Thanks, Peter. Years ago when the US Coast Guard called in the shipbuilders and major subcontractors to get their views on design and building a new polar ice breaker I got on the presentation list. I'm a retired Navy and SecDef budget bureaucrat who managed hundreds of R&D, procurement and construction program budgets at the top of the money food chain and visited dozens of defense manufacturers. I like wholesale solution and suggested USCG get a design and then give it to Wall Street who would finance building all six icebreakers, awarding the contracts and managing the process. The Coast Guard could buy-out the icebreaker at delivery or just lease it, with the privately-managed financier and selected shipyards handling maintenance so. Otherwise, keep USCG and Navy OUT of the process so they couldn't screw it up. The whole idea was to use "finance" as the leverage to just 'get it done!'
I also said I expected their design would be a standard 400-foot heavy icebreaker and that, given what was happening in the Arctic, it would automatically need to be extended 50 feet to house the secret anti-submarine torpedoes for a check on the Russians.
Naturally, USCG ignored my idea and see where they are now.
> I won’t bother comparing it to the U.S. Government acquisition process, as I would just get bogged down (and frustrated) as I describe how it doesn’t work.
Oh Lord yes, no need to do that to yourself. Here, I'll describe it for you in case anyone in the audience is unfamiliar.
"First, tell Bollinger or Bath Iron Works that you want a ship. Then, give them a gigantic pile of money. Wait twenty years and have no ship. Do not punish anyone for this. The end."
Kind of ironic, because the Finnish process described in the article looks at least superficially like set-based concurrent engineering, which tends to freeze the specification later in the process. Per articles by Ward, Liker, and others in Sloan Management Review in 1995 and '97, Toyota became quite good at it.
Having been involved a bit in related processes on projects in my own time in industry in the '90s and '00s, it can make you a little nuts as the drop-dead date looms ever closer ("5 DAYS UNTIL ZYRA - 24 DAYS UNTIL BELLUS," ha ha), but it does tend to produce quality outcomes when one gets the hang of it.
My father having been involved in doing engineering cleanup after both the US LCS and Zumwalt debacles, I suspect I may have heard enough horror stories to have a potentially unbalanced opinion on the subject.
I got to see them today. Hull 1 is about 65% done, hull 2 at 11%, but they're working on a bunch of the blocks for hull 2. Lots of good work being done.
It's always great to see sheets of steel being brought to life.
I tried to order a couple, but they wouldn't take my check...
It’s a very long story, but we acquired the USS GLACIER AGB4 with the intent of reactivating her for science and humanitarian aid. We offered her to USCG free! anytime it would be needed.
They emphatically said no we are building our own!!! Go away.
You see the result. During this negotiating we had support of USN
And proposals from shipyards capable of the task.
Obama got elected and ordered MARAD
To scrap her😰
We have all the engineering docs.
One could argue that hull steamed for
30 polar voyages, went to the toughest ice, 30+ feet heave pressure ridges 60 ft.
It was built at Pascagoula ship yard in 24 months.
Modern icebreakers are significantly more capable than the older ones, especially in ridged ice. And you don't need as much horsepower with modern propulsion pods and hull shapes.
Having served on aging ships, I'm sure you get her ready to go- and it'd be great. But I think you'd have a really hard time finding spare parts. My colleagues on CVN-64 definitely had that problem, which is why they carried their own machine shop on board...
I don't know if you could get her classed these days, the rules have changed so much. I was reading last year that the NSF was thinking of upgrading rather than replacing Nathaniel B Palmer, but they believed that the scope of the work would require the ship to be re classified by the ABS. And that the ship wouldn't meet the current IACS Polar Class rules.
Thanks, Peter. Years ago when the US Coast Guard called in the shipbuilders and major subcontractors to get their views on design and building a new polar ice breaker I got on the presentation list. I'm a retired Navy and SecDef budget bureaucrat who managed hundreds of R&D, procurement and construction program budgets at the top of the money food chain and visited dozens of defense manufacturers. I like wholesale solution and suggested USCG get a design and then give it to Wall Street who would finance building all six icebreakers, awarding the contracts and managing the process. The Coast Guard could buy-out the icebreaker at delivery or just lease it, with the privately-managed financier and selected shipyards handling maintenance so. Otherwise, keep USCG and Navy OUT of the process so they couldn't screw it up. The whole idea was to use "finance" as the leverage to just 'get it done!'
I also said I expected their design would be a standard 400-foot heavy icebreaker and that, given what was happening in the Arctic, it would automatically need to be extended 50 feet to house the secret anti-submarine torpedoes for a check on the Russians.
Naturally, USCG ignored my idea and see where they are now.
> I won’t bother comparing it to the U.S. Government acquisition process, as I would just get bogged down (and frustrated) as I describe how it doesn’t work.
Oh Lord yes, no need to do that to yourself. Here, I'll describe it for you in case anyone in the audience is unfamiliar.
"First, tell Bollinger or Bath Iron Works that you want a ship. Then, give them a gigantic pile of money. Wait twenty years and have no ship. Do not punish anyone for this. The end."
> The reason for this, though, is that the U.S. Coast Guard (or Navy) can’t seem to stabilize the design.
For anything. Ever.
OK, OK. Arleigh Burkes are pretty stable at this point.
Actually, I'm not sure my previous description was bleak enough. "The end." should probably be replaced with "Repeat from step one..."
Kind of ironic, because the Finnish process described in the article looks at least superficially like set-based concurrent engineering, which tends to freeze the specification later in the process. Per articles by Ward, Liker, and others in Sloan Management Review in 1995 and '97, Toyota became quite good at it.
Having been involved a bit in related processes on projects in my own time in industry in the '90s and '00s, it can make you a little nuts as the drop-dead date looms ever closer ("5 DAYS UNTIL ZYRA - 24 DAYS UNTIL BELLUS," ha ha), but it does tend to produce quality outcomes when one gets the hang of it.
My father having been involved in doing engineering cleanup after both the US LCS and Zumwalt debacles, I suspect I may have heard enough horror stories to have a potentially unbalanced opinion on the subject.
We need to buy some of those corvettes, too!
I got to see them today. Hull 1 is about 65% done, hull 2 at 11%, but they're working on a bunch of the blocks for hull 2. Lots of good work being done.
It's always great to see sheets of steel being brought to life.
I tried to order a couple, but they wouldn't take my check...
It’s a very long story, but we acquired the USS GLACIER AGB4 with the intent of reactivating her for science and humanitarian aid. We offered her to USCG free! anytime it would be needed.
They emphatically said no we are building our own!!! Go away.
You see the result. During this negotiating we had support of USN
And proposals from shipyards capable of the task.
Obama got elected and ordered MARAD
To scrap her😰
We have all the engineering docs.
One could argue that hull steamed for
30 polar voyages, went to the toughest ice, 30+ feet heave pressure ridges 60 ft.
It was built at Pascagoula ship yard in 24 months.
One Naval officer in charge leading,
Coaching from Finland
Trump will “Clear the decks for Action”
Modern icebreakers are significantly more capable than the older ones, especially in ridged ice. And you don't need as much horsepower with modern propulsion pods and hull shapes.
Having served on aging ships, I'm sure you get her ready to go- and it'd be great. But I think you'd have a really hard time finding spare parts. My colleagues on CVN-64 definitely had that problem, which is why they carried their own machine shop on board...
All good thoughts,
We have details to upgrade and meet new rules but hull is gone
Interesting comment on spares
Fairbanks still in business.
I believe in having machine shop and skills aboard
The newest solid state systems seem reliable but I do not have enough first hand knowledge
Glacier had old fashioned resistor networks to control DC loads
All parts of circuit could be fabricated on board
uSCG build solid state control, it failed in North Pole waters and parts had to be flown in!!
You just can not use USCG as a benchmark for success
I don't know if you could get her classed these days, the rules have changed so much. I was reading last year that the NSF was thinking of upgrading rather than replacing Nathaniel B Palmer, but they believed that the scope of the work would require the ship to be re classified by the ABS. And that the ship wouldn't meet the current IACS Polar Class rules.
Trump played Golf with Finland PM and said we want Icebreaker.
…first Ice to Break is Dante’s puzzle palace aka Pentagon…
Offer solution to THAT and ships get built. Your mission should you choose to accept it….