programs out there that have been costly mistakes, most of which that never enter service.

Questions plural. You forgot the question about how many Admirals we need to fire.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Of course, being software, I have to say that I don't really see the problem inherently unstable aircraft, provided the software is up to spec, since it's my understanding that this is a well-solved problem.

The overwhelming majority of all aircraft, and essentially all civil aircraft, are engineered for inherent stability. It isn't hard to do and is considered a fundamental part of aircraft design. The F-16 and more recent fighter jets may have "relaxed stability" or even some degree of inherent instability, which is a trade-off for maneuvering ability or other performance aspects. Fine for a military fighter jet, not a good idea for most other aircraft.

Spitballing here, but I also wouldn't fault the software team on this, necessarily; something as complex as this has multiple points of failures, and if anything, I'd lean toward blaming the safety and systems engineers, who likely wrote the requirements that caused this issue, and software simply implemented based on spec. At least at my job, I've seen plenty of times where the resulting software was terrible, not because the software devs were bad, but because the systems team wrote shitty requirements, and so software developed exactly to them.

I'm faulting management as the ultimate cause. Whether programmers or systems engineers are immediately to blame, the disaster comes down to management at some level. I don't expect $9/hr programmers to have a clue about aircraft stability or its importance. I think their use for this purpose indicates a lack of seriousness at Boeing.

Don't get me wrong, Boeing definitely has pretty big issues. Just that if one was to impose an artificial divide between the physical manufacturing and the entirety of the system, AFAIK, Boeing's still pretty on point in the former (though probably just resting on the laurels from decades of experience), with few other peers, especially in the non-Western bloc.

Boeing "quality" is in an odd place, because they seem to do well at difficult tasks like bonding, other joint connections, large composite pieces, systems integration, etc. But a lot of their recent airplane problems have been stupid simple stuff like not leaving scrap metal inside wings and other parts of "completed" airframes. Loose bits of material isn't just sloppy, it's a huge safety risk for "foreign object damage" (FOD). A friend of mine who's a professional pilot nearly died in a crash because a single bolt in an airplane hadn't been tightened down at the end of a routine maintenance procedure; little bits of material are a risk, and literally everyone in aviation know this. Both civil purchase and USAF purchase Boeing aircraft have had issues with construction junk left inside new Boeings, regularly in the last 10 years or so. Sending someone through with a flashlight and a vacuum isn't rocket science, but failing to do so is a management issue.

[Defaultmp3]

Questions plural. You forgot the question about how many Admirals we need to fire.

None. This isn't a problem with admirals. This is an inherent problem of the political system we have established.

The overwhelming majority of all aircraft, and essentially all civil aircraft, are engineered for inherent stability. It isn't hard to do and is considered a fundamental part of aircraft design. The F-16 and more recent fighter jets may have "relaxed stability" or even some degree of inherent instability, which is a trade-off for maneuvering ability or other performance aspects. Fine for a military fighter jet, not a good idea for most other aircraft.

Fair enough. I've zero experience with civilian aviation side of things, and it makes sense on the face of it to design for stability rather than trying to use software to fix it, given the espoused safety culture that's suppose to go into civil aviation. Guess I'm just too inured to management making software fix hardware mistakes/issues.

[1168]

I think Boeing might be cutting corners, or at least costs, in physical manufacturing as well. They set up shop in SC because it is a non-union state, and has very lax labor laws. When they moved, the radio channels were awash with anti-union propaganda, sponsored by Boeing. And radio commercials for trade schools teaching machining and promising careers in aviation manufacturing proliferated. I’m sure they got some tax breaks and cheap land too, like I’m sure Volvo got. When Volvo moved to Berkeley County, the watertowers in the county along the interstate said “Berkeley County Open For Business”. They got preferential treatment by Fire and EMS agencies (like Daniel Island enjoys in Charleston). An interstate exit was built for them. Ambulances were made to go to the site of their in-construction factory periodically and crews had to sign a roster with the gate guard. This was/is free of charge, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Sorry, I got sidetracked there a bit. Point is, Boeing has been chasing cheaper labor, I think.