Wading in again.
Incrementalism
OODA
Logistical Inertia
Optimization
747 – 1968 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400ER, 747-8 2010
Arleigh Burke
1980 – Design studies, 1983 – 3 Competitors, 1985 – Contract Award, 1988 –First Keel, 1989 – First Launch, 1991 – first Commission (11 years development and construction)
1998 – Flight II Commissioned
2000 – Flight IIA – 5”/54
2001 – Flight IIA-5”/62
2002 – Flight IIA – 5”/62 no CIWS, 2009 – Latest Commission,
6 Future Hulls launched, building or contracted.
The closer you get to the optimal the less room there is to optimize.
The less room there is to optimize the less reason there is switch to a completely new design and the more expensive the new design becomes.
Concurrently you have to deal with logistical inertia – we power cars with gas because we have lots of gas to power cars – we use 5.56 and 7.62 because we have lots available – we use the railway gauge we do because the Roman wagons left ruts of that size.
Cars are computerized 1880s concepts with updated materials.
Industrial operations are based on processes that have advanced through wood, stone, ceramics, bronze, iron and steel versions powered by muscles, wind, water, gravity, springs, steam, combustion and electricity.
The usual processing plant is engaged in a process of continual improvement. Very few green-field plants are established unless the market demands a completely new capability. Incrementalism is the order of the day.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to foresee a world of the future where there is much that is recognizable (Block 752 F-16s, M3347 HMMWV, M1C 47 Abrams etc) while at the same time there will be M1A2 Scramjets and UAVs and UGVs being operated.
That seems to be the lesson from many of these Great Leap Forward projects where the instigators are looking to get a revolutionary advantage from systems that have already experienced generations of optimization. There just ain’t that much room.
Is there much wrong with the old DDH hull form? Or for that matter the CPF? How do their speeds compare to theoretical limits and historical capabilities? Or is the real problem with the Canadian fleet simply that there is no ongoing plan to refine, replace and upgrade so that the fleet can be constantly upgraded?
Meanwhile money wasted on diminishing returns could be spent on operational needs or “truly” radical innovations. And you will only find the “truly” radical by leaving funds in the kitty for people to play with concepts and fail...but it is one thing to “waste” funds building one off concepts....yet another to plan on the infrastructure to build tens, or hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of notional systems that offer decreasing returns over what you can already produce.
An axe is recognizably an axe no matter if it is a chunk of flint on an antler haft or if it is of Teflon coated tempered steel with an ergonomically designed carbon fibre handle and a cushioned, rubberized grip.
The latter does not offer a revolutionary capability beyond the capabilities of the former.
Now a flint knife versus a flint axe.... that is another matter entirely.
Or, militarily, the Sherman vs King Tiger debate.
