PDA

View Full Version : Senate Amendment July 21, 2005



rickusn
22 Jul 05,, 14:38
Amendment No. 1399 proposed by Senator Warner for Senator Dianne Feinstein, CA (Sponsor) and Senator Chuck Grassley, IA (Co-Sponsor) has been agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent yesterday (07/21/2005).

Text of the Amendment below :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AMENDMENT NO. 1399

(Purpose: To provide for the transfer of the Battleship U.S.S. Iowa (BB-61))

Strike section 1021 and insert the following:

SEC. 1021. TRANSFER OF BATTLESHIPS.

(a) TRANSFER OF BATTLESHIP WISCONSIN.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized--

(1) to strike the Battleship U.S.S. WISCONSIN (BB-64) from the Naval Vessel Register; and

(2) subject to section 7306 of title 10, United States Code, to transfer the vessel by gift or otherwise provided that the Secretary requires, as a condition of transfer, that the transferee locate the vessel in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

(b) TRANSFER OF BATTLESHIP IOWA.--The Secretary of the Navy is authorized--

(1) to strike the Battleship U.S.S. IOWA (BB-61) from the Naval Vessel Register; and

(2) subject to section 7306 of title 10, United States Code, to transfer the vessel by gift or otherwise provided that the Secretary requires, as a condition of transfer, that the transferee locate the vessel in the State of California.

(c) INAPPLICABILITY OF NOTICE AND WAIT REQUIREMENT.--Notwithstanding any provision of subsection (a) or (b), section 7306(d) of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the transfer authorized by subsection (a) or the transfer authorized by subsection (b).

(d) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITIES.--

(1) Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421) is repealed.

(2) Section 1011 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2118) is repealed.

TopHatter
22 Jul 05,, 21:47
Amendment No. 1399 proposed by Senator Warner

Traitor :mad:


Well, I guess I can't really say that. They'll never be returned to action.
The carrier admirals and civilian bean counters will ensure that. :frown:

Bill
23 Jul 05,, 00:13
Hey, we still have the 2.5+ a pop DD-X.

Oh wait, that'll probably never be built in numbers either.

LOL. The USN...the gang that couldn't shoot straight even if the Army held the gun for them.

I move we strike the NAVY, and give their budget directly to the USAF. Any objections? :biggrin:

TopHatter
23 Jul 05,, 18:37
Hey, we still have the 2.5+ a pop DD-X.

Oh wait, that'll probably never be built in numbers either.

LOL. The USN...the gang that couldn't shoot straight even if the Army held the gun for them.

I move we strike the NAVY, and give their budget directly to the USAF. Any objections? :biggrin:

Go right ahead Secretary Johnson.

I doubt you'll see a Revolt Of The Admirals this time.

More like Surrender Of The Admirals.

Bill
24 Jul 05,, 19:07
LOL, we could maintain the sub fleet, and disband the whole rest of the USN.

How many F-22s and B-2s do you reckon we could buy for the cost of the navy surface and air arm budget? :)

highsea
24 Jul 05,, 19:52
Two dozen B-2's and a dozen squadrons of Raptors, roughly... ;)

Bill
25 Jul 05,, 20:57
A dozen sqns, that's about what, 144 planes? I'd have thought it would be much higher. If the buy is greatly increased the unit cost would do a nose dive.

I'd have thought it would be more along the lines of 1000 more F-22s.

Probably be better off with more tankers as opposed to more B-2s. Lot more bang for the buck i'd think.

highsea
25 Jul 05,, 21:52
Lol, I was just making a wild guess. Figure restarting the B2 line, they will come in at ~$2Bn each for a low production number- a little under 1/2 the cost of a CVN. Take the rest of the surface ships in the CSF and trade then for a squadron of Raptors- you might get two squadrons, how much is an AB going for these days?

You can get 20 F-22's for each B2, so you can mix and match to fill in the Raptor numbers... ;)

And we'll keep the subs, we still need them...

Bill
26 Jul 05,, 01:41
An Arliegh Burke is 1.1 billion dollars without weapons, helo, or fuel.

With a massively increased production run i figure each $1.1 billion Burke would get us about 20 Raptors($55 million unit cost), plus however many can get gotten for weapons/helo/fuel costs(figure a total of 150 million more per ship, or another 3 Raptors). Figure the personnel costs for 20 raptors(a bit over a sqn) to be a bit less than for an Arliegh Burke.

