Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/16/2018 12:57:00 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4955
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 31
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/16/2018 2:18:02 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

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.



It wasn't lack of funds that prevented the Mk 14 from being effective; it was lack of leadership and politics.


The American sub skippers had given the War Department tons of real-life experiences and "testing" of the Mk 14 yet the continually blamed the Sub Captains and crews for the failure of the '14.

Money had almost nothing to do with it.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 32
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/16/2018 4:03:51 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline
One problem I find in much of the military development (especially the US Navy), is that they accept insane levels of development risk all at the same time with new platforms. In the years after WWII when technology was advancing rapidly, the Navy typically tried things out incrementally first. So you got little mini-batches of new weapons technology on an existing platform first, and if the new tech didn't work out, you just converted back to the regular weapons kit. Dramatically new platforms generally did not seem to also include drastically new weapons tech, so if the platform didn't work out (or required extensive redesign), you weren't also delaying a generation of weapons.

Now because they only develop a very small number of platforms, they have to cram new generations of every kind of tech (hull, sensors, engines, weapons, etc.) into a common development cycle. Needless to say, that hasn't worked out so well (DDG-1000, LCS, Ford-class CV, German F125 class, etc.)

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 33
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/16/2018 4:31:20 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9108
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 34
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/16/2018 5:36:09 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

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 reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 35
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/16/2018 6:54:50 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9108
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 36
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/16/2018 9:52:28 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

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.



No ammo = effectively dead-weight. It was moronic to design a ship that was too expensive to be able to shoot its main armament.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 37
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/16/2018 11:27:57 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2743
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

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.


(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 38
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/17/2018 1:38:42 AM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

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.





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.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 39
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/17/2018 6:21:42 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9108
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 40
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/17/2018 6:36:34 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5950
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

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.


It isn't just that shells are cheaper. They occupy much less storage space thus you can carry more of them and pound many more targets before needing to withdraw to replenish. Being able to carry more ordnance means a greater variety of shells to undertake specific tasks. Missiles are very mission specific so there is much less flexibility. There is also the issue of enemy counter measures; there are more counter measure options against missiles than against incoming shells. Try using chaff to misdirect an incoming shell.

Alfred

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 41
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/17/2018 6:41:51 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41958
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

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.
warspite1

What has the loss of HMS Sheffield got to do with spelling the end of the era of the gun?

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 42
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/17/2018 7:22:21 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 6700
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
but with a large gun you also have shock and recoil to withstand/absorb

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 43
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/17/2018 4:19:52 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________




(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 44
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/17/2018 4:49:44 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

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.

Taliban: Cost of an AK47 made in Peshwar: $100.
4 30-round magazines with 120 rounds of ammo: $30 (high end)
Cost of bread and goat for battlefield nourishment: $20.

Total Cost: $150.

Asymmetric warfare at it's best.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 45
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/17/2018 7:47:09 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9108
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 46
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/17/2018 8:17:40 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 47
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 1:50:25 AM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 48
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 5:39:03 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9108
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

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.

I'll type in whatever "accent" I please.

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.


Sure, but it's not $500K per year per service member.

There are 1.3M active duty service members right now with another 800K in reserves.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 49
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 5:57:39 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9108
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 50
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 6:32:06 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5950
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 51
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 1:40:45 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 52
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 3:26:24 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 5581
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
For some reason, I have to agree with Alfred. Not only does the CPI not accurately show the inflation rate, there are many other ways to show inflation and they do not all agree. The "basket of goods" has also been changed so unless you can make the same basket of goods (if at all possible as some goods may no longer exist) then you are also not comparing the same items. Plus the improvements in various items are also a factor. Think of how much your first computer cost when it was brand new, its capabilities and then compare it to what is available now and that computers capabilities. If you did that, then you might think that there has been a large deflationary period. You would also have to adjust for the same quantity of am item. I remember when Ragu sauce was 99 cents for a 32 ounce jar but it is now a 24 ounce jar. You would then have to adjust the current price by 4/3 to get the same amount of Ragu sauce.

Another example of improvements made would be in the automobile. Compare what you had with a basic Ford/Chevy/Plymouth automobile with what you have now. Today's vehicles last longer, are more efficient, and have items today that you could not get previously even on a luxury car. So when you also go from mass production of a large number of an item to making just a few of that same item, you are also losing efficiency. It would be like going from making that basic Ford/Chevy/Plymouth on an assembly line to hand building a Rolls Royce.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 53
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 3:43:22 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 5581
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 54
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 4:23:50 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

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.



