14" Naval Artillery

[I/O Error]

My last word on Battleships:

It is entirely possible that my wish for Battleships is completely unneeded. I still do not believe that, deep down.

Jeff had said that my battleship belief was, "an example of somone with a hammer desperately looking for a nail."

Perhaps there is truth in that. However, the answer that Subvet gave is perhaps the best I have heard throughout this entire debate:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Subvet: To use the hammer analogy they are like a hammer that can only drive one type of nail, but they drive those nails twice as well. I guess I'd suggest we keep one or two in reserve in a state where they could be activated within a month if need be. If we ever had to take a defended beach these things could prove to be invaluable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT is exactly the sort of thing I believe in. I still believe that the tool still has a use in the modern battlefield, and can still perform a vital role that few in any weapon systems can match.

Can at least part of what it does be matched by other weapon systems? Yes. But what the BB does, it does "twice as well."

I am sorry if some of you got the (very much highly mistaken) impression that I advocated bringing back and BB and REPLACING other systems. In no way would I agree to such a move. The basic belief I operated under for this debate is that the BB is simply too valuable to throw away.

P.S. About the China section of the debate:

The USA is beginning to see China as a growing concern in the safety of US interests in the Pacific Rim, exactly as previously stated.

I fully expect a major conflict to arise over one of two major issues:

Issue One: I believe the US will soon officially recognize The Republic of China (aka Taiwan), which is technically still regarded by China as a rogue state.

Recognizing it could spark the same sort of result we might have expected if France and Great Britain had recognized the American South during the Second American Revolution (aka The Civil War) That would have been bad, and I expect it to happen with China. Taiwan possesses a democratic government, while China is still a "socialist old boy's club"

Issue Two:

The increasing trade deficeit between China and the United States. Anyone read Tom Clancy's "The Bear and the Dragon"?

Yeah, that book was a LITTLE too pat on the whole issue, but I do believe the point is a valid one.

(For the record, I held these beliefs BEFORE I got hooked on Clancy, just thought you should all know that... )

For some reason, I don't see the Spratlys to be as much a major issue for the United States. We have lost interest in Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and the Phillipines, the other major potential combatants in such a war. I think our reaction would be limited to sending in a carrier group or two for "observation" and an attempt at moderation. We just don't get as much oil from that area as we used to, hence less interest for us.

Okay, I'm "outtie" See you all later!

------------------

Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

------------------------

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

CavScout, I just have to say I still find your sig a stitch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you do. Clean off your chin.

Jeff Heidman

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Of course you do. Clean off your chin.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, you are so bitter. Be more happy. Lighten up. Not everyone on this list is your enemy. Tell your boss to buy you a nice bright IMAC and give you a window to work by.

(I would kill for a window. My office is in a subbasement right now.)

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Jeff, you are so bitter. Be more happy. Lighten up. Not everyone on this list is your enemy. Tell your boss to buy you a nice bright IMAC and give you a window to work by.

(I would kill for a window. My office is in a subbasement right now.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just don't get it. I am not in the least bitter. I just think you are sad. You and Cav are the ones still clinging to something that was said months ago, and I am the one that is bitter?

Take your medicine like a man.

As far as an iMac goes, if my boss wants to buy me an iMac, I would use it the same as I am using this Dell. What difference does it make, assuming it is as fast and such?

I already have a window though. Sorry about being stuck in a basement. That has to suck.

I find it amusing that you keep picking fights, and then act surprised when you get a response.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

BTW in case anyone was wondering about that extra $20 billion Bush wants for the military that I mentioned, it turns out that that is supposedly for new weapons development and procurement. Not sure if re-activating a battleship qualifies.

Be nice to actually buy some F-22s though...

Jeff Heidman

[Spook]

From the USAF POV, Jeff, I can tell you that the F-22 is being bought. And will be deployed. The possibility of a cancellation or major scaleback of the F-22 still exists, but the aircraft program that's now being put through the harshest political hurdles is the JSF.

But the fair questions to ask on F-22 are

1) How many per year?

2) Date of Initial Operating Capacity (IOC) for combat units?

2) Overall total? (Present target is app. 340, but may not even be this.)

[Jeff Heidman]

The best part of the F-22 debate was how the people trying to get it cut or scaled back kept complaining about the rising cost per plane.

Of course, when you spend some number of billions of dollars on research, and then slash the number of planes to be built in half, the cost per plane is going to rise enourmously. The same thing happened with the B-2.

The thing that was disturbing was the implication that if the F-22 (or B-2) cost X dollars per plane, we can save X dollars per plane by not building as many (or none). Of course this is false since of the X dollars per plane, the majority cost is for research, which ahs already been spent, and is lost no matter what you do.

Simplified sequence of events (numbers made up for simplicity):

1. Air Force: We can build 500 F-22s for 1 billion dollars. That is 1.2 million per plane, plus 400 million for development/research costs, total cost per plane is 2 million.

2. Senator: Thats too much. Cut your order to 250 planes.

3. Air Force. Dang. Ok, the cost is now 800 million, 3.2 million per plane.

4. Senator: Still too much, just build 100 of them.

5. Air Force: You kidding? OK, program cost is now 520 million, 5.2 million per plane.

6. Outraged Senator: This is ridiculous! The cost of this aircraft has almost tripled! Cut the entire program!

7. Air Force: OK, now the cost is 400 million for no planes. Good job.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Of course, when you spend some number of billions of dollars on research, and then slash the number of planes to be built in half, the cost per plane is going to rise enourmously. The same thing happened with the B-2.

