Jun

30

Please pay attention to the reality on your right and on your Left

Submitted by Jack Pate under Business | Leave a Comment

In business, assumptions replace unknown information. Assumptions are based on past observations. Usually assumptions place bounds on the outside limits of failure.

In developing a counter measure launcher for use in a submarine, our engineers had developed a sophisticated mechanical launcher. The mechanical launcher created no gas or exhaust bubbles, created very little noise, required no chemical motors, explosions, or the like, and was designed to launch a small counter measure device out through a penetration in the hull of a submarine into the surrounding open sea. I came into the project late, assigned by my manager to assist in developing a computer model for performance of the counter measure launcher.

By the time I was involved, prototypes had been constructed from initial designs, and simulated launches had been tested. However, no computerized analysis or modeling had been performed. Whatever analysis occurred was done one equation at a time, based on a set of assumptions.

Working with basic principles, I developed a system of equations I believed represented the physical events controlling the launcher. The equations reflected the behavior of each key piece. I used the manufacturing drawings to determine the particular shapes, sizes, weights, forces and so forth of all the components acting in the launcher.

When I began exercising the model, running the computer to calculate and chart out the simulated launch of a counter measure by this launching device, I was surprised and disappointed. According to my computer, the miniature torpedo projectile initially accelerated, then speed leveled off as acceleration tapered off. After power to the projectile ended, according to the computer, the projectile reversed direction. It was sucked back into the tube inside the submarine. Of course the tube would be sealed against any water going back into the submarine, but the projectile was sucked back through the penetration, coming to rest inside the tube from which it had been launched. It went nowhere !

I scratched my head and went back through all my code with a fine toothed comb. I went through all of my assumptions. I went through all of my equations. I went through all of my data. I could not match the performance that the prototype had achieved in the test.

The testing data indicated that the projectile should have come up to speed, launched out of the tube and proceeded into the open water. My computer model predicted that the counter measure immediately returned back into the launch tube as soon as the power source was terminated. I could find no errors. I came up with a theory that explained by model, but the data were otherwise. What was I missing?

I interviewed engineers who worked on the prototype. To my surprise and consternation, one said that the velocity and position shown by my computer model were actually the same behavior the launcher system originally exhibited during the initial testing. He said that before the “stand pipe” was connected, that is exactly how the device behaved.

When I inquired about the stand pipe he said that because the counter measure device kept being sucked back into launch tube, the engineers connected a stand pipe to the back of the launcher tube, opposite the countermeasure exit. The stand pipe let the launcher draw in ambient air into the back of the launcher tube, replacing water pushed out with the projectile (counter measure) device.

I pointed out that a submarine at strategic depths was not capable of opening a stand pipe through the hull to draw in atmospheric air to backfill behind the launched counter measure module. Once the tube was sealed, no additional water or air was available to draw in behind the counter measure.

What my model had demonstrated was the absolute reality. The mechanical launch mechanism was producing so much force behind the counter measure module that it actually forced the counter measure projectile out the tube like a piston. The launcher was creating a vacuum bubble behind the counter measure due to the inability of water to pass around the nose of the projectile to refill or re-flood the tube behind it as it moved out during launch. Therefore, the vacuum bubble, once it was no longer being driven by the force of the launcher, immediately collapsed back into itself. As the bubble collapsed, the shrinking volume behind it sucked the projectile like a piston back into the tube.

The engineers who added the stand pipe had never considered that they had added a physical component to the system that would be impossible to provide in the actual strategic submarine. They had physically modeled a scenario that could never be reality.

In dealing with factors that must be considered, remember that they may affect our designs positively or negatively. Factors are realities. If we believe they are obstacles, we must find a way to remove them or avoid them. If we believe they are opportunities or benefits, we want to find a way to cause them to benefit us.

Factors include issues, but the word “issues” tends to be thought of as a negative. Issues are often those circumstances we would like to change, and must somehow resolve. However, “factors” is a broader class. Factors will include all the realities (opportunities and obstacles) of all types along our path that will eventually be navigated. That path through them becomes our strategy. Failing to accurately perceive and deal with all significant factors will lead to a strategy that is impossible of performance.

Jun

11

Keep Your Eye on the Customer and the Contract Requirements

Submitted by Jack Pate under Business | Leave a Comment

Don Bower was a clever fellow and a technical group leader responsible for development of submarine counter measures. “Countermeasures” is a title covering numerous devices, techniques, systems, and technologies directed to countering threats to a submarine. For example, in movies we have seen simulated scenes of aircraft trying to turn and “jink” to escape a heat-seeking missile. Also, we have seen planes that throw out decoys and chaff to tempt the guidance systems on incoming missiles to divert and pursue the decoy or be confused by the chaff rather than following the true aircraft.

Likewise, ships and submarines have been illustrated in movies wherein they seek to evade detection by the weaponry of enemy craft. We have a submarine diving deep to escape depth charges dropped over the side of a destroyer. Likewise, we see imagery of submarines changing course dramatically in order to maneuver faster than an attacking destroyer is capable of responding. Likewise, we see stories of boats and ships equipped with machinery that supports evasion of detection by silencing motors, silencing the propellor screws, and so forth.

The task at hand was “counter measure launchers”. Torpedoes may be placed into a large empty tube at the front or rear of a submarine. The tube is sealed off and flooded. The torpedo is started and swims out of the tube. The torpedo travels under its own power out of the tube toward a target. Counter measures may likewise be placed in a much smaller tube. The penetration (opening) through the hull of a submarine for a torpedo may be a couple of feet in diameter. By contrast, counter measures are often sent out through a penetration of only five or even three inches.

Counter measures have various responsibilities. For example, some devices are sensors detecting conditions and contacted by telemetry devices to send back signals showing surface conditions, depth monitoring information, and so forth. Likewise, counter measures may send out electronic information or dis-information to deceive torpedoes, detection equipment, and the like from ships and aircraft seeking to attack a submarine.

Don was responsible for obtaining a development contract for a counter measure launcher suitable for installation on a submarine. Don got along well with the program manager who was a civil servant for the Navy. Under the contract we were working on, we were obligated to deliver certain prototypes, tests, and reports on performance. Don also had in mind several “whiz-bang” developments he wanted to present to the “customer”.

What Don did not understand is that we had to meet the contract objectives first. He kept insisting that he was tight with the program manager from the Navy, and that the program manager wanted him to do the “whiz-bang” add ons. Nevertheless, I understood that meeting the contract objectives was a government contract requirement. All the extra “whiz-bang” features might be of benefit, but did not themselves meet the basic, simpler, contract requirements. They were all optional after meeting contract requirements. Thus, when Don began directing the team toward meeting the “whiz-bang” requirements at the expense of contract requirements, I was considerably concerned.

Sure enough, the day finally came when the program manager was transferred from the Navy office to a new post. The new program manager was not chummy with Don. That manager invited Don to a review to discuss the milestones under the contract. Instead of finding himself performing pet projects of interest to the project manager, Don found himself out of compliance and behind schedule on his contract performance. The contract was closed out. No further work was forthcoming, and the working relationship with that Navy laboratory was destroyed.

The counter measures project may not have been a favorite of the new program manager. There may have been nothing Don could have done. However, by not meeting the contract objectives, Don was out of compliance, and had no justification for the continuation of the contract or for any follow-on contracts. Not withstanding some projects can be somewhat political, there is no substitute for meeting the contract objectives.