Bonhomme Richard fire

[MIDNJAC]

I don't disagree in theory, but somewhere along the way, I imagine they figured out this construct would be cheaper.

 

[sevenhelmet]

My own crazy theory on this matter is that we need to go back to the Age of Sail for inspiration. When a ship goes into the yards, she gets decommissioned. They used to do that. No commissioned CO needed, no military crew. Just hand her over to the yardbirds as a hulk of metal and say "see ya."

Then, when the maintenance contract is complete, including all inspections for quality, recommission her and reassign a crew. In the interim, she's the responsibility of the DoD contractor who operates the yard. If they hose up the yard period, DoD has a checklist of inspectable items that will prove it. If they burn her to the waterline in the process, well, that sucks, but the contractor and their insurers are now on the hook to pay DoD to build a replacement.

All we have to lose is liability we could be offloading and a crew and officer corps wasting their time and promotion prospects fucking around dealing with yardbirds instead of studying how to fight wars. And yet we're still not doing this because . . . ¯\_(ツ)_/¯??

I think this might be the smartest thing I’ve seen on AW in a while.

Which means someone will come along and poke holes in 3…2…1…

 

[Spekkio]

My own crazy theory on this matter is that we need to go back to the Age of Sail for inspiration. When a ship goes into the yards, she gets decommissioned. They used to do that. No commissioned CO needed, no military crew. Just hand her over to the yardbirds as a hulk of metal and say "see ya."

Then, when the maintenance contract is complete, including all inspections for quality, recommission her and reassign a crew. In the interim, she's the responsibility of the DoD contractor who operates the yard. If they hose up the yard period, DoD has a checklist of inspectable items that will prove it. If they burn her to the waterline in the process, well, that sucks, but the contractor (and their insurers) is now on the hook to pay DoD to build a replacement.

All we have to lose is liability we could be offloading and a crew and officer corps wasting their time and promotion prospects fucking around dealing with yardbirds instead of studying how to fight wars. And yet we're still not doing this because . . . ¯\_(ツ)_/¯??

The officers and crew are assigned to maintain safety and standards. If you've ever done an avail then you know that there are at least a dozen times a day a member of ship's company has to correct a fire hazard, safety violation, etc., in addition to QA the yards work as it progresses.

So the problem question is: how would you maintain proper oversight of the project?

 

[croakerfish]

The officers and crew are assigned to maintain safety and standards. If you've ever done an avail then you know that there are at least a dozen times a day a member of ship's company has to correct a fire hazard, safety violation, etc., in addition to QA the yards work as it progresses.

So the problem question is: how would you maintain proper oversight of the project?

I think the idea here is by requiring the contractor to bear the liability of fucking it up, that becomes their responsibility.

 

[Brett327]

I think the idea here is by requiring the contractor to bear the liability of fucking it up, that becomes their responsibility.

That isn’t going to be free.

 

[sevenhelmet]

That isn’t going to be free.

Neither is assigning a crew to the ship for multi-year yard periods.

 

[Spekkio]

I think the idea here is by requiring the contractor to bear the liability of fucking it up, that becomes their responsibility.

How would the Navy even prove this post-avail?

 

[nittany03]

How would the Navy even prove this post-avail?

We do take new ships and aircraft into service after the builder is done with them, right? That is a thing that we do? How would re-commissioning a ship be any different from commissioning a new ship? She's either ready to fight at sea or she's not.

 

[Mos]

If you've ever done an avail then you know that there are at least a dozen times a day a member of ship's company has to correct a fire hazard, safety violation, etc.,

Doesn't this highlight an underlying problem though? If the yard is screwing things up enough that it takes uniformed personnel to prevent mishaps, why is the answer to continue that type of babysitting instead of correcting the shipyard's deficient practices?

 

[croakerfish]

That isn’t going to be free.

Is it really cheaper to do it our way when you account for the tremendous amount of man hours spent by active duty dealing with this when they could be doing lots of other things more connected to our war fighting mission in an undermanned fleet? Or does it just look cheaper on the surface?

 

[Brett327]

Is it really cheaper to do it our way when you account for the tremendous amount of man hours spent by active duty dealing with this when they could be doing lots of other things more connected to our war fighting mission in an undermanned fleet? Or does it just look cheaper on the surface?

It's worth noting that the concept some have brought up, I.E. greater contractor responsibility, would be enormously expensive... and this is all to address what is essentially an extreme outlier event, a la BHR.

 

[Spekkio]

We do take new ships and aircraft into service after the builder is done with them, right? That is a thing that we do? How would re-commissioning a ship be any different from commissioning a new ship? She's either ready to fight at sea or she's not.

PCUs are manned with AD Sailors way before being commissioned.

During the availability it's easy to say the project messed up, pay for it when stuff breaks or rework is required. Post avail, they'll deny any accountability because stuff breaks on warships, so there's no way to pin it on them. A diligent crew that stays on top of retests, identifies deficiencies, and doesn't accept half assed work goes a long way in ensuring the ensuing quality of the product.

You could theoretically outsource this. But you'd need some mechanism to protect against schedule pressure. When the project isn't meeting deadlines they'll hold a meeting to write a whole slew of 'minor' deficiencies out of the avail, which basically shifts the onus of man hours to ship's company.

 

[thump]

Neither is assigning a crew to the ship for multi-year yard periods.

We would also pay contractors to do the work previously done by the crew. And we would pay to underwrite their liability for the now-decommissioned ship that they “own”.

Not sure what you thought of the contract maintenance at Pax, but it was pretty eye-watering to get back to the Fleet and shake hands with an airman PC who says “This is my aircraft.”

 

[IKE]

We would also pay contractors to do the work previously done by the crew. And we would pay to underwrite their liability for the now-decommissioned ship that they “own”.

Not sure what you thought of the contract maintenance at Pax, but it was pretty eye-watering to get back to the Fleet and shake hands with an airman PC who says “This is my aircraft.”

"...there are many like it, but this one is mine."

 

[Spekkio]

It's worth noting that the concept some have brought up, I.E. greater contractor responsibility, would be enormously expensive... and this is all to address what is essentially an extreme outlier event, a la BHR.

Wouldn't so much address the fire hazard / mitigation, but rather the enormous amount of suck that comes with being stationed on a ship in the yards.