Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

gcaptain.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 206 posts

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#181

Post by edmundsauto »

epolanski wrote: post #93
edmundsauto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bias is a consequence of what Kahneman called “What You See Is All There Is.” It’s bad logic and ascribing signal when it’s actually projections of the observer. That isn’t to say there is no effect - people might start to see themselves as more disciplined if they look sharp. “Look good, play good”, as my coach used to say.

> It’s bad logic Is it so far stretched to say that a person who is in good shape, takes proper care about his hygiene and stuff like hair/beard might be a more self disciplined and organized person compared to someone that is lazy about his hygiene, physical condition and appearance?

It is as valid as for a ton of other characteristics. Eg, does someone who keeps their physical desktop clean fit into the same projection of discipline? How about someone who keeps their spice cabinet well labeled?

The issue is that we take one aspirational characteristic and use it to project things that might or might not be correlated.

Better to just measure what you want to measure directly. If it’s an important evaluation, it’s worth the cost. If it’s not important, why bother even with a cheap evaluation that may or may not be connected?

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#182

Post by andrewaylett »

unethical_ban wrote: post #155
Brian_K_White wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Because I’m replying to someone who would know what those acronyms are." That only flies in an email or on a specialized forum. It's curious that you are smart enough to come up with an arguement yet apparently at the same time innocently simple enough not to know why it's invalid.

>That only flies in an email or on a specialized forum. Counterpoint: It doesn't. They made a reply to a military member on a thread about military equipment. Googling a few acronyms + "military" would surely lead one to the answer.

It would indeed. But why push the burden onto all the non-specialist readers, who after all come here to both learn and to take part, rather than expand the initialisms the first time they're introduced in a thread?

I'm reminded of an acronym at work: CIM. They come in two variants, CIM-A and CIM-B. I'd been there a year before I finally decided I needed to ask a more senior colleague what they stood for, and he didn't know either. The intention was obvious from the context of their use (although whether -A or -B was more serious wasn't) but most of the people in the weekly meetings discussing Critical Incident Management didn't actually know that was what they were discussing. Nowadays we have a culture that better encourages definition of terms upon first use, and it's less common that someone needs to ask "stupid" questions.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#183

Post by WalterBright »

hollerith wrote: post #178
WalterBright wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does this malady strike the U.S. Navy and healthcare so severely? Totally government run in the case of the military, and healthcare is the most heavily regulated industry (by far) in the US. Heavy bureaucratic regulations make an organization unable to adapt to local and/or changing circumstances. I read in the book "The Pity of War" by Ferguson that the reason the death rates of the German army in WW1 were so…

>the reason the death rates of the German army in WW1 were so much lower than that of the British If the advice you just gave is so good, why couldn't you (or the book's author) have found an example in which the side following the advice actually won the war?

If you're interest in exploring this further, I recommend the book "Strategy" by Hart for a dance through the history of warfare and what works and doesn't.

As for WW1, Germany did defeat Russia. It took America's entry into the war to defeat Germany.

But you want an example. Take WW2. When Hitler allowed his generals to run things, things went well for the German army. When Hitler decided he knew better, he micromanaged the Wehrmacht into defeat and ruin. The Luftwaffe's problems were greatly impeded by Goering making a hash of things, despite his officers pleading with him. Goering would dictate tactics that negated the advantages of the Me-109s in the Battle of Britain. Goering also infamously ordered a literal decimation of his pilots for cowardice, an order that was quietly ignored.

In the naval war, the U-Boot commanders knew that Enigma had been broken and tactics had to change, but Admiral Doenitz knew better and sent them to their doom. Some histories assert that the Germans were clueless about Enigma, but the U-Boot commanders knew the truth.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#184

Post by Teever »

Boritanian wrote: post #110
jwithington wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Navy pays officers very generously across all fields, EXCEPT medicine and JAG. URL JOs will take a pay cut for the first several years (at least) after leaving for the civilian sector. I never, ever heard a URL peer get out because of financial reasons. FWIW, BAH (pay for housing that is tax-free) is $4000 for an O-6 in Point Loma v. $2777 in Offut, NE. Seems to be aggressive adjustment, no? Enlisted pay might be…

>JAG >URL JOs >BAH if only i knew what any of those words mean. Why haven't people learned to describe their abbreviation unless they already pre-established that the audience will definitely know them?

It's part of the indoctrination of military culture/mindset. The heavy use of acronyms especially in a public context like this serves to signal in group/out group status.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#185

Post by pyuser583 »

qchris wrote: post #19
Victerius wrote: post #7

The Navy builds its ships with steel, and the grades of steel used in the construction can experience rust. Solutions: Switch to 100% stainless steel. Stainless steel is an alloy and contains a minimum of 11% chromium. This allows the formation of a protective film of chromium oxide which acts as a shield against rust. The protective film will re-form if damaged. Corrosion resistance can be further enhanced with the…

I don't know if there's a name for this phenomenon, but it's sort of like an invisible Chesterton's fence. "Just make them out of a different steel" feels like a idea that is elegant, but even as someone that's never built a ship, I have to imagine there's some good reason why they're built out the materials they are, and why a simple material change is unlikely to be a solution. Maybe I'm wrong (it's not like organi…

Why not coat the hulls with gold? As a noble metal, gold doesn’t have sufficient valence electrons to oxidize.

What could go wrong?

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#186

Post by edmundsauto »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #37
edmundsauto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bias is a consequence of what Kahneman called “What You See Is All There Is.” It’s bad logic and ascribing signal when it’s actually projections of the observer. That isn’t to say there is no effect - people might start to see themselves as more disciplined if they look sharp. “Look good, play good”, as my coach used to say.

I love that book, but I’m not sure Kahneman would agree that it applies here when we are evaluating not whether an individual looks sharp (imagine a salesperson on commission) but instead whether the individual+their work/domain/communication is sharp. I find that to be a very valuable signal, and I’m struggling to imagine how I could be disagree with on this.

I think it’s a leap to go from “this person is disciplined in their personal appearance” to “this person is disciplined in XYZ” or “this person is disciplined in general”.

It’s a classic case of the halo effect. If you had an electrical issue, you wouldn’t contact your doctor because they are good at figuring things out and pretty smart.

Domain specific skills and habits are just that.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#187

Post by giardini »

paganel wrote: post #145
donthellbanme wrote: post #10

" If crews can’t use new types of paint, If crews are restricted from using OSPHO (a mild acid used to clean up rust stains) in port or bosuns chairs over the side if we don’t have enough supply ships or crew on those supply ships if crews are committing suicide and arson because of conditions at shipyards tasked with painting old ships if the Navy doesn’t seek out the advice of commercial professionals at companies…

> Shell if the Army and Air Force continue to get all the attention in Ukraine This is a great point that I started thinking about 2-3 days ago, i.e. that the present war in Ukraine is, almost by definition, a continental war (think Napoleon or the Eastern Campaign in WW2), and, as such, that an organisation like the US Navy might feel like it has been left out (like this quote actually emphasises). At which point it…

paganet says>""why should we assign so much money to the Navy when we're most worried about a continental war?"."Russia values the coastal territory it has grabbed b/c d they can use it to support a navy, something Russia has historically always wanted and needed (to project military power). But they have always done poorly and continue to do so:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-russias-military-is-so-sh...

Thwarting Russia's naval progress is cost-effective since it takes tremendous resources and history to run a navy effectively. Only Great Britain and the USA have been successful at establishing modern multi-ocean navies.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#188

Post by bluGill »

giardini wrote: post #187
paganel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shell if the Army and Air Force continue to get all the attention in Ukraine This is a great point that I started thinking about 2-3 days ago, i.e. that the present war in Ukraine is, almost by definition, a continental war (think Napoleon or the Eastern Campaign in WW2), and, as such, that an organisation like the US Navy might feel like it has been left out (like this quote actually emphasises). At which point it…

paganet says> ""why should we assign so much money to the Navy when we're most worried about a continental war?"." Russia values the coastal territory it has grabbed b/c d they can use it to support a navy, something Russia has historically always wanted and needed (to project military power). But they have always done poorly and continue to do so: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-russias-military-is-so-sh... Thwar…

Russia can't operate the little Navy it has, better bases won't help.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#189

Post by bluGill »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #50
blagie wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about modern ships -- I suspect a lot of this is classified -- but as an example, the WWII Bismark had a hull which was around a foot thick, as armor. (1) Rust wouldn't go all the way through. Surface rust isn't a problem. (2) You want high-quality armor; toughness is key. Steel composition should be primarily chosen for toughness-to-weight (3) And cost, of course. Stainless would have been expensive, an…

The exact construction of modern ship hulls is definitely a secret, although perhaps not the most closely guarded one. There are plenty of photos of the Cole with a giant hole blown in it for example. But modern ships generally don't have any amount of armor except against the smallest of gunfire. The idea being is that if someone gets close enough to shoot at you with a sizeable cannon you're already dead.

Modern missiles with explosive heads and get through anything with can make so there is no point to armor. In the battleship era you could get armor that would give your own guns trouble, but most battleships saw action against bigger battleships and good tactics meant they did okay.

The Navy would love armor that can stand up to modern missiles, but it isn't really possible, and the compromises in costs and inside space mean it isn't worth it. Maybe someday we will find a new material that would work, but for now ships rely on not getting hit.

Re: Top navy admiral wants rust-free ships

#190

Post by simonblack »

kingcharles wrote: post #133
indymike wrote: post #124

Former Navy (nuclear propulsion) here. That by no means makes me an expert, by I will share a couple of thoughts: Ships rust. Officers don't chip paint and paint. Technical enlisted and NCOs don't chip paint and paint either. Junior, and especially unrated (not trained in a vocational area yet) enlisted do. This looks like a simple case of being undermanned, and/or having "too many chiefs and not enough braves". Real…

I totally agree. Surface ships are now just sitting ducks. Does the US have more carriers under construction? You need carriers to launch planes, but I guess the future could be quadcopter drones launched from subs?

You need carriers to launch planes

But are planes the most cost-effective form of throwing high-explosive long distances? Once, they were. They had a much greater range than a battleship's guns and thus obsoleted the battleship.

These days, missiles have double the range of carrier aircraft. So a very inexpensive frigate with long-range missiles is far more cost-effective than a huge expensive Carrier Group. (Most of the Group's ships are there merely to protect and support the carrier. Without the carrier, they are redundant. Sure, a Group looks big and powerful, but cost-effective? No.)

Post reply on HN