Posted on 12/18/2025 3:42:51 AM PST by RoosterRedux
The Navy and tech firm Palantir have announced an initial $448 million contract that will see the tech company proliferate its artificial intelligence tools throughout several public and private shipyards, as well as individual suppliers, with the hope of boosting nuclear submarine production.
...
Towards the end of the event, he took the stage with Palantir chief Alex Karp to jointly announce the new initiative, dubbed ShipOS or Shipbuilding Operating System, which Phelan characterized as “the most ambitious integration of artificial intelligence into naval construction, maintenance and repair and history.”
“We’re deploying an AI-powered shipbuilding operating system across the maritime industrial base. Every shipbuilder who partners with us will have AI-powered tools that optimize their work in real time,” he said. “Every supplier in the network will be connected through intelligent logistics. Every program manager will have unprecedented visibility into schedule, cost and risk.”
...
A Navy statement following the announcement said the service had already conducted a pilot program at General Dynamics Electric Boat, during which the service claimed reduced submarine schedule planning from “160 manual hours to under 10 minutes.”
Palantir’s compensation differs significantly from traditional Pentagon contractors in that they are heavily performance-contingent and tied to verifiable, objective outcomes.
I wonder if AI is smart enough to implement common sense. That would solve 99% of defense acquisition problems.
Ultra-fast shipbuilding tool cuts US submarine planning time from 160 hours to 10 minsFrom 160 hours to 10 minutes
“This investment provides the resources our shipbuilders, shipyards, and suppliers need to modernize their operations and succeed in meeting our nation’s defense requirements,” Phelan said.
“By enabling industry to adopt AI and autonomy tools at scale, we’re helping the shipbuilding industry improve schedules, increase capacity, and reduce costs. This is about doing business smarter and building the industrial capability our Navy and nation require.”
Ship OS is designed to serve as a unified, data-driven management system that integrates information from enterprise resource planning tools, legacy databases, and real-time production systems.
Navy officials say the platform will help identify bottlenecks, streamline engineering workflows, and provide early warnings on schedule and material risks.
The program is being overseen by the Maritime Industrial Base (MIB) Program in coordination with the Naval Sea Systems Command.
The initial rollout will focus on the submarine industrial base, which has struggled with delays and material shortages as the Navy pushes to expand production of the Columbia- and Virginia-class submarines.
Pilot projects have already produced notable results, Navy officials said. At General Dynamics Electric Boat, Ship OS tools cut submarine schedule planning from roughly 160 manual hours to less than 10 minutes.
At Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, material review times, historically measured in weeks, dropped to under an hour.
“These early outcomes show what’s possible when AI is integrated directly into shipbuilding operations,” a Navy official said.
“We’re seeing efficiency, accuracy, and throughput gains that were not achievable with traditional processes.”
It can help expose illogical thinking and actions.
Artificial intelligence and military intelligence
are both oxymorons.
The AI could well be a good thing — but Management better be prepared to listen to humans on the team who raise concerns.
“The OS says we ought to do XYZ and I’m telling you that will be a disaster. I’ve been doing this for 30 years and I know what I’m talking about.”
My experience was that Management usually refused to pay any attention to “naysayers”. But with AI now on the scene, and still finding it’s feet, and occasionally making mistakes, now would be a good time for Management to ask actual humans, “Do you see problems?” Back in the 1980s, everyone admired Japan for it’s Quality approach — a factory line worker could voice a concern to the President of Toyota, and the President would take it seriously. The Pentagon might want to remember that approach.
So, we’re going to pay dearly for new software that tracks to a gnat’s ass exactly how far behind schedule we are?
.
As a navy veteran and a VERY minor holder in Palantir, I heartily approve this post!
Now the H-1B Indians are building our submarines along with running our tech monopolies and Walmart, among others...
Thanks for that. I had not seen it before. It’s very good.
It is my understanding that jobs that require U.S. government security clearances are effectively restricted to U.S. citizens.
That is the stuff driving defense reform. Look at Musk. If he needs a factory or a rocket launch platform he just goes and builds it, like you - you’re still standing here?-you’re fired. You were waiting for someone to tell you what to do? Guards get this man out of here, now. He doesn’t whine about well 35 years from now after you build us a new factory maybe we can negotiate a profitable contract to start building somfin.
Obeythe WOPR.
If it is a large tech project, there are many Indian citizens,, here in the USA, in the tech stack pipeline. Both sides of the aisle have been lying about this for over 10 years now.
“ wonder if AI is smart enough to implement common sense. That would solve 99% of defense acquisition problems.”
80% of defense acquisition problems are constantly changing requirements and obsolescence. There is plenty of common sense already but the goal line keeps moving.
In many of the newer weapons systems by the time design, testing and initial production are complete, some of the subassemblies are going obsolete, often with little advanced warning by the OEM. Now you own a system that cannot be sustained to the level it needs to be sustained to.
Bookmark
I worked DoD Weapon System Acquisition for 28 years and there’s little to no common sense in it period. I don’t blame OEM for much of anything since it’s the government that constantly changes requirements and management flips every 2 - 3 years and they all want their mark on any new development. OEM just takes advantage and lets the changes be implemented and then it becomes out of scope and they start over and make money. That’s a self imposed government problem.
COTS destroyed a lot of common sense when halfway through a design concept that card, component etc no longer exist and the new one doesn’t work with the old one. Total BS and you can force the manufacturer to maintain a common product throughout lifecycle. The government implemented COTS as a a supposed cost saver years in the 90’s but it has failed miserably. You put the emphasis on the manufacturer to do their job and hold them accountable. If they change parts and they don’t work you make them responsible for all cost associated with fixing their problem.
As for initial design if you ask for a perfectly square box you’ll get a perfectly square box at cost in a reasonable amount of time. If you change dimensions every few months, then change part of the composition, requirements creep etc then cost and schedule will never be met.
I understand technology changes but you don’t change your product the minute technology changes because you’ll never get a product.. F-35 the perfect example. To date it has never passed OT&E and even the same variants have multiple variants within them. It’s insanity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.