If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   How do you buy 1.8 submarines?   (npr.org) divider line 79
    More: Interesting, Budgetary Assessments, Pratt & Whitney, austerities, carbon sequestration, House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon  
•       •       •

2605 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 12:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-24 10:05:52 AM
You buy one complete boat and fund partial construction of the other, with completion funds to follow or it waits to be completed until needed. I'm sorry, was that a serious question?
 
2012-07-24 10:12:38 AM
With a check?
 
2012-07-24 10:55:35 AM

NewportBarGuy: You buy one complete boat and fund partial construction of the other, with completion funds to follow or it waits to be completed until needed. I'm sorry, was that a serious question?


Or, you buy two and fund 80% of the initial life cycle costs with the expectation that'll be covered later.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-24 11:11:26 AM
You buy two submarines over the course of 14.2 months. It's not like you get submarines at Guns R Us, they're built to order.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-07-24 11:18:07 AM
You build three submarines to 60% complete and tell Congress the money will have been wasted if another $1.2 billion is not appropriated.
 
2012-07-24 11:33:22 AM
Use extra screen doors.
 
2012-07-24 11:45:03 AM
Just make them a little smaller and institute height restrictions on submarine crewmembers.
 
2012-07-24 11:54:08 AM
Make sure you buy the outside bits first.
 
2012-07-24 12:04:56 PM
Yellow ones don't count as a full submarine.
 
2012-07-24 12:05:07 PM

NewportBarGuy: You buy one complete boat and fund partial construction of the other, with completion funds to follow or it waits to be completed until needed. I'm sorry, was that a serious question?


Remember that joke about military intelligence?
 
2012-07-24 12:06:10 PM
You only carry enough thermonuclear missiles to destroy the world 5.7 times.
 
2012-07-24 12:06:31 PM
1.8 pings only.
 
2012-07-24 12:06:31 PM
Actually, he wants the White House to explain how it will manage defense cuts, hoping the administration will end up with the blame for job losses that many say will result from a smaller military. McKeon invited defense contractors to testify before Congress this past week to share their anxieties over the coming sequestration cuts.

I'm confused. I've been assured by Republicans on multiple occasions that government spending doesn't create jobs. So how can cutting military spending cause layoffs?
 
2012-07-24 12:07:02 PM
I think the problem is trying to save money while not throwing out everything already invested in building the infrastructure these weapons need.
 
2012-07-24 12:09:37 PM
Buy two and cut the additional money from another program?
 
2012-07-24 12:09:54 PM
"Take for example your Virginia-class submarine [that] we were planning to buy two per year," Harrison says, "if we're planning to cut back by 10 percent, well you can't buy 1.8 subs."

Reductio ad absurdum - how does it work?
If the good folks at the Pentagon can't figure out a way to cut 10% off their budget I suggest we raise the amount to be cut by 1% every day until they figure it out. And to show that I'm willing to reach across the aisle to our conservative friends, let's do it retroactively starting at the beginning of July. Tick tock, baby killers.
 
2012-07-24 12:10:00 PM
Easy. Round down to the nearest whole number. Like the rest of us have to do.

/can afford 1.8 cars but guess I can only have one
 
2012-07-24 12:12:08 PM
truncate
 
2012-07-24 12:15:21 PM
They're acting like children, pretending to not understand. "Gee, just how do we follow your orders when they're so vague and obtuse? Look what you're making me do, buy 1.8 submarines. That's impossible, you know? I am so confused by this fancy financial situation."


"Congress created a monster when it decided that the entire government will face across-the-board cuts in January, unless an agreement on deficit reduction is reached. to allow the military industrial complex to decide the defense budget.
 
2012-07-24 12:15:30 PM

vpb: You buy two submarines over the course of 14.2 months. It's not like you get submarines at Guns R Us, they're built to order.


Have you contacted the Pentagon? There are some folks there that could really use your help.

/do they have a suggestion box?
//they need one
 
2012-07-24 12:16:09 PM
......or the republicans could just agree to a slight tax increase on the top 1%, and then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
 
2012-07-24 12:17:29 PM
Something as simple as a submarine would never need spare parts.
 
2012-07-24 12:17:39 PM

mitchcumstein1: With a check?


Written against borrowed funds you got from China
 
2012-07-24 12:19:22 PM
"Take for example your Virginia-class submarine [that] we were planning to buy two per year,"

Buy 9 in 5 years. Bam. Budget cut by 10%, problem solved, no need for fractional submarines.
 
2012-07-24 12:21:52 PM
You buy one. Who the hell are we building new submarines to fight? Ze germans?
 