Forget the B-2s, just too much money to be worth it now that the factory is closed and the workers scattered to the 4 winds.

LOL.....when rick sees this thread he's gonna skitz. ;)

highsea
26 Jul 05,, 02:02
...LOL.....when rick sees this thread he's gonna skitz. ;)Haha. Well, since we aren't getting any new B2's we can buy some of those "flying aircraft carriers". :biggrin:

Bill
26 Jul 05,, 02:14
Nah, just a spit load of new tankers. :)

Dreadnought
27 Jul 05,, 16:28
Just to break they're stones we should tell them ok since you dont want them maybe we should sell them to say ummm anyone who has the money.. like NK,Iran or Syria im sure they wouldnt hesitate to put them in service. Im sure they would be pissed..lmao fools they have no idea what it takes to protect this country or our amphibious troops anymore. Just seems like along with the greatest generation the greatest surface combatants will slowly fade into history with the pompus help of the carrier admirals who probably never served on them but im sure enjoyed the comfort they provided in bottom line protection. I just wonder how many served during the days of the battleships...probably none.
Maybe some of us are just old and our thinking is too but atleast we knew what worked. So umm what are we going to replace them with a 5" on a zodiac? no doubt. :mad:

Gun Grape
27 Jul 05,, 23:25
We could have made some killer razor blades though. ;) They should never have been brought back in the 80s, a gimmick to get to the 600 ship navy. Now we can quit wasting money on upkeep.

I still say use one for a SinkEx, just to see how much was hype.



Many around here quote Bob Henneman as one of the big BB experts. Look at what he had to say about their usefulness:

http://www.bobhenneman.info/eranew.htm


"The wartime mass-production efforts of WWII killed the battleship. Tanks, trucks, jeeps, aircraft, escort vessels, Liberty ships, and even carriers were being cranked out at an astounding rate. But there is simply no way to mass-produce battleships. No matter how quickly you assemble the parts, it still takes YEARS to manufacture the heavy armor, turrets, and main guns. The manufacturing process simply cannot be rushed, and the facilities capable of this type of work are limited in capacity. The US completed a handful of battleships after the war started, but all were pre-war projects. Not one US battleship laid down or authorized after the entry into the war was finished. Those not already well advanced in construction were suspended, so that the money, manpower, and steel could go into projects with a more immediate return. The battleship died not in combat, but at the hands of bean counters.

By contrast, almost 150 carriers of all types, and over 300,000 aircraft, were churned out by the US war industry in the same time period. Battleships simply became irrelevant as they became greatly outnumbered due to economic necessity. Once the battleships became outnumbered 15 or 20 to 1 by carriers, they HAD to become a secondary feature to the world's navies. It still took dozens, or even hundreds of planes several hours to sink a battleship, but with thousands of aircraft costing less money and taking less time to build than a single battleship, the odds were always against the battleship.

The final nail in the coffin of the battleship was the elimination of the Scharnhorst, Tirpitz, Yamato, and the other Axis battleships. If battleships were designed to fight battleships, and the enemy didn't have any, why not just build more carriers and planes?

This assured that the battleship, killed by wartime economics, stayed dead after the war. It is hard to justify the expense and effort needed to build these beasts when there is no like threat.

Even today, no one argues that a battleship is not a powerful weapon. They instead argue that other, cheaper weapons can do the job instead."

Dreadnought
28 Jul 05,, 15:31
Well I guess I have to agree with the above stated. But again only an opinion. Myself as a person id rather still carry a 45 with the extra cost associated then carry a bb gun because it was more cost effective. Intimidating percieved threats with the largest guns afloat is worth its weight in gold. You know guys who knows we may even see the destruction or scrapping of these beautiful war machines before our time is up I think it would be ashame but thats just me. :redface: Oh and Gun it wouldnt be fair nor respectful for them to be used in Wargames to see what would happen unless ofcoarse you gonna let them defend themselves which they wont but I think they more then deserved this gesture. If anything I think the modern surface Navy would be embaressed to find it extremely hard to beat them. So if anything scrap them and use the components for one great museum forcused on Naval Power. Guns, Armor, Turrents etc would make excellent exibits. Besides it would also show the children of today what it was like back then when the world was really at war. Not like today where we must be politically correct and afford the rights of the innocent to murderous cowards.

