> And who should we tell when the hull fails its most basic function (to keep water outside the ship)?
Yes, all of the crew member families who will die in the sinking. Did an LPD-17 class ship sink that I'm not aware of?
> Attempting to repeatedly change the subject by talking about night-vision compatible this-or-that and various gun turret failures only makes your argument look weak. Don't assume that we're stupid just because we aren't actively serving in the military.
I'm not pointing out these items to change the subject of the conversation, rather it IS the very point of the conversation. Every single function, system/equipment, certification/qualification that the author neglected to account for is a critical missing part of the author's alleged proof that warships are vastly overpriced based on acquisition costs of a commercial ship that has none of those features.
> Thus far, I see a lot of accounts attempting to change the subject, a lot of complaining that the author is unfair, and insinuations that we civvies are too stupid to understand such complex military issues. But no actual "The author said X, and here's a link to show he's wrong."
OK, I'll give an example. The MK46 gun weapon system costs $25.6M to buy [1]. The shipyard then needs to install and checkout the system, conservatively $300K (crane time, specialize labor, custom cables to be built and pulled, foundation prep and accurate alignment, power, etc.). A VLCC's cost for this, $0. Where was this accounted for in the author's "comparison"? Nowhere.
Now, it would take a long time to do a proper cost breakdown, but as I tried to state earlier, imaging adding up the costs of all the other mission essential features on LPD's that aren't on VLCC's including (just as a sampling of basic examples):
- much larger engines (much higher cost) for the ships displacement compared VLCCs.
-much larger (more expensive) sewage treatment, HVAC, auxiliary electric power (again larger more expensive generators) for all those extra berthing spaces & C5ISR systems.
-continue this list for ALL the hardware deltas between the ships, then factor in the cost of rigorous qualification (e.g. aviation certification, shock qualification, EMI qualification, etc.) to ensure the ship survives in war and peacetime that are drastically different from anything a VLCC would see.
I challenge the author to breakdown all of these and other special warship costs up, then do your comparison.
Again, the omission of these items IS the problem with the write-up.
I'm certainly not saying 'civies' are stupid. If that's how it came across, I apologise. I'm saying that the issue is much more complex than the treatment afforded by the author's 'bar napkin' math. I realize that most people have no idea about these details similar to those I cite above - why they exist and the associated costs of each. It's taken me a career to gain that insight.
That's why the paper incenses me so. Because the author is taking advantage of that lack of awareness of the public, and steep barrier to acquiring that knowledge, to make a generalization about ship acquisition costs based on incorrect (i.e. intentionally or unintentionally omitted) data. For what end, I have no idea, but I do know the misinformation driving public perception is harmful.
A peer review in a known industry journal (e.g. SNAME, ASME, ASNE) would have quickly dismissed this write-up as pure hogwash.
Yes, all of the crew member families who will die in the sinking. Did an LPD-17 class ship sink that I'm not aware of?
> Attempting to repeatedly change the subject by talking about night-vision compatible this-or-that and various gun turret failures only makes your argument look weak. Don't assume that we're stupid just because we aren't actively serving in the military.
I'm not pointing out these items to change the subject of the conversation, rather it IS the very point of the conversation. Every single function, system/equipment, certification/qualification that the author neglected to account for is a critical missing part of the author's alleged proof that warships are vastly overpriced based on acquisition costs of a commercial ship that has none of those features.
> Thus far, I see a lot of accounts attempting to change the subject, a lot of complaining that the author is unfair, and insinuations that we civvies are too stupid to understand such complex military issues. But no actual "The author said X, and here's a link to show he's wrong."
OK, I'll give an example. The MK46 gun weapon system costs $25.6M to buy [1]. The shipyard then needs to install and checkout the system, conservatively $300K (crane time, specialize labor, custom cables to be built and pulled, foundation prep and accurate alignment, power, etc.). A VLCC's cost for this, $0. Where was this accounted for in the author's "comparison"? Nowhere.
Now, it would take a long time to do a proper cost breakdown, but as I tried to state earlier, imaging adding up the costs of all the other mission essential features on LPD's that aren't on VLCC's including (just as a sampling of basic examples):
- much larger engines (much higher cost) for the ships displacement compared VLCCs. -much larger (more expensive) sewage treatment, HVAC, auxiliary electric power (again larger more expensive generators) for all those extra berthing spaces & C5ISR systems. -continue this list for ALL the hardware deltas between the ships, then factor in the cost of rigorous qualification (e.g. aviation certification, shock qualification, EMI qualification, etc.) to ensure the ship survives in war and peacetime that are drastically different from anything a VLCC would see.
I challenge the author to breakdown all of these and other special warship costs up, then do your comparison.
Again, the omission of these items IS the problem with the write-up.
I'm certainly not saying 'civies' are stupid. If that's how it came across, I apologise. I'm saying that the issue is much more complex than the treatment afforded by the author's 'bar napkin' math. I realize that most people have no idea about these details similar to those I cite above - why they exist and the associated costs of each. It's taken me a career to gain that insight.
That's why the paper incenses me so. Because the author is taking advantage of that lack of awareness of the public, and steep barrier to acquiring that knowledge, to make a generalization about ship acquisition costs based on incorrect (i.e. intentionally or unintentionally omitted) data. For what end, I have no idea, but I do know the misinformation driving public perception is harmful.
A peer review in a known industry journal (e.g. SNAME, ASME, ASNE) would have quickly dismissed this write-up as pure hogwash.
1. https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/425681/general-dynamics-win...