General Battuta posted:There is no other format, as far as I can tell This, along with general apathy, have prevented me from doing a let's read, which is a shame, because Fire Lance is a really, really well put together book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 05:08
|
|
I've got a paperback too, got it used off Amazon.
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dear Canadian friends: Pour yourself a nice stiff drink before clicking Is Canadian defence policy to just spend all of the money on anything but actual capabilities?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Is Canadian defence policy to just spend all of the money on anything but actual capabilities? Without any sarcasm at all, I think yes
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dear Canadian friends: Pour yourself a nice stiff drink before clicking Colour me surprised.. $54mil for 135 employees along with expenses and "office upgrades" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:Can someone do an effort post of USN (or just naval in general) ship classes? Frigates are cheaper than destroyers so you can have more of them. Same reason why not all passenger air service is done with A380’s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:F-18s to compete on next season's Drag Race. "I came in last cause I had the most drag, does that mean I win the drag race?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Frigates are cheaper than destroyers so you can have more of them. And yet the Arleighs were $1.8bn a hull and they're "projecting" the new frigates at $1bn (probably closer to $1.5 - $1.7bn) per hull, so...  You're buying a smaller, less capable ship for arguably the same price??
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:
Missile/bullet sponges. New china missiles scary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
gently caress it Cyrano, hit me with a month probation if I don't start a Let's Read of Fire Lance by tomorrow at midnight. 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:And yet the Arleighs were $1.8bn a hull and they're "projecting" the new frigates at $1bn (probably closer to $1.5 - $1.7bn) per hull, so... Hookers and blow aren't free. What do you expect Admirals to do with their free time? Mow the lawn?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Hookers and blow aren't free. What do you expect Admirals to do with their free time? Mow the lawn? Operating costs are indeed lower.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:gently caress it Haha, I just started drafting one too. I really want to read yours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 07:21
|
|
General Battuta posted:Haha, I just started drafting one too. I really want to read yours. We can tag team it, I plan on starting with a mood setting post on how the world looked in 1988 which is when I read the book for the first time. I'll put it up tomorrow.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:We can tag team it, I plan on starting with a mood setting post on how the world looked in 1988 which is when I read the book for the first time. I'll put it up tomorrow. Post the link in here, I want to follow along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
Blistex posted:That's probably juuuuuuust deep enough for it to be spared the fate of the Prince of Wales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel Today I learned something really, really cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:And yet the Arleighs were $1.8bn a hull and they're "projecting" the new frigates at $1bn (probably closer to $1.5 - $1.7bn) per hull, so... I’d argue that $1bn is less than 1.8, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I’d argue that $1bn is less than 1.8, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
Significant Ant posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel You'll probably get a kick out of knowing that the same thing applies to humans: A coroner( or, I think, a dentist) can determine if you were born after 1945 by seeing if there's trace radioactive elements in your body. I'm not sure where they're located, but I'm pretty sure it's legit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
CRAMS\CWIS are amazing pieces of tech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7rc7U61B5E
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
The firing pattern is a lot trippier when it's engaging a target rather than doing pattern test fires like in the above video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVUISS8oHs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ6YChXRn_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heLuUd0VK2s Keep your barrels in tolerance... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFPxbZ7lLc4
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:And yet the Arleighs were $1.8bn a hull and they're "projecting" the new frigates at $1bn (probably closer to $1.5 - $1.7bn) per hull, so... The rationale is if the savings ends up only being 20%, that means they can buy five ships instead of four, and for a lot of the projected missions these frigates will be more than sufficient and the limiting factor will be number of hulls. The Navy's big problem with projected future commitments keeps coming up as "one ship can't be in two places at once." Additionally the savings is even more about the next class of destroyers that will take advantage of the new technology that makes the frigates viable - and will thus be even more capable, but even more expensive. So while these frigates are only a modest savings vis a vis the Arleighs, they should look a lot better in the future. That's the pitch. The reality that modern military procurement consistently sees massive cost overruns and is often paired with under-delivery of capability is absolutely a reasonable critique. But it's not quite the same question. The answer to "what does the Navy want?" is "a ship that has 80% of a destroyer's capability at ~60% the cost." That leads to "is this at all feasible?" to which the answer is "new technology suggests maybe, but it will probably be more like 70% capability and 70% cost, which may still be worthwhile." Which leads to, "is there any chance the US procurement process will ever result in even the 70% cost/70% capability result?" to which the answer is a derisive laughter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Didn’t Seawolf->Virginia miraculously work out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Didn’t Seawolf->Virginia miraculously work out? And I don't mean that facetiously. That's the problem whenever proposals like this come up. You've got a program to address a real need that makes sense on paper, just enough times its worked out that you can't dismiss it out of hand, and a lot of counter-examples that say its gonna go sideways. Of course not every program meets the first criteria - it's well worth asking "do we even really need this?" and "is it even reasonably possible?" There are plenty of times where the answer is "no" to either or both and the US has done it anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Which leads to, "is there any chance the US procurement process will ever result in even the 70% cost/70% capability result?" to which the answer is a derisive laughter. Well in this case I think there's a reason to be slightly optimistic because instead of wanting disruptive breakthrough into next generation technology, they want existing, proven designs. https://news.usni.org/2018/02/16/navy-picks-five-contenders-next-generation-frigate-ffgxprogram
