Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lee's avatar

Flight II really should focus on some ASW capability. We have almost nothing in that department any longer, and we'll need it wether we're running convoys in the Pac or Lant

Guy Higgins's avatar

As has been true forever, "Better is the enemy of good enough." The SYSCOMS are not the holders of requirements. The Fleet needs to tell NAVSEA, "Thank you for your input, the next time I want your opinion about requirements, I'll beat it out of you." When I was the PM for Harpoon, I ran headlong into NAVSEA "requirements" a number of times. In my fading memory of long ago heroics, I won every one of those -- by adhering to straightforward engineering and needs. I refused to redo a shock test because NAVSEA couldn't justify the numbers in the spec as they should relate to Fleet operations. I put down their objections to the number of Harpoon configurations. COMNAVSEA said I had lost configuration control until I laid out:

- One sustainer section

- With and without booster

- Five launch configurations (one sub, one air, three surface)

- Three guidance sections (replacing them in Depot as available)

- Two paint schemes (reducing to one as missile went through Depot_

- Warshot v exercise v test v exercise with telemetry

- 240 possible configurations - every damned one in control

Don't let the engineers in NAVSEA try to baffle you with BS -- they are highly unlikely to dazzle you with brilliance (and sometimes even marginal competence)

117 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?