We know that the Big Three US vehicle manufacturers, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors, are in serious trouble right now. The first is in bankruptcy proceedings, the last may well be within months, and while Ford's weathered the storm successfully so far, they may have trouble in future.
Now comes news that the US Navy is trying to recruit out-of-work auto engineers.
The U.S. Navy is coming to the rescue of unemployed autoworkers in Detroit. In a very interesting twist, Naval Sea Systems (NAVSEA) is recruiting mid-career automotive engineering professionals. Let's hope they design ships better than they design cars.
NAVSEA needs people - engineers, scientists and skilled tradesmen. According to NAVSEA, it has positions open at its headquarters and other affiliated program executive offices in Washington, naval warfare centers, shipyards and Navy-sponsored University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) across the U.S.
NAVSEA hopes to take advantage of the training automotive engineers already have - from lean initiatives to production line techniques and modern design.
. . .
The first career fair was held in Livonia, Mich. in April. More than 240 resumes were submitted by qualified applicants who were, according to a NAVSEA release, "interested in transitioning from designing cars to developing and maintaining U.S. Navy ships and systems."
There's more at the link.
Y'know, I can't help but wonder whether the Navy's thought this through. The Big Three are in trouble because they couldn't produce the right vehicles, at the right price and low enough cost, to satisfy America's needs. Do we really want their engineers doing the same with the ships upon which we rely for defense?
I'm thinking of an aircraft carrier with all the style, flair and reliability of an Edsel, or a submarine that's guaranteed to submerge - but the warranty runs out just before it surfaces! I'm also thinking that the last time the military community invited a motor vehicle specialist into its ranks, it got Robert McNamara . . .
Peter
8 comments:
Funny, but as you know, untrue. The newbie engineers may turn out badly engineered ships, but they design to management specs. Management no change, same-same result. Take the accent off diversity and put it on warfighting. That would be a fair test.
I agree; I'd blame the management for the state of the auto industry rather than the engineers.
Jim
The incentives are different, so I suspect the results will be too. Car engineers design what the bosses tell them to design.
I used to teach (not engineering) at Nissan. The Japanese engineers I worked with complained that Nissan's bosses demanded TOO MUCH quality, more than was really necessary.
Remember that Engineers design to management and marketing specs.
At Boeing, we design what the customer tells us they want. Luckily for us, our customers understand very well what is important and feasible. Speed, durability, and efficiency are far more important than nice lines and style, or cup holders.
Oh. Good. Lord.
Things are already sparky enough in the NAVSEA world. (I'm a contractor for one of the NSWC, depending on contract, I'm doing warfare systems or EM work.)
We DO NOT need more bad engineers to turn out weird ideas -- we need more ex-POs and retired CPOs who were OPERATORS, and totally grok maintenance issues, the difference between "planned CONOPS" and "what we actually do with these canoes".
Hell, I'm a former Army 11B (Light Infantry, AKA "bullet sponge"), and my most productive moments are NEVER technical; they're "common sense enlisted" answers. OIne of my stock questions is, "It's 0330 hrs, and you're a 19 year old kid who's been sleep dprived and overowrked for the last three weeks, and oh yeah, your True Love just dumped you by eMail right before you came on watch. Can you keep this system going CORRECTLY, and fix it when it breaks?"
Sometimes the looks I get when I toss one of these turd grenades into the milk and Wheaties are amusingly spectaular, expecially from the Jedi Knights of SPAWAR, who think more antennas make boats sexier, regardless of whether they work.
Given the engineering solutions I've seen on most of the late model American cars I've had the misfortune to look under the hood, I DO NOT WANT these guys working on combat equipment.
And good Christ, I miss spell checkers. . .
Word verify "tessegal" -- a Fourth Dimensional girlfriend.
I have long wondered why the Chevrolet Tahoe - one of my favorite automobiles, BTW - starts around $36K. It's a nice truck and all, but it's still a Chevy pickup with a permanent camper shell and extra seats. It's well-built and maintenance is cheap. So why doesn't it start closer to the $20K mark?
I give a lot of credit for that to the Union. Chevys cost ~$75/hr. to manufacture. Toyotas, which last longer than styrofoam, come in close to $40/hr.
"But Toyotas be crazy espernsive!" you might say. Well, that extra money goes into research and development; likely the cause of the longevity of Toyotas.
I'd bet a dollar that, given the ability to keep production costs closer to the Japanese competition, GM could crank out some serious hardware.
tweaker
I don't find Detroit designs bad - certainly not uniformly bad. They were charged with designing cars that could be built relatively cheaply under the prevailing labor environment and be sold relatively dearly due to lots of pointless add-ons. When allowed to design work trucks, they designed excellent, reasonably-priced work trucks. Same with performance cars. And look at just how much better the vehicles are than they were in, say, 1975! They improved more than the foreign designs from then to now. Now if only they had designed for easier maintenance (but then Toyota's not so hot there either.)
Post a Comment