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dear Canadian friends: Pour yourself a nice stiff drink before clicking Why are they spending $4b apiece on frigates  Unless my math is horribly wrong, 15 frigates for $60B sounds pricey, even accounting for the fact that it's CDN and not USD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Why are they spending $4b apiece on frigates That does sound absolutely bonkers, but it DOES waste a lot of money when you draw things out instead of committing to a reasonable contract and getting the ball rolling. That's part of why sequester-era DOD budgets caused serious problems. A lot of money was wasted on bandaids to keep things working because they couldn't sign the real contract, which ended up costing much, much more in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Cant the Canadians just buy a proven and tested platform out there? The German Baden-Württemberg-class frigate comes in at 2/3rds of a billion per ship. The South Korean Sejong the Great-class destroyer comes in at about a billion per ship. Both countries are allies so I dont see why this is so hard to just call em up, ask for a buy 12 get 1 free kinda deal and call it a day. Canadian procurement makes no goddamn sense. I would bet Quebec and Bombardier is involved in this fiasco in some way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Government shipbuilding procurement in Canada is a giant dumpster fire of money. Program has been going on for over five years now, still no ship delivered. Meanwhile a private company bought a container ship, converted it to an auxiliary tanker / supply vessel, and is leasing it to the government for $Beaucoup because welp, the RCN’s last tanker caught fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Cant the Canadians just buy a proven and tested platform out there? Reading the full article would have answered that no they wouldn’t?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Government shipbuilding procurement in Canada is a giant dumpster fire of money. Program has been going on for over five years now, still no ship delivered. That thing was the only thing to be delivered on time/under budget yeah?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Canadian procurement makes no goddamn sense. I would bet Quebec and Bombardier is involved in this fiasco in some way. None of the NSPS contracts were awarded in Quebec; Bombardier isn’t involved. This is all Nova Scotia and BC. The Astérix is from Quebec though. Raenir Salazar posted:That thing was the only thing to be delivered on time/under budget yeah? Yep. It wasn’t even part of the plan to start with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The firing pattern is a lot trippier when it's engaging a target rather than doing pattern test fires like in the above video. A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Tias posted:You'll probably get a kick out of knowing that the same thing applies to humans: A coroner( or, I think, a dentist) can determine if you were born after 1945 by seeing if there's trace radioactive elements in your body. I'm not sure where they're located, but I'm pretty sure it's legit. Strontium isotopes can replace calcium in your teeth and bones, that's usually a pretty good measure
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:And yet the Arleighs were $1.8bn a hull and they're "projecting" the new frigates at $1bn (probably closer to $1.5 - $1.7bn) per hull, so... It's the Canadian way We say "we need to save money" and then in procurement, specify multipurpose things, to "do more with less" which of course costs more Setting aside doing it in Canada, which of course costs poo poo tons more and the result of that is we spend more and get less as a hefty part of that procurement is converted to baksheeh which next time we need to get something, we say "we need to save money"
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Cant the Canadians just buy a proven and tested platform out there? Irving shipbuilding is similar if not french While I still have problems with Mortibis's specific argument about trusting the free market to provide in national defense, it is clear the warship replacement isn't working and I want to buy foreign FrozenVent posted:Government shipbuilding procurement in Canada is a giant dumpster fire of money. Program has been going on for over five years now, still no ship delivered. It is an irony that stings that the Quebec shipyard that wasn't involved in the NSP not only has provided the only actual ship so far, they've done it on budget and the #2 man in National Defense was fired because it was interfering with the Government's efforts to ignore and not buy it while being egged on by Irving
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
My impression of Canadian navy procurement is that the country is too small to afford the kind of large-scale, long-term programs that would let it develop and keep a competitive shipbuilding industry, but too proud to buy from competitive foreign shipyards. Therefore, each time there's a procurement program, a ton of money has to be spent on getting the industry back up to speed, and then it is allowed to wither away until next time where the whole process has to be started anew. Canada should just have accepted the Fincantiera/Naval Group proposition. It's kind of astounding that you had two vendors going on, "wait, your poo poo is impressively wrong, just let us fix that for you it's too painful to watch" and you said "no".
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
They just pay one of their shipyards $4billion to make all the placards on an arleigh burke bilingual. That way they get s ship and a make work program!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:My impression of Canadian navy procurement is that the country is too small to afford the kind of large-scale, long-term programs that would let it develop and keep a competitive shipbuilding industry, but too proud to buy from competitive foreign shipyards. Therefore, each time there's a procurement program, a ton of money has to be spent on getting the industry back up to speed, and then it is allowed to wither away until next time where the whole process has to be started anew. The Netherlands has half the population and maintains a naval shipbuilding industry. But that comes at the cost of exporting boats to authoritarian regimes and selling our own navy ships before the end of their useful lifespan to keep building high end new stuff. It's also embedded in a larger shipbuilding sector focused on tugs, superyachts, dredgers and the offshore industry. How's the civilian shipbuilding industry in Canada?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Kinda curious why we don’t do that with Arleigh Burke’s. Basically lease them for 10 then sell off to allies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Canadian procurement makes no goddamn sense. I would bet Quebec and Bombardier is involved in this fiasco in some way. Worse, the Irvings. They more or less own most of the province of New Brunswick (and literally own all of the newspapers in it) and bankrolled the leadership campaigns of both of the leaders of the main parties in provincial politics. They also have an immense amount of clout across Atlantic Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:12
|
|
