The Ship Model Forum

That's right. Armstrongs did design and produce some fine ships for the RN. As I understand, the reason the "Ellswick Cruisers" were not acceptable to the RN was not their design or craftsmanship, but rather the specs of the materials and equipment fitted.

At least two of these ships found their way into the USN. The Spanish cruisers Isla de Cuba and Isla de Luzon were damaged by USN gunfire and taken as war prizes. They served in the USN under the same names.

[quote="Lesforan"]It may be helpful to recall that while the Elswick Cruisers were a very successful export design, they were not up to RN standards and therefore were not used by the "home team".

The model these days seems to be to use a design adapted to the home market, then produced in variants for export to gain profit from the economies of scale. Differences would not be in the basic structure of the ship, but in equipment it is fitted with to tailor its needs to the buying navy.[/quote]

I recall the designers of the Elswick cruisers also designing a good number of RN warships. Often with a strong resemblance to Armstrongs' products.

Rob

[quote="Gerarddm"]One might also note that the early [i]Burkes[/i] have need stem strengthening, after sea experience showed the need. I don't know if this was a design flaw or a construction flaw.
[/quote]
So did the [i]Brooklyn[/i]s in 1940. I think this proves that warships are rather an inexact science, and not that the manufacturer was trying to cheat the government.

[quote="Gerarddm"]

Such a direct relationship between quality work and the safety and efficiency of our armed forces seems tot be lacking today.[/quote]

That's because the suppliers judged, probably correctly, that there is little chance that their shoddy work will either hurt their chances of further work within the planning horizons of their current share holders, or harming the nation enough to actually harm their shareholder's financial wellbeing. Companies are rewarded for fulfilling their fiduciary duties to their shareholders, not their patriotic duties to their countries.

[quote="Lesforan"]It may be helpful to recall that while the Elswick Cruisers were a very successful export design, they were not up to RN standards and therefore were not used by the "home team".[/quote]


Except Elswick cruisers pioneered the concept of protected cruiser which the RN then found useful and built in large numbers, to say nothing of the specifications of the Elswick cruisers sold abroad being used by the RN for the purpose of lobbying for stronger cruisers.

One might also note that the early [i]Burkes[/i] have needed stem strengthening, after sea experience showed the need. I don't know if this was a design flaw or a construction flaw.

The seemingly cavalier attitude on the part of military contractors is dangerous and disheartening. I recall that during the Mercury program, Gus Grissom visited the factory assembling his launch vehicle; he spoke to the workers and simply said "do good work". It was forcibly brought home to them therby that their lack of 'good work' could literally kill him.

Such a direct relationship between quality work and the safety and efficiency of our armed forces seems to be lacking today.

edit: spelling

It may be helpful to recall that while the Elswick Cruisers were a very successful export design, they were not up to RN standards and therefore were not used by the "home team".

The model these days seems to be to use a design adapted to the home market, then produced in variants for export to gain profit from the economies of scale. Differences would not be in the basic structure of the ship, but in equipment it is fitted with to tailor its needs to the buying navy.

[quote="Jack Ray"]My main criticism of Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and, perhaps, Boeing is that they don't seem to put enough emphasis on quality and value in their products. [/quote]


The prevailing system of finance and corporate governance dictates that the only value a company's management should care about is those to its equity holders. The shareholder equity of a company is maximized when the company demonstrates a consistent ability to charge the most while delivering the least. A company can convincingly demonstrate this ability quite easily if the private welfare of those with the bill paying decisions are advanced less by securing public interests than by enhancing the equity of the suppliers; and such checks and balances as claimed to exist by free-market idealists do not in fact exists because the size of the economy and market is not infinitely large, the number of suppliers is small, [i]and[/i] the national administration fails on compensate for the gross lack of perfect competition by take a adversarial stance against the best private interests of suppliers.

To sum up, in the current circumstances the only surprising thing is US defense industry is not more corrupt and more inclined towards superficial incompetence (charging the most while delivering the least) than it already is. And as I have no doubt that all virtues, incidental or intentional, are corruptible given sustained temptation, I have no doubt it will get there.

[quote="Werner"]All the inspectors in the world can be purchased with the annual lunch budget of the board of directors.

Competition is what is needed. The one thing a company's management cannot control is an honest competitor. Look at the shellacking the US car industry has taken from abroad. When it was just four manufacturers, customer needs came last and these companies were the wealthiest in the country. Let Japanese and Europeans into the game and suddenly their old methods and sloppy products don't sell too well.

The USN and USCG need to buy European frigates to replace the LCS and FFG, and seriously look to larger designs from abroad in the future. We did this around 1900 and it had a very positive effect on shipbuilding at home.[/quote]


It's a damn shame. At the height of their empire the Brits profitably sold Elswick cruisers around the world and these became the standard against which all others were measured against. Now it is the Germans with their Mekos. America should be the source. Too bad that our Defense Industry is too busy ripping off the government to produce an attractive competitor to the Mekos. Furthermore, although competition may bring out the best in industry, it is unlikely that congress will allow warships (apart from auxiliary types like ro-ros) to be bought from overseas.

All the inspectors in the world can be purchased with the annual lunch budget of the board of directors.

Competition is what is needed. The one thing a company's management cannot control is an honest competitor. Look at the shellacking the US car industry has taken from abroad. When it was just four manufacturers, customer needs came last and these companies were the wealthiest in the country. Let Japanese and Europeans into the game and suddenly their old methods and sloppy products don't sell too well.

The USN and USCG need to buy European frigates to replace the LCS and FFG, and seriously look to larger designs from abroad in the future. We did this around 1900 and it had a very positive effect on shipbuilding at home.

My main criticism of Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and, perhaps, Boeing is that they don't seem to put enough emphasis on quality and value in their products. A prime example of this is the Coast Guard's Deepwater program--contracted out to a joint mventure of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman named Integrated Coast Guard Systems LLC. The brand new National Security Cutter has serious structural weaknesses that, without remedy, will shorten the specified life of the ship by years. The USCG's existing 110' cutters were all scheduled to be improved and converted to 123'--after less than a dozen were converted it was discovered that the newly lengthened sterns were falling off. The converted ships had to be scrapped and the program was cancelled for the rest of the class.

It is certain that the US Government's acquisition system is also to blame. Perhaps what this really boils down to is the real need for stricter regulation, oversight and enforcement of rational Federal acquisition practices. As it stands, the acquisition process is already a maze of regulation and bureaucracy. However, it is full of golden geese and other windfalls for the unscrupulous contractor, or official (i.e., Boeing and Darlene Drunyon).

Vigilance!

Jack

[quote="Lesforan"] Remember Grumman has a long history of flying boats and seaplanes.[/quote]

Why should we remember that? Grumman itself is likely to have completely forgotten about that, except when Grumman's publicity department thinks that factoid would impress those who swoon easily in the perceived presence of the glory of American Military Industrial Complex.

Ingalls Shipyard is an old line defense contractor that has a long history of building fine ships under a variety of owners. Problems may be traced to Northrup-Grumman perhaps, but I seriously doubt it is due to Ingall's talent.

I can say from personal experience that Grumman built some excellent aluminum canoes. If they carry that quality into their ships, there should be no problem. Remember Grumman has a long history of flying boats and seaplanes.

So since this shipyard in question has pumped out ships like a Chicken laying eggs, I assume the problem is more a cost one than a design one?

[quote="Ultimo Tiger"]How many ships have they built?[/quote]

Quite a few.

How many ships have they built?

Would you trust an aircraft manufacturer to build good ships and maintain a competitive ship building industry? The idea of Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin building our Navy's ships has always given me the creeps.

[quote]
[size=150][b]Shipbuilding Is Drag On Northrop Profit[/b][/size]
By August Cole
Wall Street Journal
July 30, 2008

Northrop Grumman Corp.'s shot at a $40 billion U.S. Air Force aerial-refueling-tanker contract may be up in the air, but analysts focused Tuesday on the company's shipbuilding operations on the Gulf of Mexico during a second-quarter conference call.

Los Angeles-based Northrop said net income rose 7.6% to $495 million, or $1.44 a share, from $460 million, or $1.31 a share, a year earlier. Revenue rose 9.5% to $8.63 billion.

Northrop Chief Executive Ronald D. Sugar said the company believes the Airbus-based tanker that it offered along with partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. remains the best choice for the U.S. Air Force. "New tankers are urgently needed now, and our KC-45 is ready to go now," he said.

After Boeing Co. successfully protested Northrop's victory earlier this year, the Defense Department is expected to solicit bids in the coming weeks in hopes of picking a new winner by year end.

Despite the overall improvement in Northrop's financial performance, its shipbuilding division continues to experience problems from the devastation brought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Operating income in the shipbuilding division slipped 6% to $126 million, despite a 24% increase in revenue to $1.69 billion.

Northrop surprised investors during the first quarter when it announced a $326 million charge blamed largely on botched electrical cabling on a Navy amphibious assault ship, the Makin Island.

During a conference call, President Wes Bush said he is confident the ship's fiber-optic cabling will be completed later this year. "I would add that timely accomplishment of this milestone is critical to our ability to support the test program on the delivery timeline that we've established," said Mr. Bush.

That step is crucial to delivering the ship to the Navy in the second quarter of 2009, and to shifting workers to other ships under construction. Northrop has said a shortage of experienced workers in the area hurt its ability to fully recover from the hurricane's effects.

The Makin Island is on Wall Street's radar because Northrop, not the Navy, is paying for the redone work. The problems required Northrop to pull workers away from other projects at the Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss. In a sign of how seriously Northrop's management is taking the situation, Mr. Bush reviews the ship's progress weekly.

Northrop shares were down $1.13, or 1.7%, at $67.54 in 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange.


[/quote]