2012-07-24 12:25:19 PM
Sounds like you just need to spread that .8 sub over several years. Of course, i'm wondering why we need two new ones every year...who exactly are they being used against these days?
 
2012-07-24 12:26:08 PM
You buy two .9 submarines and call them "convertible corvette class" ships and use them for littoral combat missions.
 
2012-07-24 12:26:17 PM
Uh, you buy 9 every 5 years instead of 10 every 5 years. Why is math so hard for the DOD?
 
2012-07-24 12:26:32 PM
How do you buy 1.8 submarines?
brianrowe.org
For $20 more a week, they'll have an xbox in each bunk!
 
2012-07-24 12:28:22 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Something as simple as a submarine would never need spare parts.


Spare parts are included in the bill. Really. I spent damned near a year sorting the spare parts warehouse for the farking Seawolf. Worst year ever.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:03 PM
You buy one and expect 80% cost overruns.
 
2012-07-24 12:31:36 PM
.8 of a submarine? That's a lot of spilled seamen. That is an abomination unto the Lord. Figures, NPR.
 
2012-07-24 12:32:05 PM
If you're using the Seawolf as the baseline, the Virginia class is only about 90% of it, so 2 Virgina class boats and voila, 1.8 boats!
 
2012-07-24 12:36:09 PM

Antimatter: Sounds like you just need to spread that .8 sub over several years. Of course, i'm wondering why we need two new ones every year...who exactly are they being used against these days?


The Chinese
 
2012-07-24 12:36:55 PM

CPennypacker: You buy one. Who the hell are we building new submarines to fight? Ze germans?


We're building new subs to replace old subs that become less reliable and more costly to maintain over time. And they're less for fighting than intel and deterrence, which they're pretty damned good for.
 
2012-07-24 12:39:21 PM

doyner: skullkrusher: .8 of a submarine? That's a lot of spilled seamen. That is an abomination unto the Lord. Figures, NPR.

[notsureifserious.jpg]


[notsureifserious.jpg] with your [notsureifserious.jpg]
 
2012-07-24 12:40:30 PM
You just buy one and only have a military as big as the next 10 countries combined, instead of the next 20.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:28 PM
Hold the hatches.
 
2012-07-24 12:41:47 PM

incendi: CPennypacker: You buy one. Who the hell are we building new submarines to fight? Ze germans?

We're building new subs to replace old subs that become less reliable and more costly to maintain over time. And they're less for fighting than intel and deterrence, which they're pretty damned good for.


Ah yes, deterrence like my Tiger repelling rock.

Tell me, how do they deter anything if they are undetectable? The fear that we have subs? Why don't we just spend $12 on a press release saying we have a million subs?
 
2012-07-24 12:43:18 PM
Are you guys all drinking lead down there? This is from NPR no less.
 
2012-07-24 12:43:20 PM

Antimatter: Sounds like you just need to spread that .8 sub over several years. Of course, i'm wondering why we need two new ones every year...who exactly are they being used against these days?


Back during WWII, submarines were relatively uncomplicated affairs (compared to today), and could be cranked out relatively rapidly. Take the USS Batfish, for example: It was ordered on April 21st, 1942, laid down on December 27th, 1942, launched on May 5th, 1943, and commissioned on August 21st, 1943. From order to commissioning, a year and 4 months for an uncomplicated diesel-electric sub built en-masse during war time.

The latest Virginia class nuclear submarine, the USS California, was ordered in 2003, construction began in 2006, she was launched in November 2010, and commissioned in October of 2011. We went from a lead time of 1 year and 4 months to 8 years.

In other words, you can't just whip these things up when you need them. It takes a *LONG* time to build them, so by the time you recognize that you are going to need them, it's probably too late to build them.
 
2012-07-24 12:44:27 PM

skullkrusher: doyner: skullkrusher: .8 of a submarine? That's a lot of spilled seamen. That is an abomination unto the Lord. Figures, NPR.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

[notsureifserious.jpg] with your [notsureifserious.jpg]


I gotta agree with the first [notsureifserious.jpg]. You could have been talking about partially building a submarine causing the seamen to fall out of it and then playing with the seamen/semen homonym pair in complete seriousness.

[totallyserious.jpg]
 
2012-07-24 12:45:42 PM

thurstonxhowell: skullkrusher: doyner: skullkrusher: .8 of a submarine? That's a lot of spilled seamen. That is an abomination unto the Lord. Figures, NPR.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

[notsureifserious.jpg] with your [notsureifserious.jpg]

I gotta agree with the first [notsureifserious.jpg]. You could have been talking about partially building a submarine causing the seamen to fall out of it and then playing with the seamen/semen homonym pair in complete seriousness.

[totallyserious.jpg]


I could have been doing that. Do you think I was?
 
2012-07-24 12:46:34 PM

skullkrusher: thurstonxhowell: skullkrusher: doyner: skullkrusher: .8 of a submarine? That's a lot of spilled seamen. That is an abomination unto the Lord. Figures, NPR.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

[notsureifserious.jpg] with your [notsureifserious.jpg]

I gotta agree with the first [notsureifserious.jpg]. You could have been talking about partially building a submarine causing the seamen to fall out of it and then playing with the seamen/semen homonym pair in complete seriousness.

[totallyserious.jpg]

I could have been doing that. Do you think I was?


Yes.

[dickpic.jpg]
 
2012-07-24 12:50:40 PM

thurstonxhowell: skullkrusher: thurstonxhowell: skullkrusher: doyner: skullkrusher: .8 of a submarine? That's a lot of spilled seamen. That is an abomination unto the Lord. Figures, NPR.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

[notsureifserious.jpg] with your [notsureifserious.jpg]

I gotta agree with the first [notsureifserious.jpg]. You could have been talking about partially building a submarine causing the seamen to fall out of it and then playing with the seamen/semen homonym pair in complete seriousness.

[totallyserious.jpg]

I could have been doing that. Do you think I was?

Yes.

[dickpic.jpg]


still drunk, dad? :)
 
2012-07-24 12:52:05 PM
img405.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-24 12:52:10 PM

CPennypacker: Tell me, how do they deter anything if they are undetectable? The fear that we have subs? Why don't we just spend $12 on a press release saying we have a million subs?


Works a lot better when you cruise through the straights of hormuz on the surface, disappear for a month, then do it again. Or when you pester a russian boat heading towards known US submarine operating areas until they finally say "fark it" and turn around. Just because we're not blowing things up much these days doesn't mean the boats aren't busy.
 
2012-07-24 12:53:11 PM

incendi: CPennypacker: Tell me, how do they deter anything if they are undetectable? The fear that we have subs? Why don't we just spend $12 on a press release saying we have a million subs?

Works a lot better when you cruise through the straights of hormuz on the surface, disappear for a month, then do it again. Or when you pester a russian boat heading towards known US submarine operating areas until they finally say "fark it" and turn around. Just because we're not blowing things up much these days doesn't mean the boats aren't busy.


You can't do that with one sub?
 
2012-07-24 12:53:42 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

4/5 of a sub
 
2012-07-24 01:01:13 PM
Don't we have .8 of a submarine in Maine already?
 
2012-07-24 01:08:51 PM

WelldeadLink: Don't we have .8 of a submarine in Maine already?


I see what you did there.
 
2012-07-24 01:11:51 PM
shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up

Oh no, we only spend more than every other country combined on the military.

Fine, tell you what. You can keep your current budget for the military, but 10% of it now has to be diverted into actually taking care of our soldiers when they get home.
 
2012-07-24 01:13:09 PM

NewportBarGuy: You buy one complete boat and fund partial construction of the other, with completion funds to follow or it waits to be completed until needed. I'm sorry, was that a serious question?


If they are too stupid to figure that out they really shouldn't be the people "protecting" our country.
 
2012-07-24 01:20:54 PM
Order a bunch of used ships from the U.K. like Canada did (new window)
 
2012-07-24 01:23:28 PM
The .8 submarine has screen doors.
 
2012-07-24 01:23:44 PM
Build one super-awesome sub or two subs that are 90% as awesome as the original designs
 
2012-07-24 01:24:21 PM

CPennypacker: You can't do that with one sub?


Uhh, no. How fast do you think these things go?
 
2012-07-24 01:25:31 PM
The same way we elect 3/5ths of a president.
 
2012-07-24 01:33:16 PM

NewportBarGuy: You buy one complete boat and fund partial construction of the other, with completion funds to follow or it waits to be completed until needed. I'm sorry, was that a serious question?


Alternatively you negotiate with your builder to reduce the price of both to where you can afford both. If they are unwilling or unable to do that then cancel the whole project and start over.

I really hope these cuts take place, because you will see a massive amount of government waste suddenly cut.
 
2012-07-24 01:39:55 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: The same way we elect 3/5ths of a president.


Andy: I 'as readin' here just the other day where there's somewhere like four-hundred needy boys in this county alone, or, or, or one-and-a-half boys per square mile.
Opie: There is?
Andy: There sure is.
Opie: I never seen one, paw.
Andy: Never seen one what?
Opie: A half-boy.
Andy: Well it's not really a half a boy, i - it's a ratio.
Opie: Horatio who?
Andy: Not Horatio - a ratio. It's mathematics, 'rithmatic. Look, now Opie, just forget that part of it. Forget the part about the half-a-boy.
Opie: It's pretty hard to forget a thing like that, paw.
Andy: Well, try!
Opie: Poor Horatio.
 
2012-07-24 01:49:41 PM

Nightshade50: The .8 submarine has screen doors.


Won't the flies get in?
 
2012-07-24 01:57:00 PM
First, republicans get us mired in two failed nation-building exercise and didn't bother to put either on the books. They even cut taxes during these failed nation-building exercises for the first time in history.

Both failed nation-building exercises are ending, and NOW they're whining about fiscal responsibility.

Fark every last one of them in the arse, and anyone who still votes for these asshats.

Hell, if we're going to continue to piss away trillions on government contracts, at least bring back the Civillian Conservation Corps and work on our OWN nation's infrastructure.
 
2012-07-24 01:58:05 PM
Is Latvian joke, yes?
 
2012-07-24 02:20:33 PM
FTFA: "...also believes the Pentagon cuts are scary but says it's best to confront our fears, and talk about them."

The last thing I want is my military to be pussified into talking about their feelings. It's the friggen military - I don't want them to be all touchy-feely and sensitive! Next thing you know they'll be hugging each other and wearing tie-dye and trying to give our enemies flowers instead of swift, efficient deaths.
 
2012-07-24 02:47:17 PM

red5ish: [img405.imageshack.us image 640x499]


Twin screws = Russian boat.

That's what happens when you leave them tied up to the dock too long.
 
2012-07-24 04:14:49 PM

ZAZ: You build three submarines to 60% complete and tell Congress the money will have been wasted if another $1.2 billion is not appropriated.


faculty.virginia.edu

Approves.
 
2012-07-24 05:10:08 PM

John the Magnificent: red5ish: [img405.imageshack.us image 640x499]

Twin screws = Russian boat.

That's what happens when you leave them tied up to the dock too long.


That's two Soviet era Victor III's side by side on a barge. The pods on top of the rudders with the long tapered stern give it away.
 
2012-07-24 05:16:04 PM

Radioactive Ass: That's two Soviet era Victor III's side by side on a barge. The pods on top of the rudders with the long tapered stern give it away.


1) wasn't that just a snap-on towed array?
2) if it was, didn't they do that with at least one other class (Sierra, I think)?
 
2012-07-24 05:22:59 PM

dittybopper: Back during WWII, submarines were relatively uncomplicated affairs (compared to today), and could be cranked out relatively rapidly. Take the USS Batfish, for example: It was ordered on April 21st, 1942, laid down on December 27th, 1942, launched on May 5th, 1943, and commissioned on August 21st, 1943. From order to commissioning, a year and 4 months for an uncomplicated diesel-electric sub built en-masse during war time.


And the cost? Approximately 9 million dollars. About the same as my 1968 model Chinook helicopter.
 
2012-07-24 06:00:26 PM

zarberg: Radioactive Ass: That's two Soviet era Victor III's side by side on a barge. The pods on top of the rudders with the long tapered stern give it away.

1) wasn't that just a snap-on towed array?
2) if it was, didn't they do that with at least one other class (Sierra, I think)?


1) It ended up being for a towed array but at the time there was a lot of speculation on what it was. I think that the consensus was that it was most likely some sort of acoustic countermeasure device similar to our own GNATS. It wasn't until after the cold war ended that it was determined to actually be a towed array. I have no idea if it was a clip on type or a retrievable type but as a guess I'd say a clip on similar to what we first used if only because I don't see a place to store it when retrieved.

2) The ling tapered stern with a fatter rudder (as seen from the side) makes it a Victor III. A thinner rudder might make it one of the later classes (Sierra, Alpha or Akula) that also had the pod.
 
2012-07-24 06:21:31 PM
static.schlockmercenary.com

// math(s)
 
2012-07-24 06:52:01 PM
Ahem...

Do we need even one new submarine? No one stops to ask the really obvious questions some days. Apart from some little douche bag setting them on fire while in dry dock for maintenance they have a good lifespan, right?

That being said, maybe you could sell $200 million worth of the ghost fleet. Or opt for veneer instead of wood paneling, and buy some cheaper aftermarket floor mats. Maybe go with the factory brand radio instead of Bose.
 
2012-07-24 09:10:43 PM

wildcardjack: Ahem...

Do we need even one new submarine? No one stops to ask the really obvious questions some days. Apart from some little douche bag setting them on fire while in dry dock for maintenance they have a good lifespan, right?

That being said, maybe you could sell $200 million worth of the ghost fleet. Or opt for veneer instead of wood paneling, and buy some cheaper aftermarket floor mats. Maybe go with the factory brand radio instead of Bose.


Well, lets do the math shall we? In general it currently takes about 8 years to build one submarine (and we only have two places to build them (EB in Connecticut and Newport News in Virginia). Each of those places are somewhat limited as to how many they can build at a time, generally one per year each with two or three in dry dock and the others tied off to a pier while the interior is finished off. In addition there are older boats being overhauled as their cores need to be refueled at Newport News and Portsmouth (currently at about a 15 year interval for each boat which is much better than the previous generation boats that were closer to 9-10 years per refueling) which was better than the generation before that which was about 5 years and the generation before that was about 2 years). As I understand it the current generation is at 30 years which is also about the expected lifetime of a pressure hull.

At current levels of two per year that will over time result in a total of 60 boats. Now there are some limitations to how long a boat can go without repairs and a lot of those repairs cannot be done at sea for a multitude of reasons (required dry dock, requires fresh air, is too noisy, required specialized equipment or personnel and so on). That alone takes out about a quarter to a third of the fleet at any given time which puts us at 45 boats.

Those boats are manned by people. Those people need some time away from the boat just like you need to get away from your job. Their job however is a 24/7 affair while at sea and unlike you they cannot go home at the end of the day or go away for a weekend or even call their family to see how they are doing. They need the time off too. In general the rule of thumb for the USN is 6 months in port (including time for repairs and 6 months of at sea time. that leaves about 30 boats in the fleet available to be deployed.

Now 30 might sound like a lot but there are many different missions to be done. Everything from protecting a carrier task force against other submarines to hanging out off of the coast of another country to listen in on their military radio communications to drug and pirate interdiction's and quite a few other tasks. These jobs are not just a few miles away, they are thousands of miles away in most cases and it takes time to get there and get back. Generally speaking that means that anywhere from a quarter to half of their time is spent just getting to where they need to be. That puts anywhere from 8 to 15 boats in transit and about 15 to 23 boats on station actually doing their job. And that's in a best case scenario, which is fairly rare.

So at the end of the day you need to have enough boats to both cover your commitments and needs and to plan ahead for future possibilities and anticipated losses.
 
2012-07-24 09:33:06 PM

Radioactive Ass: that leaves about 30 boats in the fleet available to be deployed.


Is the fleet significantly crippled if instead of 30 there are 27?
 
2012-07-24 10:40:30 PM

CPennypacker: You buy one. Who the hell are we building new submarines to fight? Ze germans?


Nooo...

www.vttbots.com
 
2012-07-24 10:42:43 PM

CPennypacker: You buy one. Who the hell are we building new submarines to fight? Ze germans?


On second thought, maybe...

media.monstersandcritics.com
 
2012-07-25 12:00:31 AM
From the Polish Navy?
 
2012-07-25 05:28:08 AM

StingerJ: Radioactive Ass: that leaves about 30 boats in the fleet available to be deployed.

Is the fleet significantly crippled if instead of 30 there are 27?


That is a very complicated question that has a lot of variables that entail a lot of unknowable answers at any given time unless you happen to own a time machine that lets you go back and forth through time.

Given that you probably don't have one of those you have to use history and what you do know in the present to guesstimate what you might need in ten years time and hope that you're right. Here's what we do know:

1) it takes almost a decade to order, build and fully train up a crew for one new modern submarine.
2) Shiat happens and given past history at least one boat will be out of commission for an unplanned extended period of time every five years or so due to collision, fire or other reasons.
3) In wartime some submarines are expected to be lost no matter how well trained and prepared they are, especially given that other navies that are potential adversaries are not exactly standing still in the advancement of their own boats and will want to kill us as much as we would want to kill them.
4) Many of the missions that submarines perform today were just a pipe dream just a few decades ago and you simply cannot know what you might need 15 years from now.

The old saw "Plan for the best but prepare for the worst" comes to mind here. The current class of boats (Virginia) is a very good compromise given what we know today versus what we don't know but might expect to face in fifteen years. If someone had said that the USA would be in Afghanistan within 15 years back in 1986 or even 1996 they would've been called crazy. The same principal applies here, we don't know where we will be in 15 years but we can be certain that it won't be the same as it is today but it will take us 10 years to get the basics ready for whatever it will be.
 
2012-07-25 06:56:48 AM

Radioactive Ass: If someone had said that the USA would be in Afghanistan within 15 years back in 1986 or even 1996 they would've been called crazy.


In 1986? Yeah, I could see it. The Soviets were there, and they were the enemy at the time. But you are right about 1996.
 
Displayed 79 of 79 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report