The thing that was disturbing was the implication that if the F-22 (or B-2) cost X dollars per plane, we can save X dollars per plane by not building as many (or none). Of course this is false since of the X dollars per plane, the majority cost is for research, which ahs already been spent, and is lost no matter what you do.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically true, but some clarification is required here.

First off, the total "research" isn't all done yet, surprising as that may sound. The F-22 is still in its Engineering, Manufacturing, & Development phase (EMD).

The F-22 Systems Program Office (SPO), about two buildings away from mine, had to deal with near-term annual congressional budgeting constraints, both in cost & schedule, for most of the 1990's. The near-term focus to stay on the milestone track got the F-22 past its worst detractors, but also resulted in significant "stretching" of the program. Each stretch results in an overall cost increase per aircraft, as the prime contractor (Lockheed) was being underemployed, but it was still paid a given level so that it would remain willing to continue the F-22 contract.

Journals like Aviation Week are pretty good at providing updated status on the F-22 program, for those interested.

[Jeff Heidman]

Granted. I realise that, but simplified to make the point.

There are all sorts of costs related to the program that are non-recoverable.

Someone interested enough to read an Aviation journal will know what is happening, but when Congressman Schmoe is doing a press release, he counts on the fact that most people do not. So he just cites the increasing cost per plane (likely driven by his own actions) as evidence that the program should be cut or scaled back.

Politicians suck.

The only real question should be the marginal cost per plane. How much it will cost to build one more, irrespective of the sunk costs.

Anyone know what that currently stands at for the F-22? F-16? F-15?

Jeff Heidman

[Wesy]

Subvet,

I think I'll enlist now and become the FIRST offical Kamikaze for the USA! Seriously though, the IOWA or South Dakota Class BB during WWII proved to be akin to an Aegis cruiser/Arleigh Burke class destroyer in terms of fleet air defense...They had I believe 20 5"/38, the best DP 5" around with just awesome (for the time) fire control...made even better with the funny fuze (Proximity Fuse). Tons of 40mm (towards the end of WWII, these were also radar controlled). Essentially the goal of the Kamikaze was to essentially overwhelm the defenses of the task force, hence, it has become a vision for today's fleet air defense tactics against air to surface missiles. The BB's not only were able to keep up with the CV's to provide awesome firepower against air targets, but also had the bonus of being able to provide some serious throw weight at land and or naval targets...

As a side note, I recently went on a vacation to Japan and met a friend of my fathers who in fact was a "surviving" member of the Kamikaze.

------------------

"Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat"

- Lt. General Renya Mutaguchi, Commanding General, Japanese Fifteenth Army, 1944-1945

[Subvet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesy:

Subvet,

As a side note, I recently went on a vacation to Japan and met a friend of my fathers who in fact was a "surviving" member of the Kamikaze.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's pretty interesting. I can only try to imagine the feelings he must have had when the war ended. Guilt that he didn't get to complete his mission? Relief and happiness to be spared? The Japanese military men that I find the most interesting of all though is those guys that held out on remote islands untill the 70's. Wow, talk about dedication!

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xavier:

Beyruth... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beyruth??? Don't you mean Beruit?

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

CavScout, I just have to say I still find your sig a stitch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why thanks.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

You just don't get it. I am not in the least bitter. I just think you are sad. You and Cav are the ones still clinging to something that was said months ago, and I am the one that is bitter?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bitter? I just find it very humorous. It's a good laugh. Laugh with us, it is so much easier than thinking we are laughing at you.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Wesy]

Subvet,

They don't really talk about it...My uncle was also in the IJA stationed in Manchuria from '43 on...He was eventually captured by the Soviets and spent three years in the gulag near Lake Baikal.

When I was in Japan, I got to go to the Yushukan (Military Museum right next to the Yasukuni Shrine). Essentially all the old vets go there to pray for the war dead. The museum is really cool, the have an old Japanese Tank, a Kaiten (suicide sub/torpedo), 150mm, 75mm arty (both naval and land), a "baka" bomb (rocket assisted suicide weapon). Lots of uniforms, swords, weapons dating all the way back to the Sino Japanese War through WWII

When I visited the Imperial Palace, you get the right wingers out there signing the national anthem and yelling "Banzai!". The old folks holding out till the 70's are kinda viewed like Don Quixote...

------------------

"Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat"

- Lt. General Renya Mutaguchi, Commanding General, Japanese Fifteenth Army, 1944-1945

[Sparky9292]

F-16 Falcons roughly cost about $22 million per jet. My dad flew them extensively before he retired.

Adding to the Battleship debate, my dad said that battleships are out of date because they usually are escorted by an armanda of destroyers, subs, etc, and are a BIG target for tactical nukes that can be launched by even an F-16.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sparky9292:

F-16 Falcons roughly cost about $22 million per jet. My dad flew them extensively before he retired.

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that for the original vanilla F-16A? I assume so. Currently the F-16C Block 52 are going for well over $50 million I think. Of course, they are vastly more capable than the original F-16.

Jeff Heidman