HistoricalDavid
30 Jul 05,, 15:58
When the call goes out for cheap high-volume shore bombardment - such as in North Korea and China - these senators will regret their words.

rickusn
31 Jul 05,, 15:55
"LOL.....when rick sees this thread he's gonna skitz. "

Why? Weve discussed costs before and you well know that it all depends on what your counting, whos doing the counting and what assumptions are included. As usual you spread misinformation and disinformation. And unbelievably people fall for it hook, line and sinker. Like lambs to the slaughter. LOL

Somwhere around $40B has already been spent on the Raptor. R & D on the DDX has been nowhere near that spent on the Raptor. In fact comparing the programs is like comparing apples and oranges.

But your just pissed-off about the battleships and once again have lost all semblance of objectivity.

Ive been a staunch supporter of the Raptor but to understate its true cost is a PR stunt and has nothing to do with reality.

Ya gotta love the USAF. The USN even knowing for years how badly they lose the PR battles are still hapless in those efforts when compared to the USAF. LOL

The below costs are accurate:

"Such a sharp reduction in orders for the F/A-22, from 381 to 180 planes, will counteract cost savings associated with a larger purchase by dramatically driving up the per-unit cost.

Currently, the cost of a single Raptor is estimated to be $258 million - the most expensive fighter aircraft to date.

Excluding R&D and sunk costs the price falls to approximately $133 million per plane.

(If we do the same with the Super Hornet the price also drops dramatically. No matter how you do the #s the Raptor comes out to at least 3 times more expensive some say. The SH #'s, like the Raptors, procured over the years have also dropped raisng the cost.)

If you believe the assumptions below the fly-away cost could drop dramatically:

"Then-Air Force Secretary James Roche mentioned technology being developed for the next generation F-35 JSF, which could possibly lower the cost of the F/A-22’s radar by 30 to 40 percent, January 10, 2005.

Ralph D. Heath, executive vice president and former program manager for the F/A-22 at Lockheed Martin (the prime contractor for both the F/A-22 and the F-35), stated that each year the cost of a single F/A-22 falls by approximately 10 to 14 percent, due to learning curves and improvements in production, and by 2006 should be priced “under $100 million” per plane, according to Air Force Magazine in February 2005. ""

rickusn
31 Jul 05,, 16:24
Heres what the NY Times says on costs. But who knows how they come up with these #'s? Do you Sniper? Could be the $258m is for the 277 and the $330 is for 181? :

Look at that: $330m per Raptor LOL

We can bandy about costs all day. Means nothing if we arent all using the same methods. LOL

But if you buy $4b per DD(X) then you have to buy $330m per Raptor if your going to be consistent.

Which by the way is approx. 12 Raptors(1/2 a squadron) for every DD(X).


"--The 22-year old ballistic missile defense system program, which has yet to pass a realistic test, has cost $100 billion to date.

--The Navy's DDX destroyer program will need roughly $20 billion to produce five surface combatant ships.

--The Army's Future Combat System, first expected to cost $78 billion, could wind up costing twice that amount.

--Two decades ago, the Air Force's F-22 fighter aircraft program promised to deliver 760 jets at $35 million each. Today, the plan is for 180 jets at more than $330 million a copy."

rickusn
31 Jul 05,, 16:37
Speaking of "skitzing" Sniper this should yank your chain. LOL

Norman Polmar(Author of 17 editions of "Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet" states in this months (August) USNI Proceedings that reactivation of the battleships minimal updates:

"would probably cost far more than $2b per ship"

"Each Iowa requires about 1,500 men and women"

"To return the battleships to active service would be expensive and would provide no useful military capability"

What assumptions and methods is he working from???????? LOL

Much more in the article you should pick-up a copy. LOL

TopHatter
31 Jul 05,, 17:39
Norman Polmar(Author of 17 editions of "Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet" states in this months (August) USNI Proceedings that reactivation of the battleships minimal updates:

Yeah, that ought to annoy Sniper just a bit :biggrin:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Norman Polmar manages to come off as a jackass most of the time, but especially when giving his "informed opinion" on the Iowas. :rolleyes:

rickusn
31 Jul 05,, 18:28
Correction: 18 editions

On SH #'s:

Originally 1000 reduced to 800 reduced to 732 reduced to 548 reduced to 460.