You are correct: Many, many variables. It might be less expensive in some areas, but it will be more in others (healthcare for example).

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.

Best to take cost of training divided by those trained at that year.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 55
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 6:02:39 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9108
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

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.


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:

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)
Post #: 56
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 6:09:31 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 5581
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
quote:

The VA is a different budget.


The VA health care system is also connected to teaching hospitals as well as doing research on their own. Just go to 1 Veteran Drive and check it out if you are in the area. The research alone, in conjunction with others, help to improve the quality of life as well as probably lowering the cost of health care in the long run. As an example, Doc "Moonlight" Graham took and recorded blood pressure reading for the children in the school where he was the school doctor. Combine that with later records (probably a lot from the military/VA as well) and you have the knowledge that high blood pressure starts in children. So if it is detectable then, then the proper steps can be taken early to keep it from becoming elevated and thus causing problems later on.

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.


Please reread what I posted about the cost of computers. That and other similar technology has decreased in cost as well as increased in quality. It also depends upon the reference point of what your cost is. Are you are using US dollars or are you using gold? If you compare the costs of items to other commodities, you might find that there is little or no inflation. The supply of money is another variable that you must take into account as well since that means that more or less money is chasing more or fewer goods and since the US dollar has no set value to an amount of a commodity such as gold then more can be printed at will or withdrawn from the money supply for no valid reason other than what the politicians and bureaucrats in power want the US dollar to do.

Edited to include this:

Here is a link to the price of wheat over a 40 year period. There is a chart as well as charts for other commodities. The cost of these went up and down over the period covered by the charts.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2534/wheat-prices-historical-chart-data

< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 11/18/2018 6:20:13 PM >


_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 57
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 7:13:34 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
To the whole thread:

1. You simply cannot compare any costs in the draft-era military and today. The CPI is not relevant in either case, but the cost assumptions for personnel in the draft era were a whole different paradigm. Beyond that, the demographics of the 1970 military and today are too dissimilar. Most of today's military is married or single-parent, and thus in-kind services such as dependant medical are a different ratio.

2, As was said, depending on job, a "recruit" may have an ROI in the first year or may be 100% cost. Navy nukes, pilots, crypto/linguists to nam ethree have no production in the first year, or even the second in some cases.

3. Military accounting systems (I was a military auditor once upon a time) bear no relation to civilian GAAP systems. There is no depreciation of facilities. There is no overhead allocation, either fixed or variable. A recruit training at Ft. Benning "costs" an entirely different amount than a recruit in Defense Language School, Monterey, CA. The difference is not not captured anywhere.

4. Military compensation is in multiple pots. (I was trained to be a Disbursing Officer in the Supply Corps.) Cash/taxable "pay", cash/non-taxable benefits (BAS, BAQ, others), and in-kind (rations, initial uniform allowances, medical, dental, others) are three of them, but there are others. Bonuses of many descriptions, some in-kind through automatic promotions, some in taxable cash. Retirement systems are unlike any in the civilian world. There is no accrual for them on the books; they're paid from expense appropriations. It's a zoo, and the civilian world has no analog.

5. Medical--active member, TriCare, and VA--is extremely complex both operationally and on the appropriations side. Medical expense for an 18 YO single recruit is pretty straightforward (unless they get pregnant, or injured, or wounded, or have mental health needs), but not straightforward on a recruit life-cycle basis. Loka's RAND reference goes hyper-deep into this question, and it's a key question in the ongoing decisions to staff a need with active duty members, or contractors.

I was a kid around the 1970 US military. Labor was almost free due to the draft, and there were almost no contractors. You needed a chow hall manned, you used sailors. Now, a sailor cooking at an ashore mess hall is wildly expensive. A contractor is always used except in certain specialized situations like the White House Mess. It's not an accident that Haliburton got billions in contracts in Iraq.


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 58
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 10:01:15 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
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.


You gave me a 153 page PDf that didn't address what we were discussing. Now point to the page where it does discuss what we were discussing. I suspect you just found something in a google search with "Cost" in it.

Or pipe-down.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 59
RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell - 11/18/2018 10:15:38 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
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.


So what do you suggest we do to determine what that $100,000 grew to?

Also, it is perfectly legitimate to take the '72 dollars and see what they have grown to using an inflation calculator.

If it wasn't, why do economists do it?

It isn't perfect, nothing is, but what do you suggest we do?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: DDG Zumwalt....$1,000,000 per shell Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.262