Why the Navy Needs Disruption Now

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Why the Navy Needs Disruption Now (part 2 of 2)
Posted on July 29, 2016 by steveblank

The future is here it's just distributed unevenly – Silicon Valley view of tech adoption

The threat is here it's just distributed unevenly – A2/AD and the aircraft carrier

This is the second of a two-part post following my stay on the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. Part 1 talked about what I saw and learned – the layout of a carrier, how the air crew operates and how the carrier functions in context of the other ships around it (the strike group.) But the biggest learning was the realization that disruption is not just happening to companies, it's also happening to the Navy. And that the Lean Innovation tools we've built to deal with disruption and create continuous innovation for large commercial organizations were equally relevant here.

This post offers a few days' worth of thinking about what I saw. (If you haven't, read part 1 first.)

Yes, it's a blog post.  No, I'm not copypastaing the whole thing here for you lazy gits.

I am curious what the resident squids think of this.  Personally, I think he is over-analyzing a highly-unlikely major war scenario when coming to his conclusions.

[CountDeMoney]

Yes, it's a blog post.  No, I'm not copypastaing the whole thing here for you lazy gits.

Fair enough, but both links are to the "Part 1" despite the "Part 2 of 2" reference.  That's pretty lazy.

[grumbler]

... new aircraft carrier's cost $11 billion

What of the new aircraft carrier costs $11 billion?  I hate mysteries in the middle of "news."

[grumbler]

Okay, I read it, and, while I don't like all the buzzwords and koolspeak, I don't disagree with his basic premise.  However, I also don't think he went to the right place to find his "horizon 3" projects.  he won't find those in a carrier battle group; he'll find those at the Johns Hopkins APL and the basic R&D think tanks.  DARPA funds all kinds of projects that are what he calls "Horizon 3" endeavors.

Now, he is correct that the Navy's leadership (like the leadership of any big bureaucracy) is made up of people who demonstrated mastery of skills and knowledge that were last valuable a decade ago,  and so the Navy isn't as innovative as it could be (his point about drones for refueling is dead on, and that's an idea that could easily be implemented tomorrow if the Navy's aviation top brass wasn't so afraid to give up cockpits - how many people know that half the line officers in the Navy, and therefor half the admirals, are aviators?) 

I'm not sure how you get around that, given the inertia of the existing system.  The last innovative CNO was Mike Boorda, and he ended up shooting himself - probably.

[CountDeMoney]

Okay, I read it, and, while I don't like all the buzzwords and koolspeak,

You mean like the Ideologism, "audio cacophony"?

[Ed Anger]

Lean Innovation tools

Barf.

[grumbler]

Oh, and I'll say it again:  the DF-21 and DF-26 are the most overhyped weapons of the age.   They are NOT what will make carriers obsolete.  Subs with reliable long-range but fast wake-homing torpedoes will do that.

[CountDeMoney]

Oh, and I'll say it again:  the DF-21 and DF-26 are the most overhyped weapons of the age.   They are NOT what will make carriers obsolete.  Subs with reliable long-range but fast wake-homing torpedoes will do that.

Wasn't it Admiral Thomas that told Congress last year he wasn't as worried about Chinese weapons systems that could make a hole in the top of the carrier as the systems that could make a hole in the bottom..?

[MadBurgerMaker]

What of the new aircraft carrier costs $11 billion?  I hate mysteries in the middle of "news."

Well that guy probably didn't want to get into it, but if you're really wondering and not just pointing out his comment: EMALS and AAG are having problems and are costing more than expected.  I think it's going to be more than $11b at this point, too.  I'm not thinking these costs would necessarily carry over to the next ships like this dude seems to be implying though, since I'm reasonably sure that it's just due to the shit being so new.

E:  Actually, you might be the guy to ask about this:  Do you know if there is a way to just use the regular type of arresting gear and catapults if EMALS and AAG just end up not being able to do what they need them to do on this specific ship?  I know that's a helluva lot of equipment to be changing out, especially with the catapults.

[grumbler]

What of the new aircraft carrier costs $11 billion?  I hate mysteries in the middle of "news."

Well that guy probably didn't want to get into it, but if you're really wondering and not just pointing out his comment: EMALS and AAG are having problems and are costing more than expected.  I think it's going to be more than $11b at this point, too.  I'm not thinking these costs would necessarily carry over to the next ships like this dude seems to be implying though, since I'm reasonably sure that it's just due to the shit being so new.

E:  Actually, you might be the guy to ask about this:  Do you know if there is a way to just use the regular type of arresting gear and catapults if EMALS and AAG just end up not being able to do what they need them to do on this specific ship?  I know that's a helluva lot of equipment to be changing out, especially with the catapults.

AAG could be easily replaced, I think, with existing hydraulic hardware.  EMALS could not, but I think EMALS is installed and operational, so it isn't an issue except from a reliability standpoint (and that isn't launch reliability, but system communications reliability).

My comment was mocking the author's inability to distinguish between the plural s and the possessive s.  For a guy that loves to use complicated words, he sure doesn't know the simple rules of grammar.

[MadBurgerMaker]

AAG could be easily replaced, I think, with existing hydraulic hardware.  EMALS could not, but I think EMALS is installed and operational, so it isn't an issue except from a reliability standpoint (and that isn't launch reliability, but system communications reliability).

My comment was mocking the author's inability to distinguish between the plural s and the possessive s.  For a guy that loves to use complicated words, he sure doesn't know the simple rules of grammar.

That's kinda what I figured.  Replacing EMALS seems like it would require tearing the ship apart. 

[Siege]

Oh pleez. Do you think anyone can take the pilots out of their planes and replace them with drones?
Of course not. Those are their toys. Our military is going to be disrupted sooner or later. It is the way it is.

Drones will beat airplanes, then nano weapons will beat drones,  then something else will beat the AI controlled nano armies of the future.

[The Minsky Moment]

To what extent does the effective use of drones rely on an effective and functioning satellite network?
To what extent are they vulnerable to cyber attack?

[The Brain]

What if someone comes up with a manned drone? Would such a thing be unstoppable?

[CountDeMoney]

What if someone comes up with a manned drone? Would such a thing be unstoppable?

God help us all.