Additionally 90 Growlers of the EW variant are now to be procured.

rickusn
31 Jul 05,, 18:59
CBO report on DDX and LCS costs:

"Although the Navy has not yet stated how many of each ship it wants, a report on long-term ship construction plans, which the Navy sent to the Congress in May 2003, indicated that the service wanted 24 DDXs and 56 littoral combat ships. The cost of buying those ships would total $57 billion ($43 billion for the DDXs and $14 billion for the LCSs), the Congressional Budget Office estimates. "

rickusn
31 Jul 05,, 19:22
Latest from CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/65xx/doc6561/07-19-NavyDDX.pdf

Dreadnought
01 Aug 05,, 14:12
And we leave these idiots in charge of watching America's back...what a joke. They just cant and do not want to admit when they are wrong.. I think back pedaling in bull chit was a class major for these clowns. Unbelievable. Sniper please do fire at will...lol. Makes me sick to think these guys believe that returning the battleships to active duty would be the worst thing we could do but yet all of the money we have wasted on they're failed programs like DDX probably could have already paid for it and major upgrades. Besides I doubt highly that anyone of them would take 1500 people to man. Last i heard it was below 900. It sounds bad and no offense intended but seems like the Navy has forgotten tradition among other things like open seas training, gun practice, port calls etc no body wants to see a frigate they want to see the big guns of a BB. And this guys says they would serve no useful purpose..somebody please fire this jackass out of one of the 16" barrels at maximum elevation with 6 bags instead of 3 and preferably in the middle of the ocean. It kills me is how someone thats supposed to be in such an important position can say some of the most stupidest things when they have absolutely 0 to show for the money they have wasted on their "pet" projects. :mad:

Bill
01 Aug 05,, 17:43
I've said my piece in GREAT detail in previous threads on this board.

No one in power seems to care what i think....LOL.

Warhawk
02 Aug 05,, 17:23
DDX was and is a waste of money. For fractions of the 57 billion we could reactivate the BB's and keep them running for many years to come. 8 billion to reactivate the BB's, which im sure is a "bloated" figure, is still a hell of alot cheaper than producing a whole new class of ships which have not been battle tested.

Hell, Im sure alot of contractors would love to reinstate the 16inch gun production and maintenance. I once talked to a couple admirals here about the DDX, lets just say they weren't too enthustiatic about the whole program. So what if the BB's aren't "stealthy", they sure as hell can take alot more punishment then paper DDX's, 12" belt anyone?. I wouldn't want to put a DDX close to shore thats for sure.

The idiots still think the BB is an outdated weapon from WWII. Politicians want to see them retired, so they can increase the navy nudget by spewing money to programs like DDX. Don't get me started on the retirement of the F-14D. Hell, if nothing else, strip the BB, put a new stupid 155MM gun system in and call it BBX. Maybe that will make the idiot politicians happy.

Beaugeste93
08 Aug 05,, 21:00
I've heard as few as 6 DDX hulls may be built :mad: I guess its time to float the old rocket barge idea again for NSFS. Load up a big ass barge with ordinance and tow it as needed for shore bombardment. The originals used unguided rockets, but even using relatively "cheap" missiles could be a possibility.-a bunch of VLS cells and a control center. I don't know what the range of an MLRS is, but something like that might be a possibility too. Heavy artillery could be mounted also, if some kind of stabilization for the guns was available. We all agree that BBs would be better, but since that isn't going to happen, perhaps a "cheap" off the shelf fix is a possibility. Barges are cheap, compartmentalized, and could be fitted with different loadouts as required. Since an amphib force or CVBG will be there anyway, it could be protected with task force assets.

Just a thought.

Sandman
08 Aug 05,, 22:25
I really didn't think it would happen. Reactivating the BBs is to take a step backwards, even if it isn't, in the political world. We don't have the steal capacity production to make another one, but we don't want to design a new composite armor version of comparable capabiblity.
I hate to say it, but I told you so. The BBs are gone.

Dreadnought
29 Aug 05,, 15:51
Sandman you may be correct in stating they are gone for good. Lets all just hope the world conflicts dont escalate even more otherwise you just may have to eat those words. :redface: