Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

lots of money for something that didn't work out or can't even shoot. reminds me of the over-expensive F-22 and the other one with overruning costs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

lots of money for something that didn't work out or can't even shoot. reminds me of the over-expensive F-22 and the other one with overruning costs.

The F-22 is quite possibly the best air superiority fighter in the air. It was not, however, ,ulti-role. This, and politics, doomed the project. The F-35 was asked to be a 5th generation swiss army knife. That overwhelmingly caused it's development costs to skyrocket.

There are other weapons platforms we can talk about as well. The Paladin is one. But there are a lot of reasons these things get expensive. Just looking at development costs is akin to what cost the US so badly in WWII. No one wanted to spend the money pre-war to test the torpedos is an excellent example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The circumstances under which the Navy was developing things in the Cold War, especially its early stages, are much different from now. In the 1950s and 1960s, other navies could at least make an attempt to challenge the dominance of the USN.

Nowadays, the gulf in capabilities is so wide that the Navy doesn't need to make sure their next generation of stuff is going to work nearly flawlessly. They can afford to take bigger risks (with bigger rewards) because if it doesn't work perfectly, it's still orders of magnitude better than the best thing the nearest competitor has.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

You realize the DDG-Zumwalt was designed around the 155mm gun and that gun doesn't work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

You realize the DDG-Zumwalt was designed around the 155mm gun and that gun doesn't work.

Even if this were true (and there are grains of truth in saying "that gun doesn't work"), that's like saying your bicycle is designed around the gearshift indicator mounted on your handlebars.

The Zumwalt-class isn't so expensive just because of the stinkin' gun. It is/was experimentation and R&D on a much larger scale - an LCS as a (the) future frontline ship, modularity, and so on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The circumstances under which the Navy was developing things in the Cold War, especially its early stages, are much different from now. In the 1950s and 1960s, other navies could at least make an attempt to challenge the dominance of the USN.

Nowadays, the gulf in capabilities is so wide that the Navy doesn't need to make sure their next generation of stuff is going to work nearly flawlessly. They can afford to take bigger risks (with bigger rewards) because if it doesn't work perfectly, it's still orders of magnitude better than the best thing the nearest competitor has.

You realize the DDG-Zumwalt was designed around the 155mm gun and that gun doesn't work.

As an engineer that tells me the program has failed.

Doesn't that set off any alarm bells for you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The circumstances under which the Navy was developing things in the Cold War, especially its early stages, are much different from now. In the 1950s and 1960s, other navies could at least make an attempt to challenge the dominance of the USN.

Nowadays, the gulf in capabilities is so wide that the Navy doesn't need to make sure their next generation of stuff is going to work nearly flawlessly. They can afford to take bigger risks (with bigger rewards) because if it doesn't work perfectly, it's still orders of magnitude better than the best thing the nearest competitor has.

You realize the DDG-Zumwalt was designed around the 155mm gun and that gun doesn't work.

As an engineer that tells me the program has failed.

Doesn't that set off any alarm bells for you?

In this missile age, if a combat ship is using it's main gun in serious engagement, they've probably lost. It's all down to sensors, missiles and missile defence in naval engagements.

There's a reason why naval design did a sharp turn away from developing better surface guns, and why modern warships rarely mount more than a single conventional gun ranging from 75mm to 155mm - they're no longer relevant to the role. They offer nice flexibility and a cost-effective way of dealing with small combatants, but they are by no means essential.

As Loka says, it was more about pushing the technology out there. The Yubari wasn't a amazingly successful ship, but it offered the IJN the chance to learn a lot of lessons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

No, designing with the 155mm gun they wanted for shore bombardment does make sense - shells are cheaper than missiles, and when supporting a landing it may make sense to fire shells instead of expensive missiles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Of course the era of the gun is over. Why would they design a ship around a gun in this age?

The era of the gun ended when the HMS Sheffield was sunk by the Exocet.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I entered the U.S. Army in 1972 right out of college.
At the time, the cost to clothe, feed and train one enlisted recruit with at least one AIT unit (job skill school) was $100k.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I entered the U.S. Army in 1972 right out of college.
At the time, the cost to clothe, feed and train one enlisted recruit with at least one AIT unit (job skill school) was $100k.

Pretty safe to say today it must be $500,000.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

It's not.

Y'all need to cite sources instead of pulling numbers out of your arses, or be subject to some serious heckling ridicule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I entered the U.S. Army in 1972 right out of college.
At the time, the cost to clothe, feed and train one enlisted recruit with at least one AIT unit (job skill school) was $100k.

Pretty safe to say today it must be $500,000.

It's not.

Y'all need to cite sources instead of pulling numbers out of your arses, or be subject to some serious heckling ridicule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I entered the U.S. Army in 1972 right out of college.
At the time, the cost to clothe, feed and train one enlisted recruit with at least one AIT unit (job skill school) was $100k.

Pretty safe to say today it must be $500,000.

It's not.

Y'all need to cite sources instead of pulling numbers out of your arses, or be subject to some serious heckling ridicule.

"U.S. Inflation Rate, $100,000 in 1970 to 2017. In other words, $100,000 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to $631,752.58 in 2017, a difference of $531,752.58 over 47 years."

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark! Not that you have the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong and I was correct, even on the low side.

And drop the fake southern accent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

It's not.

Y'all need to cite sources instead of pulling numbers out of your arses, or be subject to some serious heckling ridicule.

I don't have numbers, but multiple sources I've seen cite recruit life-cycle (about a quarter to a third stay for a career I think) health expenses as the major cost of a recruit. Including veterans' care for life after active duty. About 1/8 (older number about five years ago) of DOD spending is for health care. The VA is a different budget.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

(unsupported assertions)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I entered the U.S. Army in 1972 right out of college.
At the time, the cost to clothe, feed and train one enlisted recruit with at least one AIT unit (job skill school) was $100k.

Pretty safe to say today it must be $500,000.

It's not.

Y'all need to cite sources instead of pulling numbers out of your arses, or be subject to some serious heckling ridicule.

"U.S. Inflation Rate, $100,000 in 1970 to 2017. In other words, $100,000 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to $631,752.58 in 2017, a difference of $531,752.58 over 47 years."

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark! Not that you have the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong and I was correct, even on the low side.

And drop the fake southern accent.

You can't just take the cost in 1970 and adjust for inflation to 2017. You have to take the actual cost, right now. You didn't even cite a proper source for the original 100K. Just m10bob's post. I'm not going to comment on your intellectual honesty; one need only look at your vast history of forum posts to get an idea of what you're about...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

(unsupported assertions)

Here's some homework for you:

RAND Corporation from 2007 (admittedly 11 years old, but still relevant) - https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG598.pdf

Slightly more updated from 2012 showing the annual appropriation (not cost) in 2013 dollars - https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43574. You could just browse the CBO site in general, there's lots of illuminating stuff on there.

I'll try really hard not to facepalm when you respond this time.

quote:

I entered the U.S. Army in 1972 right out of college.
At the time, the cost to clothe, feed and train one enlisted recruit with at least one AIT unit (job skill school) was $100k.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

I entered the U.S. Army in 1972 right out of college.
At the time, the cost to clothe, feed and train one enlisted recruit with at least one AIT unit (job skill school) was $100k.

You would also have to stipulate what the AIT school was. Some might take up to two years while a Basic/AIT One Station Unit Training (OSUT) might take 13.5 weeks combined. You also have adjust for the cost of different technologies, from going from basic iron sights on a rifle to laser red light target markers - just don't let a herd of cats on the firing range! A basic infantryman (grunt) would cost a lot less that a tanker (DAT) since the DAT would have a lot of heavy equipment and the support elements needed with their costs, not to mention the increase in the cost of ammunition. You would also have to adjust for savings in training such as using submunitions now if they were not using them then. I do not know when the US Army went to .22 caliber submunitions for its tanks.

You would also have to factor in the cost of accidents where a tank fires its main gun with 2 feet of packed dirt (I did not see the 105mm steel orchid) in the gun tube, a tank driven into a puddle of water to where when the water quit rising it was halfway filling the turret (I think that was the M1 that was DXed), to two solders goofing around in the back of a vehicle where one of the soldiers had his head impacted by a 7.62 bullet fired at point blank range from an M60.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

(unsupported assertions)

Here's some homework for you:

RAND Corporation from 2007 (admittedly 11 years old, but still relevant) - https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG598.pdf

Slightly more updated from 2012 showing the annual appropriation (not cost) in 2013 dollars - https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43574. You could just browse the CBO site in general, there's lots of illuminating stuff on there.

I'll try really hard not to facepalm when you respond this time.

Not reading 153 pages on your more than likely bogus information.

I read a few pages of your outdated information and saw nothing about cost to train.

You remember my comment was in response to cost to train???

Now, you cited it, you tell me what page it is on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

But to say something that cost $100,000 in 1972 didn't appreciate in nearly half-a-century is wrong. The price of everything has skyrocketed.

No it hasn't. The price of computing and electronics, for example, has plummeted. And as RangerJoe says, you have to take into account what the training actually is. It's about what you get for what you spent. Training on and with 1970s tech vs. training on and with 2010s tech - it's vastly different what they are doing and the capabilities we are getting from that.



As for comments on inflation in general, no the CPI isn't somehow a completely inaccurate measure now. And no, it doesn't matter that the "basket of goods" has changed. And while there are many measures of inflation, and they all differ, they are all within spitting distance of each other and all are valid in a measure of "inflation is about (this much)" - you can quibble around the margins because they all measure it in different ways, but over the course of years they match up with each other pretty well. It's also largely irrelevant that there are small differences, as inflation is a measure for which you do not need precision.

The reason for the example of the computer being much cheaper now than when you bought your first one has nothing to do with inflation (or deflation).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I entered the U.S. Army in 1972 right out of college.
At the time, the cost to clothe, feed and train one enlisted recruit with at least one AIT unit (job skill school) was $100k.

Pretty safe to say today it must be $500,000.

It's not.

Y'all need to cite sources instead of pulling numbers out of your arses, or be subject to some serious heckling ridicule.

"U.S. Inflation Rate, $100,000 in 1970 to 2017. In other words, $100,000 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to $631,752.58 in 2017, a difference of $531,752.58 over 47 years."

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark! Not that you have the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong and I was correct, even on the low side.

And drop the fake southern accent.

You can't just take the cost in 1970 and adjust for inflation to 2017. You have to take the actual cost, right now. You didn't even cite a proper source for the original 100K. Just m10bob's post. I'm not going to comment on your intellectual honesty; one need only look at your vast history of forum posts to get an idea of what you're about...

Non economists often fall into the trap of thinking that it is an easy exercise to adjust historical quantums by the inflation rate. The problem with such attempts is identifying the appropriate "inflation" rate.

The meaning of the economic term "inflation" is actually very loose. The precise economic impact which the term attempts to encompass is the "increase in the price level" between different time periods. Immediately there is a difficulty, viz the price level of what. The way economists get around this is by measuring different goods and services to arrive at different "inflation rates" which are applied to different situations as appropriate.

The most common inflation rate calculated and the one which is by far most frequently referred to is the Consumer Price Indicator. This is based on surveying a basket of goods and services. Within the basket, over time weightings are adjusted and what is included is altered. But no two consumers are identical in their purchase of goods and services and therefore, over time, one consumer may find the official CPI rate understates how much their "consumer" price level has increased whereas another consumer may find the official CPI rate overstates the increase of their price level.

For many economic entities, the CPI rate is quite meaningless for the basket does not include goods and services which they use or the weightings are quite wrong. There are therefore different "inflation" rates for industry. The DOD will have it's own internal inflation rates when entering into purchase contracts although here the complication is how does one accurately factor the qualitative improvement component of an increased price level.

It is therefore not simply a case of whether $100k was the correct figure in 1972, but rather what exactly did it cover and are those same items exactly still in play in 2018 with no qualitative improvements. In short, applying the CPI rate is fairly meaningless in of itself as the basket is very different.

There is one further relevant point. Assuming that a relevant inflation rate is applied and $100k in 1972 is equivalent to $500k today. So what, all it establishes is the nominal quantum has increased. The real cost of the economic activity has not increased when adjusted for inflation.

Alfred

What's your area(s) of actual trained expertise, again? Are you an economist?

(in reply to Rusty1961)

quote:

The VA is a different budget.

quote:

But to say something that cost $100,000 in 1972 didn't appreciate in nearly half-a-century is wrong. The price of everything has skyrocketed.

quote:


Yep, more than likely bogus information from the RAND Corporation (a widely respected, knowledgeable expert firm in the DoD world) or from the Congressional Budget Office. In the first few pages it mentions that the cost assumptions from "hiring" a new recruit include the assumption that said recruit (as in all of them) will stay in for 20 years and retire with full pension.

quote:

For many economic entities, the CPI rate is quite meaningless for the basket does not include goods and services which they use or the weightings are quite wrong. There are therefore different "inflation" rates for industry. The DOD will have it's own internal inflation rates when entering into purchase contracts although here the complication is how does one accurately factor the qualitative improvement component of an increased price level.

It is therefore not simply a case of whether $100k was the correct figure in 1972, but rather what exactly did it cover and are those same items exactly still in play in 2018 with no qualitative improvements. In short, applying the CPI rate is fairly meaningless in of itself as the basket is very different.